I'll admit that I'm coming to this topic from a position of ignorance. I've read some things in other threads that didn't quite ring true, and I'm relying on the combined intelligence of this forum to come up with some answers. (You are free to read this as "Jobius is lazy and hung over after his birthday, and didn't do the research he should have.")

Did Israel covertly support Hamas as an alternative to Fatah?

Is there a basis in international law for a "right of return" for several million Palestinians to the land their forefathers were removed from in 1948?

Has any legal representative of the Palestinians ever accepted Israel's existence as a Jewish state?

Did Israel covertly support Hamas as an alternative to Fatah?
I have never really studied into this angle to explaining the conflict over there and furthermore simply did not know it existed so I am not much help there.

Is there a basis in international law for a "right of return" for several million Palestinians to the land their forefathers were removed from in 1948?
Like so much other "stuff" in human reality these questions and what they evolved from really never were the children’s of fact or bear much fact to help aid them. It comes down to basically what happens to be temporary and flawed decisions in my point of view that lead to situations like this. For example why is it that if a super power forms in the world in regards to human cultures that the others should be made to suffer their perception or morality? Obviously we see the horror of this during world war two with the Nazis, but everyday such acts while not on such a horrible scale come to pass almost constantly, we just have a perceptual maze in regards to understanding it, this is made worse when it comes to different cultures coming together.

From this one question alone can really touch on so much, it really could, and of course it would be horribly off topic to go that way, so I will just say stupid monkeys and feel good about myself.

To make one last point, I at this point in the game do not see how making return possible, it would only lead to horror in my eyes and furthermore will not solve the problem. Real lasting peace would require for deep change to occur in the cultures that happen to be at war for whatever reasons, this is the last thing I ever see happening over there and why I don’t support the u.s supporting that struggle regardless of side we take.

Did Israel covertly support Hamas as an alternative to Fatah?
From
From Wikipedia


Basically the old bait and switch. Hamas came forward with social programs and the Israelis along with other donors backed it as a way to create an oppostion to the Fatah movement. As you might know with the last election this has been a success. The period after the the one quoted says how they went from Palestinian informants as targets, to Israeli military targets, and finally the reasoning of civilians as military targets since every Israeli is, was, or will be a military target due to military conscription.

Is there a basis in international law for a "right of return" for several million Palestinians to the land their forefathers were removed from in 1948?
From Wikipedia

Scroll down to Israel and Palestine sections for Camp David and other various resolutions.

Has any legal representative of the Palestinians ever accepted Israel's existence as a Jewish state?

See above.

Did Israel covertly support Hamas as an alternative to Fatah?
In spite of rumors to the contrary the answer is no. Hamas is the Palestinian arm of the Islamic Brotherhood founded in 1928 in Egypt. Israel did not, has not and will not support any Islamic government.

Islam itself is mortally opposed to Jewish state anywhere in the world and even the idiots in Jerusalem understand that.

Is there a basis in international law for a "right of return" for several million Palestinians to the land their forefathers were removed from in 1948?
No there is no international law for a 'right of return'. In fact it is direct violation of the UN Charter that states that sovereign nations establish their own criteria for people to enter their country. Also the UN has two definitions for refugees. The first one is the common one found in the dictionary. That is a person displaced from the residence and their minor children. The second one includes only Palestinians, which is anybody that lived in the Mandate or claimed to have lived in the Mandate territories for 2 years and every descendant since.

During the late 40s early 50s 10-20 million people became refugees. The Germans from Eastern Europe, Koreans, Pakistanis, Indians, Jews from Arab countries, etc. Today not one is considered a refugee, except for Palestinians. And none of them are not considered refugees though some 95% were not born in land which is now Israel nor were their parents and most not their grandparents.

Has any legal representative of the Palestinians ever accepted Israel's existence as a Jewish state?
The PLO did so, but they are not the government. The Palestinian National Authority which is, has not.

And yet the evidence given above says exactly the opposite. Israel and Palestine are unique cases. Israel was created uniquely as a religion-based state. Name me a single other like that. The simple basis of the complex problem is that the international community were faced with a problem and went about doing what they felt was right, but in a very bad way. What I don't understand at all, however, is why Israel and Jews feel happy with the right to return, and the right to compensation for them, but don't feel the same towards Palestinians. I really really just don't get it. I know there are deep seated hatreds, but its clearly more than that.

What of the Jews who continue to have a right to return to a place they were never born in? Or is it only ok to have this right if you're Jewish?

Only one state, how about 80 instead.

Okay Roman Catholic states - Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Haiti, Liechtenstein, Liechtenstein, Malta, Malta, Monaco, Vatican City.

Eastern Orthodox - Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Russia

Oriental Orthodox- Armenia

Lutheran - Denmark, Iceland, Norway

Anglican - England

Buddhist - Bhutan, Cambodia, Thailand

If you wish I can all 56 Muslim nations as well. So your contention that Israel is the only state religion is wrong, nearly half the countries in the world have them, including yours.

As for Israeli laws on immigration, each country in the world has their own. For instance all of the Muslim countries do not allow any non-Muslims to immigrate for any reason. Japan requires that they have some sort of Japanese ancestor. etc.

You are partial correct Israel is treated differently and that is call hypocrisy.

Rumors? Can you provide any sources that prove the information as false?

As for the Rigth of return the fact that Israel is a democracy is what I feel is the true reason why they cannot allow Right of return. It would give the the Arab Israelis the majority of the vote and it would cease to be a Jewish state. This is noted in the Wiki article I linked earlier. This is also the same reason why Israel will not accept a one state solution, which the Arab league proposed. Even Arab Israelis who marry Palestinians cannot bring their spouse to Israel. Israel has never lived up to the expectations of the Balfour agreement such as "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." Herzl even acknowledge that their would be war before the inception of Israel.

Please get your facts straight before hand. England was not 'created' as an Anglican state. Like most countries, it has developed over many years into the mix and amalgam of religions that now exists. Israel, on the other hand, was created as a Jewish state. Land was selected and the borders drawn to create this state in law. So, i'm afraid, you're talking out of your trousers.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Israel was made especially as a place that all Jews could call home no matter where they were from - the land was removed from ancestral Arab owners and given to this cause by the international community - it is protected by international law against the legal rights of Palestinians to the land, yet you don't call THIS hypocrisy. You want Palestinians to have their legal 'right to return' revoked to ensure that Israel remains a Jewish state, and yet you claim to want to make your rules about immigration. Forgive me, but i didn't think most modern countries were allowed to prohibit entry to on the basis of religion alone. Reasonable freedom of movement is a human right... wouldn't changing the rules for Israel be hypocrisy?

Wow talk about getting your facts straight. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc. all were CREATED as Muslim nations. They did not have a single day that they were not a Muslim state. Nor were countries like Argentina, Costa Rica, Bolivia, etc. ever anything but Roman Catholic. In short your claim is again the opposite of the facts.

More wrong 'facts'. Israel does not bar none Jews from immigrating. Israeli law which incorporates the 'Right of Return' has a few other provisions. First off that refugees in danger of returning to the homes for freedom of religious persecution are to be admitted and given citizenship. Since we all know that anti-semitism is very prevalent throughout most of the world, that alone requires that Jews are given citizenship, but they are not the only ones. During the Bosnian crisis one of the first none European countries to take in Muslim refugees was Israel, not only that but that law that you hate made them citizens on the day they arrived. The number of Muslim countries that allowed Bosnian Muslims to become citizens - ZERO. Better try that claim on somebody that can't read. Second I can name 56 countries that DO bar immigration based on religion and that is right now. Care to challenge that statement?

Now for the claims of ancestral Arab owners, that too is false. The Ottoman Empire had over 80% of the land being owned by the government, not privately held, the British records state the same. Of the remaining 20% most was owned by large landowners in Damascus, not the people living there. Your very long on opinion and short on facts.

Article2, Paragraph 1 of the United Nations Charter. 'The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.'

Article2, Paragraph 7 of the United Nations Charter. 'Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.'

Freedom of movement is not a right to enter another country. It is the right to LEAVE the country that you are in. All nations on this planet regulate the admission into their country, including England. Not one other country in the entire world has ever been challenged for it's immigration policies.

So I will amend my statement, it's not hypocrisy, it's outright racism.

How were they created, Loreng? was it the same way that Israel was? No, it clearly wasn't. That they have a predominant religion isn't in question, but before Israel i'm don't think there was another country created for a people based solely on their relgion. (I don't think i left any stray semantics for you to twist this time.)


Here you go again, stating your viewpoint as fact. Anti-semitisim isn't very prevalent throughout the UK, for example, although according to you the British newspapers are filled with anti-semitic bias...

so you claim, and yet your facts are half baked. According to the (no doubt anti-semitic) wikipedia:



It does remain a wideheld fact, however, that two of the main issues between Israel and Palestine are the right of return, and the contested claims on the land. One of the main given reasons for Israel denying Palestine claims against either is because they don't want the influx of millions of Muslims into the country - partially because it would overpopulate the area but ALSO because it would stop the country being predominantly Jewish. Now, I can understand it on one side - a national identity thing - however Muslims or Christians don't have a country they can just become part of. Religion is a seperate grouping - can be Christian and American or Polish. The creation of Israel was a one off. England wasn't created around a religion - the country existed and the religion changed and evolved. This wasn't the case with Israel. Can you not see this, and how this makes the situation different? Arabs have been driven out of Israel, even out of areas of Gaza. It would be like driving Londoners out of London. They lived there. Why shouldn't they be allowed to return?

The truth is there is no right or wrong in this; only peaceful and non-peaceful solution. Right and wrong only comes into it when either side decides to further their own views on the matter using violent means.

Are you telling me that Israel doesn't? No, what you are saying is that Israel's right to control its own immigration overrides the rights of the Palestinians, allowing you to literally ship non-Jews from the area around Jerusalem and then fill it with other Jews, and allowing Israel to move into Palestinian civilian areas with its military and destroy gardens and houses. The point I made that you don't wish to acknowledge, is that Israel was created with different rules. Thus it is bound by different rules. Without these rules it wouldn't exist at all. Now that you have got what you wanted from the rules, you don't want them to apply any more.

Yeah, sure. And i'm sure the Israel isn't guilty of that one either.

The Arabs countries like Jordan, Syria, Iraq, etc were created by the same Mandates that led to Israel's creation, under the authority of the League of Nations. And yes each of them began day one as Muslim nations. It is only because the British refused to end the Mandate for Palestinian that Israel was not created at the same time. The Muslim nations do not merely have a predominate religion, most outlaw any other religion. Early this year Afghanistan sentenced a man to death for converting from Islam, all of the other Islamic countries have that same law, all of them. I do not have to stray or twist the words. They are exactly what you claim they are not. Please check for yourself.

As for the UK and their bias, that is simply a fact. If you don't like that one, show me that I am wrong. As for the wikipedia that is written by whomever wants to, I could go and write anything I want and it would mean as much. It has no standing at all. The Ottoman Empire records, the Mandate records for Palestine both state the exact same thing, as historical documents I accept them. But by all means go check them out for yourself.

As I pointed out the General Assembly Resolution 194 not only is not international law, since the GA Resolutions are advisory opinions only, it also violates the UN Charter. The only nation singled out for that distinction is Israel. Since Jordan was established as the Arab portion of the Palestine Mandate and received 78% of the territory those people do have a homeland to go to.

No I am saying is Israel is the only one that is being told that it can't set it's own immigration policies. Which is another direct violation of the UN Charter. And having this standard for one nation of this planet violates the UN Charter as well. And to answer you YES Israeli rights to control it's own immigration overrides everybody else's 'rights' in the world. Every single country in the world has the absolute right to set their policies without any outside group having any say at all.

Saudi Arabia only allows immigration for female Muslim spouses of Saudi men. Kuwait has no immigration policy since it doesn't allow any at all. Comments? Where is the outrage there? I could continue to point these things out, but to what end?

As for racism, yes Israel like all countries has that problem. And just like every other country in the world that is for them to deal with. Something about "'Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter"

You must surely concede that the situation of Israel is different to any other? Whereas Germany and France have taken many years to define their borders, and spoke a different language, that was not the case here. The normal rules mostly apply but the problem is where they are debateable. The problem occured because the laws that created the country weren't well formed. The Palestinian arabs have a fair call to land, land which was given and created into the country of Israel, which means that both have strong claims. Peace can only come about when either recompense is agreed (which should not necessarily be paid for by Israel) or the land is shared. But just as neither religion are able to share Jerusalem properly, even though both have exactly the same rights to it, there is too much power at stake within both camps to let go of their agenda. Thus only external force, which naturally Israel won't like, can make this happen or might will make right - which means that Israel will kill and destroy Palestine. Since the former isn't happening, Israel has long since been setting about the latter, hiding behind politics and semantics, with the US help. The US is the only country who can force the situation, and yet is much too swayed by Jewish supporters to do so in a balanced way.

The kidnap of the soldier plays into the hands of those in the Israel camp who want to destroy Palestine, just as the latest invasion of Gaza (or the beach bombing before it) plays into the hands of the miltiary factions in Palestine. As I have said many times, Palestine and Israel are equally at fault for the situation. It is a chicken and egg senario. Peace can only happen when, either voluntarily or forced, both parties stop pointing at the other with their weapons. In fact, I would go so far as to say the US must intervene forcefully (though not militarily) otherwise future generations should look back at it with great anger.

I concede that Israel is treated differently. In fact I believe that is my point. But the rest, well most of the Middle East countries were formed after World War I and the break up of the Ottoman Empire. All of them had a language, a religion and set borders all at the same time, they did not develop anything, the Allies handed them their countries. Just as Israel was created, so it is not unique in the creation, just in the way they have been treated. And that is the problem, the world is very willing to violate international law in their treatment of Israel.

As for Palestinian Arab rights to the land, legally they don't have a single claim. Realistically, heck yes, and if they would honor any of their agreements and make at least one concession in return they would have their own country tomorrow. I kid you not Israel wants to make a deal, but getting them to say, 'this is our demand and we will not make another' has never occurred. Israelis have been dying trying to get them to say 'Yes, we want our own country, and not yours'. It could happen as soon as they do that .

External force will not work. Israel nor the Palestinians will accept it, because Israel is a sovereign nation and the Palestinians refuse to honor any agreements. Continuing to pressure the only side that has made concessions and fulfilled it's part of the agreements does absolutely nothing to getting the other side to meet their requirements. You want to solve this, then put the pressure on the aggressor, and that is the Palestinians. As long as they are treated as if they can do whatever they want and get their demands met they will not do that. Heck if I was in their position I would most likely refuse to make peace either, if the world is going to hand me everything on a platter whenever I whine and let me kill those that I don't like why should I do anything at all? There is a term for this it's called appeasement and it doesn't work.

Both sides are the aggressors, which is the real problem. Both camps have sections more than keen to get back on with military/terrorist attacks, and neither seem able to resist it.

And to be honest, Bush coming out and saying that the Palestinian people need to elect a different leaderships is not going to help. They democratically voted them in, at least as legally as he was. He has no right to say that really, and it only further justifies the Palestinian seige mentality.

Don't get me wrong. I understand why Israel has acted, but i don't at all agree with the way. Likewise i completely understand why Palestine acts the way it does, and again I don't agree with the way. The only 'why' i disagree with is over Bush and Rice's actions.

Is there a basis in international law for a "right of return" for several million Palestinians to the land their forefathers were removed from in 1948?
To credibly argue for Palestinian right-of-return, we would effectively be saying that wherever the UN draws the borders, that's it. And whomever is living there, their descendents until the end of time, have the "right" to return? End of story, no more revisions until the end of time? Not to mention, this requires that we ignore historical context, say the 5000 years prior, because that was pre-United Nations so has no legitimacy.

This would be to apply a failed model for conflict avoidance - see continent of Africa - to the rest of the world. Do two European countries have the right to split? Czech and Slovakia thought so. Can the EU eventually eliminate borders? They think so. Do Spain and France have the right to give Catalan effective autonomy? Sure. Israel has as much right to determine its immigration policy as anyone else does.

My opposition to some postings here is manifold, but I'm short on time, so will pick off a few zingers.

Reasonable freedom of movement does not mean you, your grandkids, their kids and grandkids have the right to move into my country buddy. And even if it did, as long as you keep swearing that I'm an ape and a pig and you want to kill me, I still won't let you in, and I might shoot you if you try. Sorry.

Bush has no right to tell the Palestinians not to elect terrorists? Can someone tell me a better use of the US presidency than this? This is our job as champions of freedom. Just curious - does the (UK) Guardian newspaper have the right to tell the residents of Ohio to vote for John Kerry? Because they did just that in 2004. How about a little consistency - seems we should all have the right to criticize governments we don't like.

Lastly, a post elsewhere that should have been in this thread, as I think it captures some of the passion of this issue. Hope you don't mind my pasting here, as it's kinda off topic in the Gaza thread.

As long as we are talking about descendants' "right of return," one would ask why "European Jews" do not have this right? How many years does it take for this right to expire? Obviously, the Jews would have preferred to stay in Judea and worship at the Temple Mount. Except that EUROPEANS came and occupied Israel by force and destroyed it, banning Jews from entering Jerusalem under penalty of death. So some of the Jews, with their center of cultural identity and life destroyed, moved away. Some eventually went to Europe. 1800 years later, heading back to Palestine / Israel / Judea seemed like a good idea, given the pogroms and all. Geez.

I guess you proved that point with the US treatment of your native population... still doesn't make it right though, i'm afraid. At least, not to the rest of the world. I wouldn't claim that we're completely innocent (i'm sure Loreng can think of some example from the dawn of time) but the US should maybe sort out the treatment of its own native american population before it throws its weight around.

Hmmm but the difference is one is a newspaper and the other is the most powerful government in the entire world. Not sure they really compare, do they. No, the only comparison would be the rest of the world holding the US population at effective gunpoint and demanding that you pick another candidate for the White House. Now i wonder how the US population would respond? How different do you think it would be from that of the Palestinians, hmmm? And no, Bush still has no right to tell a population that, having demanded they have a democratic vote for leadership, that he doesn't like the result and they should try again. What does that tell the rest of the world, other than 'you must have a democracy, but only a democracy of our choosing'. Kind of goes against the principle don't you think?

edited to add:
I just don't get it. How are these two things different:
1) Israel kidnaps members of the elected Palestinian government, demanding the release of someone they consider illegally held.
2) Palestine kidnaps a soldier, demanding the release of those they consider illegally held.

or

3)Israel fires shells at Palestinian houses killing innocents.
4)Hamas fires rockets into shops/blows up suicide bomb in restaurants killing innocents.

How are '1' and '3' ok, and '2' and '4' a crime? Surely all are illegal criminal actions for which there is no room for defending? There is no longer room for a 'you started it' childish mentality. Just because one perpetrator is bigger than the other doesn't change a thing. And it doesn't change it when the US or UK are the perpetrators either.

Native Americans have a lifetime right of return. They have autonomous areas to govern, are exempt from federal taxation, and moreover they may leave their own areas and enjoy any one of our 50 states (plus Puerto Rico baby). Now that this is sorted out, can you please tell me how the right of return for generations of Palestinians is eternal, while the right of other groups displaced in WWII is not? I know you think that Israel is 'special' but really why?

It’s good of you to acknowledge that England has had the occasional problem here and there. I suppose "since the dawn of time" includes the Falklands in '82, eh? Iraq in ’06? How about Ireland 1649 – 1658? Cromwell thinned out that pesky native population but good! Do the descendants of the Irish sold as slaves in Barbados and Jamaica have the ‘right to return’ and automatic British citizenship? I'm guessing no.


OK, my fault for picking on a mere newspaper. So, let’s say that Tony Blair is in the “top 5” for most powerful government in the whole world. When he and Labour joined most of liberal Europe in condemning the election of Austria’s Jorg Haider, whose party got like 30% of the vote, what does that tell the rest of the world? Didn’t the EU threaten Austria…almost as if they were holding them at “effective gunpoint,” no?

Theoretical question – if France elected LePen, and his platform was “France does not recognize England,” and he swears to kill the English, sending rockets into Cardiff to be used by Welsh terrorists, what exactly should Tony Blair say? Oh well, that’s democracy.


Thanks for numbering these – will facilitate easier response.

1 – You do realize that some of the elected members of Palestinian government were in jail before during and since their election yes? It’s a pretty rare class of people. Good that they are cowering in their holes for a while. Hamas are in charge of building those Qassam rockets, with a cottage industry in Gaza. They are criminals, terrorists, you name it. The ironic thing is that the ones in Israeli custody are probably safer vs. on the street where Fatah or whomever can have at them.

2 – I believe in drug legalization. I consider American marijuana smokers to be illegally arrested. I believe that Scalia completely misread the Commerce Clause and that if I grow pot and smoke it in my state it should be legal. That is what I believe. If I kidnap an American soldier, demanding the Feds immediately release all jailed pot dealers, what should be the government response?

3 – Israel fires shells at Palestinian homes, with at least the stated goal of killing terrorists and eliminating metal workshops building rockets and bombs. Which rain down on Israel every day. The IDF doesn’t plan to kill civilians as a matter of policy. I find this to be different from 4:

4 – No military strategy, no chance of killing a soldier, rather the terrorist Palestinians target women and children on buses, in schools, in restaurants, killing innocents. Achieving their goal. Same thing when they bombed a wedding in Jordan, train in London / Spain, etc. Just terrorism.

So, in answer to your question, I think that 1 is actually OK in this case, 3 is tragic but not illegal and 2 / 4 are illegal terrorism and / or war crimes. I’ll leave the US and UK out of this for now.

Lastly, you seem to believe that these poor innocent Palestinians are being intentionally targeted by Israel. Please take a look at the following photos. Propaganda willingly printed by the Western press. How would you shoot the terrorists without risking the civilians exactly? By the way, if I had time I could literally link thousands of these pictures, including lots where children are in the frame and "militants" are shooting at Israelis.

1

2 - link with series of photos of Palestinian child abuse

3

4

1. I doubt it. That would be like the US supporting Islamist terrorists taking over Iran. Oh, I forgot, Jimmy Carter, our most failed president did that in the 1970's when he threw the pro-US Shah of Iran under the bus. But, in this case, I can't imagine that Israel's current leadership is as downright idiotic as the former President from Plains, GA was.

2. No. Not unless we want to give Texas back to the Spanish and the rest back to the "Native Americans". And, while we're at it, should we give the entire western Europe back to Germany since they had it prior to 1945?

3. I doubt it. The Palestinians are people with a death wish. The consistently have made the worst possible choices when the path to a better life has been presented to them. The Jordanians got sick of them and killed them by the thousands during "Black September". The Egyptians did something similar. Now, they're the pawns being used to justify the anti-Semitism of the left and the Islamist world who want to destroy the only modern democratic state in the middle east.

I believe that there will be no peace in the middle east until the forces of freedom and democracy prevail over the countering vision of totalitarian and/or strick Islamist rule. That means that Israel have to defeat the Palestinians radicals once and for all, the US has to prevail in Iraq (and then Iran and Syria) which will turn the tide toward progressive governments sharing human values that are better for everyone long term.

The reason there has been no peace is because there has been stalemate. Hamas is a terrorist organization and Israel should not sit idly by and allow itself to be attacked at will.

Did Israel covertly support Hamas as an alternative to Fatah?

According to the UPI ("Hamas history tied to Israel"), the answer is yes. An excerpt:


To date, I'm not aware of any official denial of this information. I'd be interested in seeing if anybody knows of any reputable source that would dispute any of it.

Did Israel covertly support Hamas as an alternative to Fatah?

Of course, that is common knowledge and has been covered here quite adequately. They also supported Idi Amin for a while and had a cordial working relationship with South Africa and helped train troops for fascist military states in Latin America. They have shown themselves to be a quintessential Machiavellian state and shamelessly shake this country down for billions and compromise our intelligence and intimidate their critics. Sadly for the Israelis the benefits have been meager for all their efforts, which may be why so many peace oriented Israelis oppose the policies of their government and their millions of die hard fanatic Likudist and extremist Christian "Biblical end time" supporters in this country.

Is there a basis in international law for a "right of return" for several million Palestinians to the land their forefathers were removed from in 1948?
Surely more basis than the "right of return" for folks who have no known connection with Israel but just happen to be associated with a certain ethnic-religious label. The "right of return" used in the latter sense has got to be one of the most Orwellian constructions of the language that I have ever come across.

Has any legal representative of the Palestinians ever accepted Israel's existence as a Jewish state?
Yes and it's an absurd question because no negotiation between the contending parties has ever hung up on the issue of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state(Well they managed to engineer their former buddies, Hamas, into power to provide them cover for a while). That right has been conceded repeatedly and has been a nonissue. But folks who want to monkey wrench any possibility of a negotiated peace establishing two sovereign countries with internationally respected boundaries will throw in that red herring about Israel's existence forever it appears. This fanatic loyalty to the Zionist-God-State, which seems to enjoy a kind of Christ like sinlessness in the eyes of some or whose occupation policies, even sinful ones, are favored by God as being the road to the prophesied rapture according to others, makes it virtually impossible to have a rational discussion on any matter having to do with Israel. It's all emotional. Israel is beyond reproach. Israel is God. Their enemies, the Palestinians etc., deserve whatever Israel wishes to inflict on them. Americans should be willing to empty their bank accounts and go to their grave for Israel.

Thanks for the pointer to the UPI article. That's the best sourcing I've seen on this story. The reporter, Richard Sale, quotes "several current and former U.S. intelligence officials," mostly anonymous, but he gets Tony Cordesman on the record:



Cordesman has an impressive resume, working for the US government and NATO during the period in question. He was posted around the Middle East, so he could well have contacts who knew the story first hand. The original source may be an Israeli general named Segev, but today the Israelis aren't talking:



When I search for Yithaq Segev, the only results I get are reprints of this 2002 UPI article. In fact, I haven't found any other English-language source for this story. Wikipedia lists two French newspapers, L'Humanité and Le Canard enchaîné, but the stories don't seem to be online, and it's not clear who their sources are. Sale seems like a good reporter and has some good sources. I'm afraid he has some bad ones, too, though. Here's a piece he wrote for truthout just before Scooter Libby got indicted:



He had Libby's indictment right, but what about those target letters to other White House officials? There's no evidence they actually existed, except in the mind of Sale's source. (Recall that Jason Leopold got burned on another story for truthout, writing that Rove had actually been indicted in May. It's probably unfair to hold this against Sale, but I note that the juciest quotes in the Hamas article are from Larry Johnson, the same guy who was one of Leopold's only defenders, and the same guy who wrote a little introduction to Sale's truthout article: "I've found Richard to always be on target in my experience." Larry Johnson is an interesting character who clearly holds Israel and the "neocons" in very low regard... but I've gone too far off on this tangent already.)

The strongest denial I've found about the Israel-Hamas connection is in a book review by Michael Rubin of Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad by Matthew Levitt:



Levitt's book was just published by Yale University Press, so that's somewhat authoritative. On the other hand, I haven't read it, I don't know his background at all.

Edit: Add links and fix a name.

You pretty much answered your own question in your own post. If it isn't acceptable for the displaced Palestinians and their decedents to return to Palestine, then what made it acceptable for the Jews to return to Palestine prior to World War I after more then 1000 years of Diaspora? If it isn't acceptable, there would not have been a war to displace the inhabitants of the land in the first place. If it is acceptable, since the Jewish have been doing it for 100 years now and continue to do so, why is it unacceptable for Palestinians? The old might makes right philosophy? The Romans conquered the Jews and told them not to return, now the Jews conquer the Arabs and tell them not to return. Like I said in my previous post the Israelis do not want to share the land. They cannot, if they allow a one state solution without the right of return they will lose the majority in roughly 10-20 years. If they seek a two state solution, they refuse satisfy the Palestinians request of a contiguous and viable state and ultimately will just lead to more violence. The third option is to displace more and more Palestinians by make life in the occupied territory miserable every chance they get, by creating restrictions of movement, unlivable conditions, all out war, humanitarian crisis, poor economical viability..... Then when they have a clear majority where the Israelis are outpacing Arab population growth they annex the entire Gaza and West Bank without an Arab Right to Return while subsidizing the a Jewish one.

Well, i'm thinking because they haven't actually been given much of that right, have they. It would be like giving Israel the land and then the UN marching in and kicking them out every now and then.

But the situation between Israel and Palestine actually sounds less like the current situation regarding the US and its natives, and more the earlier one:
Personally, i think it sounds ominously similar.

and since you brought up their rights, lets hope the following doesn't happen to Palestine's 'rights':


Actually, members of the EU can pretty much move around these days. And We defended the people living on the Falklands because they asked us to, and because they were British citizens. Much the same goes for Northern Ireland, but i don't think we want to go into a debate on that subject, after all the support that the US gave to terrorism there... As for Barbados and Jamaica, I don't know - but since its a tangent i'll leave it be.

Well, we could just go back to the Northern Ireland example i guess... according to your suggestion, the British Army would be well in their rights to just invade Eire. And then build a huge wall, and then smash their infrastructure where possible to keep them down... and then arrest their government.

so kidnapping is OK if some of the people were previously in jail. Maybe the kidnappers should just put him on trial and convict him, just as Israel is doing with their captures. Since Israel's actions of invading a foreign country are illegal, why not refer to them as criminals too, since they are? But in your example, if you had come from Canada and then taken the soldier back there, generally the government would demand his return. They would not normally invade in the first few days... If you do it within the country, then you're asking for trouble and the situation isn't the same.



3- Israel kills twice as many innocent people en route to killing alleged terrorists, as Palestine terrorists do with their suicide bombs or ineffective rockets. It clearly is policy for Israel to do this, otherwise it wouldn't continue to be the case.

4- So I guess that makes Israels approach 'just' genocide, since they kill everyone, although mainly males.

So, to sumarise, this Israelis don't do anything wrong (and two hoots to what the international community thinks) while the Palestinian's version of the same should result in their death. Nice!

I'm not saying they intentionally target them. I am saying that they don't make any effort to not hit them. Just like the way (as reported today) Israeli troops fired a missile at a car, missed and blew up a child. War can be frustrating, but it doesn't excuse genocide though, i'm afraid.

Can I ask a question of the Pal supporters that believe this conflict is about land?

If you believe land was stolen from the Palestinians and they are not allowed what is rightfully theirs, why do you live in America? America - as we know it today - was pretty much stolen from the American Indians. It seems fairly hypocritical to me to say the Jews should vacate their land while you sit comfortably on "stolen" land yourself without vacating.

My point is, if you go back to any point in history for any piece of land, it was claimed through some type of conflict. Using your logic, if a native American were to slaughter your family, it's your fault because you are "occupying" their land.

Is there any major country in the world that has been "owned" by the same people since it's discovery?

This conflict is different from the native Americans. For a long time now we have encouraged them to be a of our society, even above it with special programs. The Israelis do not want this, they want to expel Palestinians out of Israel to achieve and maintain a Jewish Majority to ensure Israel will remain a Jewish state.

To directly answer your question, our society has recognized what we have done to these people is wrong. Colonization as a whole is wrong. Although I feel the land isn't stolen since they have just as much right to live anywhere they want in the country as much as any other citizen, I would agree with whatever measures the government and or international community take to rectify our transgressions of the past, since they native inhabitants of the lands they have the ultimate birth right to it if what has been done so far is not enough.

Now a question for the other side: If what we did to not only the Native Americans have now been deemed mistakes, why isn't Israel one of them? Why do we not only allow but support and fund the Israelis to do what we have done to the Native Americans to the Palestinians?

Denmark.


And yet, 19.9% of Israel's population are none Jewish, predominantly Muslim Arabs, a far higher proportion of the Israeli population than can be boasted by the native American population of the USA.


Which is hardly anything to boast about once the deed has been done, and done so thoroughly that there is no longer any genuine threat of retaliation by the native population.


Define colonization... It seems to me that only colonization by force of arms is the contention here, that if you can swamp a nation with your progeny then colonization is deemed perfectly acceptable, regardless of the fact that the outcome is much the same in either case.
Its easy enough to take the moral high ground when you don't have an imminent threat to your survival as we see all too clearly in Geneva when the Swiss, safe and secure in their neutrality at the heart of Europe, having never faced a national threat in centuries, take it upon themselves to preach tolerance to Israel facing both the threat of Islamic terrorism and international condemnation for daring to defend themselves.


Perhaps because the Israeli's have just as much right to the land as the Palestinians...? Perhaps because the 'native Americans' had no more rights to land they could not defend than the people's they themselves ousted in their day.

The biggest advantage to the Palestinian cause, and thus the biggest hindurance to peace in the Middle east, is not Israeli aggression, for it must be clear to any impartial witness that Israel could easily sweep the region clear of unwanted Arabs if they really so desired, but rather the sense of abused victimhood that permeates, not just the Palestinian mentality, but the whole Middle Eastern/ Muslim mind set. Its this insistence of being the wounded party that fuels all justification for terrorism and social violence in the Muslim mentality and there is no greater example of this self imposed mental ghetto than in Palestine.

I live in England...


Most of Europe, certainly England, is the result of many hundreds of years of invasions and departures. People weren't so much displaced as killed. The end result is an amalgam of the different groups - Roman, Norman, Viking, Saxon, not to mention the mixed bag that this fair island started with. Now we have different creeds and colours all mixing to create 'English'. In the US you don't have this - you have 'African-American' or 'Irish-American' and so on, but does this create a unified group? No, i don't think it does.

The only way you can have peace between Israel and Palestine is the one state option, and the biggest obstacle to that is Israel. So, what is more important: a Jewish state, or peace and life?

Having lived in London for a fair long time, i know exactly what it is like to live with an imminent threat. What I cannot understand is how you cannot see the other side of the coin.

Wouldn't you consider many of the wests military actions effectively terrorism but with a bigger army? When do you stop being a terrorist? How big and powerful do you have to be? Terrorism is perceived as the role of the small guy, who often consider themselves freedom fighters. Terrorism is OUR word for when our smaller enemies fight with limited resources, and i think it is a bogus propaganda term. Calling them terrorists automatically places them as the bad guy. I think Israel is just as much a terrorist. If the IRA had used tanks in Northern Ireland, rather than nail bombs, what would have been the difference between them and Israel.

back to the 'might makes right' approach. Who are you suggesting the native American's ousted? They lived on the land, and didn't seek to carve it up and 'own' it - they lived in harmony with nature. That comment belies a perspective that could never understand the issue. You don't have a right to land, except by living on it. Who has the right to push you out of your house, and claim it? What would you do if someone did? Get a gun and fight back maybe?

And yet i'm a youngish white educated European male. I am an impartial witness, in as much as i have no axe to grind on the issue for one side or the other. I see Palestine as the wounded party since they were pushed off land they had lived in for a long time, (not to mention the ancient olive groves that Israeli settlers claimed at gun point and destroyed when they left). I see Israel as having been dropped into the place under very poorly organised circumstances, and now fills the role of an unwitting tyrant, but a tyrant all the same.

There is no question that Israel could march in and wipe out Palestine. That would of course be genocide, and the international community would (I hope) send armies in to kick them out. However, Israel HAS set about killing many many young men, equal numbers of non-combatants as combatants. Increasingly this looks like genocide by stealth. What is more amazing is that i'm accused of being a Palestinian supporter, which is nonsense. I don't support them firing rockets or detonating suicide bombs. Yet the people who make these accusations happily support Israel marching in to Gaza, and firing off tank shells at houses, killing 16 people (at least half of whom are innocent 'collateral damage') to every one Israeli loss. I don't really know how you live with yourselves.

That's absurd. Tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work everyday in Israel. They get equal treatment at Israeli hospitals. Your statement is nowhere close to the truth.

You live in England, or Britain? Are you English, or British (or Welsh, or Scottish, or Irish...). Britain is not as homogenous as you suggest.



I disagree. The answer is the two state option. Palestinian Arabs will never accept Israeli rule, just as Israelis would never accept Muslim rule. They must be separated in order that each may self-govern. See the Road Map which was drawn up by the US, UN, Russia and EU. Almost everyone agrees that the two state solution is the next step in the peace process.



Terrorism is deliberately attacking civilians to achieve political goals. It is what the PLO/Hamas/Hizzbollah/Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade et al have done for years.

And let's get one thing straight: when these groups hide among the civilian population, it is THEY that are committing war crimes. Hiding among civilians and not wearing uniforms are war crimes. The deaths of civilians lie on the hands of the Palestinian terrorists, not the Israelis.




The Israelis must be allowed to defend themselves. This is the basis of civil society. A government's primary raison d'etre is to defend from internal and external threats. By hiding among the civilian population in Palestine, the terrorists have creating a lose/lose situation for the Israeli government. Do nothing and be voted out. Attack and face the accusation of indiscriminate deaths of civilians. By the laws of war, however, it is the irregular forces (i.e. the terrorists) who are responsible for these civilian deaths.

Did Israel covertly support Hamas as an alternative to Fatah?

The evidence shows that they did. Of course "Hamas" back then was solely a humanitarian organization. Israel was seeking a peaceful partner among the Palestinians. Hamas was subsequently turned into a political organization and once it had a little power, a military wing sprouted. This military wing was just like the Fatah party: terrorists.

Is there a basis in international law for a "right of return" for several million Palestinians to the land their forefathers were removed from in 1948?
The "land of their forefathers" was largely Jordan, not present day Israel. The British Mandate consisted of Jordan, Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

The Jewish return to Palestine began in the first half of the 19th century. Of course, Palestine was then a part of the Ottoman empire, which had been weakening for some time. In 1922, when the League of Nations assigned control of Palestine to Britain, there were 750,000 people in Palestine including about 80,000 Jews. During that decade, a further 100,000 Jews immigrated to Palestine. The League's Palestine Mandate assigned certain responsibilities to Britain, including "securing the establishment of the Jewish national home" in Palestine.

Britain divided Palestine into two parts: Palestine and Trans-Jordan. Palestine (west of the Jordan river) was about 23% of the whole, Trans-Jordan (east of the Jordan) was 77%. The Jews made up about 21% of the population by the end of the 1920s.

The mandate over Jordan ended in 1946 and it became the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan. In 1950, when it annexed the West Bank, it became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. This annexation was only officially recognized by the UK and Pakistan. Internationally, the West Bank is not a part of any state, including Israel.

What's this got to do with the Right of Return?

Well, there is certainly a basis for the Jewish Right of Return. Article 6 of the British Mandate includes: "The Administration of Palestine... shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency... close settlement by Jews on the land...".

The Palestinian Right of Return is usually used in reference to refugees from the 1948 War and the Six Day war (1967). UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (in 1948), Article 11 : "[r]esolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property...". Strangely, the UN included all desce