Who's Afraid of Renewing the Peace Process?

[cali]

By Avshalom Vilan and Maurice Stroun

The Arab peace initiative, formerly known as the Saudi peace initiative, was recently declared by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to be interesting and worth addressing. A pan-Arab summit will be held this week, and approving the peace initiative and declaring it to be a possible peace plan will be on the agenda.

In light of these developments, the chorus of refusal immediately began its well-known song. Its main argument is familiar, and relies on the assumption that accepting United Nations Resolution 194 from 1949 means recognizing the right of return and the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

This scare campaign led by those who fear the peace process, which relies on the mythical danger that Resolution 194 poses to the State of Israel, has no basis, as revealed by a simple examination of the resolution insofar as it relates to this matter.

In 1948, some 720,000 Palestinian refugees left Israel in the midst of the war, according to data from the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. (Their number today ranges from an estimated 4 million to 5 million, and the refugees live primarily in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan and the Gulf states.) Resolution 194, which is from the same period, states 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." Arab states, which were then opposed to the arrangement, voted against the resolution, which spoke of an end to the conflict and a peace deal.

<snip>

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/841396.html

[pelsar]

1. its not the "right of return"....

the right of return is a 'non starter"...who ever puts that seriously on the table has no intention of any kind of peace agreement

Therefore, the fear of the peace process today is largely in the minds of the leaders of the Israeli right, who scare the public with empty threats regarding Resolution 194 and other dangers, while the Israeli public - which is smarter than its leaders - is prepared to pay a dramatic price in land and the massive evacuation of settlers, without granting any right of return, in exchange for a comprehensive, genuine and fair peace agreement.


i disagree....its not any of the rights "scare threats".....its the real threats


Hamas, the settlers' best friend
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/839871.html


The lesson drawn by most Israelis - including leftists - was clear: If Israel willingly removes settlements and carries out a withdrawal in the territories, it can expect only rocket attacks in return.??But there were more lessons to be drawn as well:?
If you pull IDF forces out of Gaza and redeploy them on Israeli territory outside the Strip, Hamas, with help from other groups, will tunnel under the border, attack your forces on Israeli territory, capture a soldier, and hold him hostage indefinitely.?
If Hamas kidnaps a soldier from sovereign Israeli territory in the south, then its new partner Hezbollah, backed by Iran, will kidnap two in the north. The same border to which Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in an act recognized by the United Nations as a full withdrawal from occupied Lebanese soil.?
Offered a chance to prove that Palestinians could govern themselves with skill and maturity - therefore demonstrating to the world, and to the Israeli electorate, that a further withdrawal in the West Bank could contribute to stability and increased coexistence - Hamas and Fatah spent much of the past year at war with one another, often literally.?
Offered a chance for international legitimacy and restoration of much-needed aid, Hamas will opt, as it did this month in an open letter to Al Qaida, for a restatement of its commitment to taking over all of the Holy Land by force.?
To underscore this commitment, the Hamas military wing this week sent one of its marksmen to the Gaza border to kill an electrical worker on the Israeli side. The plan nearly succeeded, but the victim lived.??These days, thanks to Ismail Haniyeh, Khaled Meshal, and the Qassam Brigades, settlers find themselves sleeping better, secure in the perception that plans for a further West Bank withdrawal have been rendered a non-starter.??Who says Hamas is not a partner?

[cali]

2. Did you read the entire article?

Doesn't seem like it.

[pelsar]

8. yep....n/t

[Tom Joad]

4. Israel already accepts the "right of return", but not for refugees from the land of

Israel/Palestine.
Israel does not accept international law in that respect.

[papau]

11. 194 is not international law - 242 has a better claim and at one point was the basis of

all discussions.

Indeed 242 is mentioned in the Saudi peace plan but not in article 2 - 194 is dead on arrival.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. It really is the only way Resolution 194 can be interpreted...

It's about recognition of the right to return, but in no way equates to a scenario where every refugee and their descendants will end up in Israel. Apart from the fact that many wouldn't want to and just want the acknowledgement of what was done and compensation for lost property and livelihoods, this article points out that just like when anyone wants to enter Israel, Israel would have the right to refuse entry on individual cases. I think any fair resolution is going to involve acknowledgement by Israel of the right of return, a symbolic physical return of some refugees on humanitarian grounds, and compensation...

One bit of the article towards the end didn't make sense to me. "More than half of Israelis are already prepared for an annexation of 4 percent of the West Bank - the area that contains 80 percent of the settlements - in exchange for which Israeli territory of a similar size in the Gaza Strip area will be transferred to the PA." Israel doesn't have any territory in the Gaza Strip, so I'm guessing they meant to say territory bordering on Gaza would be transferred to the PA...

[pelsar]

7. either by gaza..

or part of the negev...the principle of trading territory has been ageed to and makes the most sense...

also compensation (that will be an interesting set of court cases since every israeli who came out of the various arab countries will start suing as well) has been agreed to in principle as well as the symbolic return...

now its just a matter of getting enough people killed (excuse my cynicism) before the principles are actually implemented.

[papau]

13. That is correct and is in the Geneva "private citizen" follow on to Taba n/t

n/t

[kaal]

5. Right of Return must be part of the peace settlement

I can't imagine how all the refugee can be ignored in any final settlement. The idea of Israel giving the Palestinians further land to keep some of their settlements in the West Bank seems to be the best option.

Palestinians must either have the right to return or receive compensation. When you consider the many former German Jews who fought for compensation for their loss (not that I think it's possible), it's only right that the Palestinians are compensated for their loss, else this conflict is never going to end.


It just needs to be a "comprehensive, genuine and fair peace agreement" ..... Something I find Israel will find extremely hard to swallow, but such are the sacrifices for peace.

[cali]

6. Yes, the Right of Return must be addressed.

Personally, I think a limited Right of Return for ? Palestinian refugees and compensation along with an acknowledgement of Israel's responsibility for the Nakba, is the way to go. But Palestinians must accept that the full Right of Return for refugees, their children, grand children, and in some cases, great grand children, is a non-starter. As you say, such is the sacrifice for peace.

[papau]

12. I agree n/t

n/t

[pelsar]

9. neither "fair nor just'

are words that will work in a peace agreement........for the individuals involved those two words with their definitions simply wont work...to many conflicts and cultural definitions involved.

comprehensive, genuine and perhaps "enough is enough time to get on with ones life"..would be a better way of putting the agreement.

[kaal]

10. agreed enough is indeed enough....

.... but it must be a fair peace agreement, or else we'll never have any peace of mind.


I can't imagine how anyone can hold on to positions that completely ruins their quality of life. The right of return must be limited else a peace deal will never be achieved!