powerclown

Wouldn't an alternative version of your paragraph below be just as relevant? If not, why not?

The Palestinian refugee problem has been perpetuated by the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters for almost 60 years, after which time there is no practical way to return the original refugees, many of whom are no longer alive. Their descendants have married non-Palestinians and non-Arabs, so that many of the people claiming right of return were never in Palestine to bein with, and are descended from people who were never in Palestine. Palestinian advocates claim that the refugees of 1948 have a right guaranteed in international law to return to Israel. There is no such law. The Fourth Geneva Convention, often cited in this context, does not stipulate a right of return for refugees. UN Resolution 194, also cited as the basis for this "right" is a resolution of the UN General Assembly. Such resolutions are not binding in international law. No nation has the obligation to admit enemy belligerents. Moreover, Resolution 194 does not insist on a Right of Return. It says that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so."

Israeli attempts to resettle refugees outside the camps have been blocked because of objections from neighboring Arab states. Israel has allowed more than 50,000 refugees to return to Israel under a family reunification program. Arabs who lost property in Israel are eligible to file for compensation from Israel's Custodian of Absentee Property. Claims were settled for land, more than 10,000,000 NIS (New Israeli Shekels) have been paid in compensation. No compensation has ever been paid to any of the more than 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who were forced to leave and abandon their property.

Further, the claims to right of return as a solution of the Palestinian refugee problem should be viewed in the light of the intent of the claimants. This intent has been announced repeatedly and publicly: To destroy Jewish self-determination and the state of Israel.

I would suggest Arab governments and Palestinian advocacy groups have acted in bad faith to prevent a solution to the problem. Ralph Galloway, formerly director of UN aid to the Palestinians in Jordan, stated:

While decrying the plight of the refugees, Arab governments have caused the UN to pass resolutions that have decried Israeli attempts to resettle refugees in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. Efforts by Israel to improve the living conditions of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza strip or to give them new homes outside the refugee camps has been met with UN resolutions discouraging these efforts. The most conciliatory position of the Palestinians, presented in the Taba in 2001 negotiations, called for actual return of all Palestinian refugees over an extended period. This would have the effect of destroying Israel as a Jewish state, gradually if not immediately, through shigting demographics. Admission of several million refugees would soon create an Arab majority in Israel. This would violate the right of self-determination of the Jewish people, who would no longer have a national home. Other proposals are more drastic in their effects. Thus, the intent of pressing right of return claims is a violation of several provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law.

The right to self determination is recognized universally as a compelling law that takes precedence over other considerations. The right to self determination was the basis for the creation of Israel, and was cited in the debates leading to the UN partition decision. It is absurd for Palestinians to claim the right to a state under this provision, while at the same time claiming that justice demands their right of return circa 1948, a thing which would prevent the people of Israel from exercising their own right to self determination, and which would result in the destruction of a democratic member state of the United Nations.