Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Palestine Papers

Monday, November 16, 2020

The PLO's Red Lines for a Palestinian state, from the Palestine Papers, part 4: "Refugees" and compensation

Continuing on with the full text and my commentary of the PLO's NSU Negotiation Principles Matrix:

ISSUE

CORE PRINCIPLES

POSSIBLE FLEXIBILITY

REFUGEES

· Just and agreed upon according to UNGAR 194

· Right of return in principle should be recognized

Admission of responsibility

· Israel should recognize its moral and legal responsibility for the expulsion and displacement of the refugees

· Cannot agree to “recognizing the suffering” only, there should be recognition of responsibility

Right of return and settlement of refugees

· Menu of options for refugee settlement (which includes Israel, Palestine, host countries and third states)

· MUST include return to Israel

· Regarding Israel, the use of the word “return” should be emphasized, we cannot agree to combinations such as “admission/immigration”

· Return to Israel should not be disguised as “family unification”

· Must give refugees a genuine ability to choose

· Should be in coordination with the other relevant states (host states, third states)

· Return to Israel could be capped.

Restitution of refugees’ real property

· Restitution based on international law.

· If not possible under international law, then the owners should be entitled to FULL compensation by Israel

· International community can contribute to the compensation fund, but Israel should have a substantial contribution (not like just another country).

· Will be dealt with by a restitution commission

Compensation for refugees

· FULL compensation paid by Israel, for material and non-material damages, according to international law standards

· Individual basis, not a lump sum

· Will be dealt with by a compensation commission

· International community can contribute to the compensation fund, but Israel should have a substantial contribution (not like just another country).

It is important to emphasize three things. One is that according to international law, what UNRWA refers to as "Palestine refugees" are not legally considered refugees, and even UNRWA admits this.

Secondly, the paragraph of UNGA Resolution 194 dealing with Palestinians and Jews displaced by the 1948 war was specifically drafted not to use the word "rights." There is no right to return under international law where a nation must take in a hostile population (and even UNGA 194 says that it only applies to those who are willing to live in peace with their neighbors.) This is especially true in the case of descendants of refugees.

Thirdly, this "right to return" has always been meant to be a Trojan horse to destroy Israel demographically. Arab leaders have admitted this openly, and the emphasis here that a two-state solution must allow Palestinians to move to Israel rather than a Palestinian state shows that even Palestinian leaders aren't interested in building up their own state but in destroying the Jewish state.

These NSU positions are meant not only to destroy Israel demographically, but financially as well. Once Israel admits responsibility for the displacement of Palestinians in 1948 - most of whom never saw an Israeli soldier and who fled out of fear to their Arab brethren, never expecting to be treated like garbage in the areas that many of them lived only a few decades previous - then the monetary demands for compensation will never end. According to this document, the PLO would not end their demands for return but would encourage millions of individual Palestinians to sue Israel in international courts.

This is meant to bankrupt Israel. If the PLO cared about compensation, they wouldn't care whether it came from Israel or an international fund, but again this isn't about Palestinian rights but to take away Jewish rights.

This is the reason it is so important for the PLO to demand that Israel take responsibility for the flight of 600,000 Palestinian Arabs in 1948. Once Israel takes responsibility, it will be forced to pay compensation in courts for the next century.

REPARATIONS

· A provision must be included in the FAPS which safeguards Palestinian ability to argue for reparations (including compensation) in the Treaty.

· Silence on the issue is not an option, as it may be viewed by Israel as having given up the right to reparations (including compensation) for all damage arising from Israel’s occupation.

The demand that Israel compensate so-called "refugees" is only a part of the PLO's desire to bankrupt Israel. In addition, one of its core principles is to demand that Israel pay reparations to a Palestinian state as well for the "damage" done by adding billions of dollars of electricity, water and road infrastructure to the territories.

Nothing in the entire document is so nakedly obvious as to the real desire for the outcome of the negotiations - not a Palestinian state but a stage towards the destruction of Israel.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Continuing on with the full text and my commentary of the PLO's NSU Negotiation Principles Matrix:

ISSUE

CORE PRINCIPLES

POSSIBLE FLEXIBILITY

SETTLEMENTS

Settlement freeze

· A freeze is a must.

· No compromise on: (1) territorial scope (must apply to all Pal territory occupied after 1967, including East Jerusalem; (2) all settlement- related construction (structures of every kind, roads, fences, the Wall, infrastructure, etc.); (3) all extra financing to settlements and settlers;

(4) be permanent (until implementation of CAPS); (5) third party monitoring and verification mechanism; and (6) outpost evacuation (since Mar 2001).

· Better freeze also includes: (1) all land confiscations and property destruction; and (2) all settlement planning.

Evacuation of settlers and

· No negotiating about sett ‘blocs’ or on basis of

· Residency rights for some settlers is a

dismantlement of settlements

settler pop. (e.g., Israel wants to annex 80% of settler pop.)

· Negotiate on sett-by-sett basis and in reference to sett built-up areas.

· Israel cannot remove/damage/destroy assets unilaterally. Fate of sett assets determined according to international law.

· Pals will not compensate Israel or settlers for sett assets.

· Israel is responsible for restoring the land to its prior condition.

creative option to avoid swapping difficult areas and make Palestinians look more reasonable at the table.

There is no flexibility here. All "settlers" must be uprooted from homes that many of them have lived in for longer than many Arab "refugees" ever lived in British Mandate Palestine.

But the details are even worse. The Palestinians want to move into the houses that the Jews built - they do not want a repeat of Israel destroying homes in Gaza. And they want all this for free.

Even crazier, they insist that Israel "restores the land to its prior condition" - which contradicts the demand of not destroying the communities. Because besides Hebron, virtually every single "settlement" was built on land that no Arabs ever lived on before.

Compensation for Jews who are forced to leave the homes they've lived in for decades? That's crazy talk! So is any acknowledgement of Jewish history in those areas.

TRANSIT AND COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE WEST BANK AND THE GAZA STRIP

· A physical land corridor under Palestinian sovereignty.

· Corridor on land (not tunnel nor bridge) and along the Beit Hanoun – Tarkumiya route.

· Swap of underground area (not surface area) not sufficient. Split sovereignty will not work because technical needs do not allow for it (for example security, safety, maintenance, infrastructure installation, etc.).

· Can accept something less than sovereignty but must be under Palestinian control and jurisdiction, permanently open.

· Can accept third party role in policing or security, or hire 3^rd party management.

· Corridor could be sunken road in some parts not all the way.

· Corridor shall be of sufficient width to allow for multiple lanes, a rail connection, and public utilities and water infrastructure. [Estimate for minimum needed width is 100m; total area of only 4 square km.]

· Should also get supplementary safe passage arrangements.

· Could be flexible on its construction, modalities of operation, control, financing, maintenance, possible third party role, and other specifications.

· Construction and costs may be part of Israel’s compensation to Palestinians.

· Safe passage must be for people and goods. No arrests. Meaningful and efficient access. No (or minimal) restrictions on who can use.

· Guarantee unimpeded transit until corridor fully functional. Third party to monitor implementation.

The PLO is explicitly rejecting the idea of a bridge corridor between the West Bank and Gaza. They want it to be on land and they want full control.

This means that the PLO would cut Israel in half. Israelis would have to get permission from Palestinians to go from Jerusalem to Beersheva or from Tel Aviv to Eilat.

To call this a non-starter is a gross understatement.

And notice the "compensation to Palestinians" part which will be elaborated on later. Getting land and houses and infrastructure for free isn't enough - they are demanding money as well from Israel.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.