First let me state that I respect your views, and I respond in the interest of constructive discussion rather than hostile reproach. This is by nature a thorny topic, so please do not interpret my responses as indicative of a personal attack…that is by no means my intention.
Israel told the international community that it would allow the right of return. It was required of them to abide by the UN resolution that would grant the right of return for Palestinian refugees who had their private property and citizenship status taken from them. Israel is now a member of the UN but has made no progress towards allowing the right of return as they promised to do.
The issue of the right of return was very carefully worded in the UN resolutions so that it could NOT be interpreted as a free ticket for all refugees to enter Israel, effectively undermining Israel as a Jewish state. It is disingenuous for Palestinians to call for their own state, while simultaneously demanding the right to immigrate into a different one (Israel)
Israel is in full compliance with UN resolutions, in spite of the fact that some people choose to redefine those resolutions to suggest they are not. Please demonstrate where Israel has violated UN resolutions or failed to comply with them…noting at the same time that many aspects of those resolutions are directly contingent on Palestinian compliance with those same resolutions for them to be fully enacted. You cannot point the finger of non-compliance at one party alone. The greatest stumbling block is not Israel, but Palestinian unwillingness to cease terror attacks against Israel…if they would stop trying to kill Israeli citizens there would be no reason for walls, checkpoints etc.
The refugee issue was initially addressed in resolution 194, which first requires Arab states and Israel to reach resolution to major issues;
Point 11 resolves:
"that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which under principles of international law or in equity should be made good by Governments or authorities responsible. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation...".
Notice the word “should be permitted”, obviously there are contingencies and this is not a unilateral or unconditional agreement for ALL refugees. Clearly Israel cannot be expected to allow an influx of people who pose a threat to their own security. Notice also that it is "Governments or authorities responsible" that are named…not just Israel. Arab refugees left for a variety of reasons…they were not kicked out by Israel.
Israel has made the same statements. Ben Gurion, Israel's first prime minister said himself that he would only accept the UN greenlines as a temporary solution
while Israel built itself up. He then advocated abolishing the Palestinian state and expanding into the whole of Israel. The same thing was said after ISrael gave the Sinai back to Egypt. It was declared a temporary solution with a promise that Israel would once more expand and lay claim to all of greater Israel. Such though exists in modern Israeli politics as well.
To compare Israeli statements regarding “temporary solutions” with the statements of Hamas is hardly valid. Israel is a legitimate legal state…Hamas is a terror organization that rejects peace under any circumstance other than the eradication of the state of Israel. This is a common problem in the media…moral equivalence is implied where it does not exist. Israel has always sought peace, it is the Arab states that have categorically rejected peace so long as it involved the existence of Israel…it was never about land. Israel does not, nor has it ever, sought the destruction of any other state or people…they have simply sought the right to self-determination and self-rule…why should this be denied them when it is never questioned for any other nation?
If the Arab world had accepted the two-state solution in 1947, so glibly touted by peace advocates today…a Palestinian state would have existed from the beginning…and technically it always did…it’s called Jordan. Furthermore, there is a significant Arab population in Israel with full rights and citizenship. A Jew who set foot on Palestinian ground would be taking their life in their hands. How many Jews can live in ANY Muslim state as a full citizen, free to practice their own religion, be a member of parliament etc.? Ask how many Arabs OR Jews living in East Jerusalem would like to find themselves under Palestinian rule today.
If Hamas is in charge then why are none of their government workers getting paid in the West Bank? Neither side is in absolute control and implying that Hamas is "in control" is misleading.
Obviously because Hamas is not controlling the West Bank and there is a state of civil war between Hamas and the P.A. Hamas is, however, the elected representative of the Palestinian people. Abbas is only receiving overtures and inclusion in the peace process because he is perceived as being more of a moderate that Hamas…though even this is questionable.
Private property both in Israel and in the territories was taken by Israel and the Arabs were kicked out under the absentee land laws that Israel passed (these laws didn't apply to Jews).
I don't care if Israel owns the land, the problem is that it is unwilling to extend citizenship rights and equal law protection to Arabs in the region. Thus trapping them in a legal limbo. Israel wants the land but not the people who come with it. This sets the stage for many human rights abuses, including several violations of the Fourth Geneva conventions.
This is pure myth I’m afraid. David BenGurion stated Aug 1948:
“When the Arab states are ready to conclude a peace treaty with Israel this question will come up for constructive solution as part of the general settlement, and with due regard to our counter¬claims in respect of the destruction of Jewish life and property, the long-term interest of the Jewish and Arab populations, the stability of the State of Israel and the durability of the basis of peace between it and its neighbors, the actual position and fate of the Jewish communities in the Arab countries, the responsibilities of the Arab governments for their war of aggression and their liability for reparation, will all be relevant in the question whether, to what extent, and under what conditions, the former Arab residents of the territory of Israel should be allowed to return.”
It was the Arabs who categorically rejected any and all compromise, and Israel could not safely allow all refugees to return without condition…they had just fought a defensive war that by all accounts they could easily have lost. In spite of this, Israel did release Arab refugee's blocked bank accounts of millions of dollars, paid cash compensations and gave thousands of acres of alternative land holdings.
Jews did not kick out Arabs and prevent them returning so they could steal their land and property. The Palestinians became refugees because the Arab countries refused to absorb them, it was they who relegated them to camps and squalor in order that they might become a convenient political pawn for further aggression against Israel…while tiny Israel absorbed more Jewish refugees from Arab lands than the total Palestinian refugees.
The Fourth Geneva convention, by the way, prohibits forcible transfer of individuals from one territory to another that has been occupied due to war and was designed to prevent local populations from being forced to move. Jews are not forced to move there, they choose to legally settle in land previously occupied by their own ancestors who had been expelled by others. The land never belonged to Jordan, Egypt OR Palestinians…Jews have as much right to it as any other local people. New settlements are only allowed on private land if no rights are being violated…most settlements were built on uninhabited land…and no Palestinians or Arabs are ousted to make room for them.
The problem is they didn't simply take governmental control over it, they took private land away from civilians and gave it to Jewish settlers. They are pushing to expell Arabs from the region. I would have no problem with Israel annexing the land if this legal limbo didn't exist.
Jews have lived in the West Bank continuously since Biblical times…why should they not be allowed to settle there now? It only became “illegal” for Jews to settle there under Jordanian rule during the brief period between 1948-67…CONTRARY to the League of Nations Mandate which actually encouraged such settlement. The idea of West Bank settlement being illegal is under strong dispute, and UN resolution 242 actually grants Israel legal right to be there until lasting peace is achieved. The basis of the dispute lies primarily within propaganda and half truths. And again is not true that land was “taken away” from others and given to Jews.