Interviewing Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Cairo last night on CNN, Christian Amanpour stated repeatedly that Palestinian refugees had no right to return to Israel according to “international agreements.” (Transcript below)
In fact there are UN resolutions guaranteeing the right of refugees to return to their homes. Max Blumenthal challenged Amanpour “to cite one legally binding international resolution that prevents the Palestinian right of return. It is clear… she has no understanding of international law on refugees, no idea of Res 194.” He continues, by email:
Christine Amanpour claims “all international agreements” reject the Palestinian right of return to what is now Israel.” Yet there are none and she cannot state which ones she is referring to. She merely says “the parameters,” meaning the US-brokered outlines of a final deal that will never be. She apparently has never heard of Res 194 or international law. Significantly, Meshaal keeps saying he supports a state on ’67 lines, but Amanpour insists on playing Israel’s lawyer, declaring, “you know, everybody’s not going to be able to return to Israel. You know that.”
Israeli spokespeople have over-saturated American media outlets with factually inaccurate talking points that continue to go unchallenged by anchors and journalists…. What on earth is [Amanpour] talking about? She certainly isn’t talking about international agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Israel is also a party to, and in which the right of return is enshrined. She can’t be talking about UN Resolution 194 and countless UN resolutions which have recalled it. In reality, there are no “international agreements” which negate the right of return and one of the most significant reasons why no conclusive peace agreements exist today is because Israel refuses a just solution to the refugee issue. Don’t wait on Christiane to tell you that though.
AMANPOUR: It might be a reversed question, but it is still the question. All the international agreements about what a two-state solution should look like — and you’re talking about the Americans.They agree as well, and the U.N. and Moscow and the E.U., that it has to involve Hamas, all parties, renouncing violence and accepting the right of Israel to exist. You keep telling me why not and who should recognize whom. But my question is, is there ever a circumstance under which you will recognize Israel’s right to exist?
MESHAAL (through translator): I will give you a reply, a direct reply and a lesson.
About the direct answer, I accept a Palestinian state according to 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital, with the right to return.
AMANPOUR: I know you say the right to return —
MESHAAL (through translator): When this stage rises —
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: — you know, everybody’s not going to be able to return to Israel. You know that.
MESHAAL (through translator): Please.
What? Say it again?
(Speaking foreign language).
AMANPOUR: Under the international agreements every Palestinian who’s living in the diaspora is not going to be able to come back to Israel.
MESHAAL (through translator): Who said that? Who said that?
AMANPOUR: That’s what are the parameters.
MESHAAL (through translator): I tell you, I accept —
AMANPOUR: They can come to the Palestinian state.
MESHAAL (through translator): I tell you, my sister, you are the CNN, a respected channel. Do a survey through the diaspora where the Palestinians are. If you don’t find a majority — a big majority that want to return to their land, then I’m wrong.
But…
AMANPOUR: No, they want to return to their land.
MESHAAL: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Of course.
MESHAAL: Yes.
AMANPOUR: The international agreements don’t provide for that.
MESHAAL: Why?
I ask you, why the international community is silent about the law, about the…
AMANPOUR: They’re not silent. They say that under the international agreement, the return should be…
MESHAAL: Allow me, please.
AMANPOUR: — linked to a Palestinian state, OK?
MESHAAL: I asked you a question.
AMANPOUR: So I — you know, here’s the thing…
MESHAAL: I asked you a question.
AMANPOUR: — the only thing I wanted to ask you…
MESHAAL: No, no, no.
AMANPOUR: — is are you keeping on making excuses for why you won’t recognize…
MESHAAL: I’m answering. I’m answering. Allow me to answer. I have given you a clear answer. I am — I want — I want my state. After this state is established, it — besides its standing toward Israel, don’t ask me when I’m in prison and under pressure, under Israeli pressure. You cannot ask me, as a victim, what is my stand toward Israel. I have mentioned my stand when there is a Palestinian state and the Palestinians are living like any other people in the world.
But you asked me about the right to return. I asked you a question and you have interrupted me — why the international community is silent about the law of the right to return for — that allows every Israelis to return and the people accept this. The world accepts this. And there are Jews who have never seen Palestine, while the Palestinian who was born on — in Palestine, or his grandfather or his father, and he doesn’t even have the (INAUDIBLE).
This one is not — not allowed, while the Jews are allowed — are allowed. This is double standard. And it’s time to stop.
AMANPOUR: Khaled Meshaal, hold that thought.
We’ll be back in a second.
A marvellous case of how weak the Israeli arguments are – in order to present the Israeli case, Christian Amanpour has to invent an international law nobody has ever heard about!
I’ll leave the debate about the professionalism of that to others, but I bet Amanpour is on a higher salary than most of us here…
I’ve always found Amanpour to be INCREDIBLY patronising when interview Arabs or others who aren’t ‘establishment’ figures. I reckon she thinks (as do others) that because she was born in Iran, it somehow gives her some sort of credibility. Well, it doesn’t. Amanpour is the State Dept’s interviewer (look who she married, for god’s sake!) She would never, ever, speak to an Israeli the way she speaks to Arabs. And no matter who she’s interviewing, or what story she’s ‘covering’, it’s all about her, not about the story. Same with the all ‘celebrity’ journalists.
But it doesn’t help to respond by invoking a right contained in a UN resolution that the Security Council is unwilling to enforce. Experts in the field have noted that “The more rights are advocated in the face of demonstrable nonperformance and no adoption of force, the more they turn into rites.” http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15336-2/no-return-no-refuge/excerpt
The representative of Israel, Abba Eban, stated that Israel had implemented the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) and promised that Israel would implement that resolution, together with resolution 194(III). The later provided for a conditional right of return (for those willing to live in peace) or the right to negotiate compensation for those refugees who do not wish to return.
The position of the UN organization is that Israel has a continuing legal obligation to fulfill those agreements, based upon the terms of Israel’s acceptance during the hearings on its application for membership in the UN. Both sides have also been ordered to negotiate a just settlement of the refugee problem by the Security Council. The UN is unconditionally bound to respect international law, so it cannot endorse any settlement that condones the illegal practice of forced population transfer or ethnic cleansing.
International law favors repatriation over resettlement in third countries. But in the case of territories divided by revolution or civil war, the right of return is not guaranteed. In Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey et al, decision of 1 March 2010, — ECHR 2010, the European Court of Human Rights rejected a petition based upon the right of return to occupied areas of northern Cyprus. The Court’s decision was based upon the passage of time, the arrival of new generations, and the lack of any remaining links to the territory. The Court instructed the Greek victims to present their claims to the compensation commissions of the de facto Turkish government.
* http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com/2010/03/property-tribunal-in-northern-cyprus-is.html
* http://web.archive.org/web/20100412000838/http://korbelsecurity.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/european-court-of-human-rights-on-right-of-return-for-refugees/
Israel rejects TWO returns: of Palestinians to pre-1967 Israel and of settlers, ditto. After all, what’s mine is mine and what’s yours may also be mine. That’s what POWER says, and let God or someone else administer and enforce International Law and agreements. (The USA will not permit the UNSC to do it.) It appears that God is not interested, having his great project of GLOBAL WARMING to attend to,
Noah’s Ark anybody?
Amanpour is condescending and underestimates Palestinians’ knowledge of their legal rights. She tries to trick Meshaal into believing that she knows more and he should surrender Palestinian rights and aspirations on international t.v.. I have zero respect left for her.