Trending Topics:

Poll says Jewish Israelis oppose ending the occupation, 53% to 39%

Israel/Palestine
on 53 Comments

In a recent poll reported in the Israeli daily Ma’ariv (Hebrew) on August 16, 53% of respondents said they were against any territorial compromise between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Only 39% of those polled claimed that they were in favor of ceding any sovereignty to the Palestinians. The poll was jointly conducted by the newspaper, which is considered right-wing, and The Brain Trust Institute.

The question asked was:

mapoll1

Would you support an agreement which includes giving up [Israeli] military authority over the Palestinian cities and withdrawals from Judea and Samaria in exchange for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and [Palestinians] giving up the right of return?

So even getting two major concessions from the Palestinians is not a sufficient inducement to get a majority of Israelis to support an Oslo-type two-state settlement. (The poll underlines the results of earlier polls we have reported showing that Israelis would not accept a state that would be viable for Palestinians.)

Although the article does not characterize those who participated, it is the custom for these types of political surveys to exclude the non-Jewish Israeli population.

According to the article, many Israelis now favor negotiating a temporary agreement in which all territorial concessions will be postponed to what many hope will be the indefinite future. Talk about such a settlement which does not involve any territorial concessions, has been discussed in the press by various prominent politicians, including the powerful leader of the Jewish Home Party, Naftali Bennett.

“Why did Netanyahu decide to renew the negotiations?” the Ma’ariv reporter, Eli Bradenstein, asks. The answer, according to an unnamed senior cabinet official, is that he is trying to please the Americans and it is a position that helps him maneuver between the hawks and the doves in the government.

But in the end, most people do not think there is any chance for an agreement, because, as Bradenstein reports, no politician will support an agreement that the public is against.

Ira Glunts
About Ira Glunts

Ira Glunts is a retired college librarian who lives in Madison, NY. His twitter handle is @abushalom

Other posts by .


Posted In:

53 Responses

  1. amigo
    amigo
    August 23, 2013, 9:47 am

    “Only 39% of those polled claimed that they were in favor of ceding any sovereignty to the Palestinians.”

    Since when does occupied Palestinian Territory become Sovereign Israeli Territory.

    The Zionist mind is a challenge to understand.

  2. just
    just
    August 23, 2013, 9:51 am

    Bad news, as usual.

    And the US supports this. Ugh.

  3. amigo
    amigo
    August 23, 2013, 9:52 am

    Zionists are always claiming a majority of Israel,s Arab,s (Palestinians)would prefer to live in Israel.
    So why not include them in the poll.

  4. Citizen
    Citizen
    August 23, 2013, 10:09 am

    Gee, maybe the USA should switch from a de facto two-party system of determining Congressional government to a parliamentary system for Congress? No elected Israeli politician will support an agreement that (most of )the public is against, but in the US poll after poll shows that’s what our congress does all the time. Am I missing something here?

    • American
      American
      August 23, 2013, 11:16 am

      What we should switch to–
      1) only public campaign financing
      2) popular vote, not electoral college vote
      Would please me.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        August 23, 2013, 1:00 pm

        @ American
        Sounds good to me, compared to what we have.

  5. BillM
    BillM
    August 23, 2013, 12:37 pm

    Of course, this poll overstates the number of Jewish Israelis supporting peace. It doesn’t talk about a full withdrawal from the West Bank, and doesn’t talk about a withdrawal from East Jerusalem. Rather it suggests “giving up military authority over the Palestinian cities and withdrawals from Judea and Samaria.” That does NOT suggest full withdrawal from the West Bank (or else why even mention the part about “Palestinian cities”?), but only a partial withdrawal of some portion (with the exact amount apparently left to the imagination of the respondent.

    If you asked who supports a full peace along the 1967 lines, I’d expect the numbers supporting peace would drop to close to nil. But that isn’t a surprise to anyone who has been watching.

  6. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    August 23, 2013, 1:20 pm

    RE: “Why did Netanyahu decide to renew the negotiations?” the Ma’ariv reporter, Eli Bradenstein, asks. The answer, according to an unnamed senior cabinet official, is that he is trying to please the Americans and it is a position that helps him maneuver between the hawks and the doves in the government. ~ Ira Glunts

    FROM ALISTAIR CROOKE, London Review of Books, 03/03/11:

    [EXCERPT] . . . Israel’s vice-premier, Moshe Ya’alon, was candid when asked in an interview this year: ‘Why all these games of make-believe negotiations?’

    He replied:

    Because … there are pressures. Peace Now from within, and other elements from without. So you have to manoeuvre … what we have to do is manoeuvre with the American administration and the European establishment, which are nourished by Israeli elements [and] which create the illusion that an agreement can be reached … I say that time works for those who make use of it. The founders of Zionism knew … and we in the government know how to make use of time.

    SOURCE – http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n05/alastair-crooke/permanent-temporariness

  7. August 23, 2013, 1:24 pm

    Concerning the RoR. I already asked this question but did not have any answer. So – here it is again…
    On the pages of this site I recently learned that the international law recoqnizes as refugees only those who actually fled, i.e. only the 1st generation. I also learned on these pages the following argument – the life expectance in 1948 was around 50 years so now after 65 years very few people are left to return. Would you say these are correct arguments? UNRWA of course continues to support even in the 3rd generation and by the way it is very exceptional and the tab is picked mostly by US. For instance 12 mln German refugees were not supported. Same with 850 000 Jews expelled from Arab countries. Or Greeks expelled very recently from parts of Cyprus, etc,etc

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      August 23, 2013, 2:32 pm

      Israel prevented the first generation from returning so will have to pay compensation plus interest.

      • August 23, 2013, 3:20 pm

        But Germans were never allowed to return. Or the Greeks. Or the Arab Jews. At Hindus and Moslem in India/Pakistan conflict. Etc, Etc.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 23, 2013, 5:02 pm

        So what? Germans got the Wirtschaftswunder in return for Prussia.
        And how long were the Jews away for again ?

        Israel can’t hold out forever. Bad faith from day 1, of course. Like it is “Jewish land”. LOL.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 6:04 pm

        But Germans were never allowed to return. Or the Greeks. Or the Arab Jews. At Hindus and Moslem in India/Pakistan conflict. Etc, Etc.

        But they were not expelled by colonizer who came to steal their land. And Israel agreed to ROR under UN 194 as a condition of it’s membership at the UN.

    • mondonut
      mondonut
      August 23, 2013, 2:53 pm

      fnlevit says: I recently learned that the international law recoqnizes as refugees only those who actually fled, i.e. only the 1st generation.
      =================================================
      That the Palestinians confine their demands under the RoR to the first generation only is a fantasy promoted by an extreme minority on this site (basically one person). Good luck finding any other regular poster who agrees with that.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 6:06 pm

        Good luck finding any other regular poster who agrees with that.

        Talknic has only been reminding you of this week in week out.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        August 25, 2013, 8:10 pm

        Shingo says: Talknic has only been reminding you of this week in week out.
        ——————
        Reminding me of what? That he is a minority of one? Unless of course you agree with him that the Palestinians are not claiming the RoR for their descendants. Is that your position as well?

      • annie
        annie
        August 26, 2013, 12:16 am

        it is not a palestinian ‘claim’, it is an international law, an international right. you can’t make it disappear.

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 26, 2013, 2:11 am

        mondonut “That he is a minority of one?”

        International Law and Conventions are adopted by the the MAJORITY

        “Unless of course you agree with him that the Palestinians are not claiming the RoR for their descendants.”

        That’s not my position. I was writing about RoR to Israel. The Palestinians also claim RoR for descendants to Palestine. Israel, the Occupying Power currently does not allow any RoR not even to non-Israeli territories.

    • talknic
      talknic
      August 23, 2013, 3:23 pm

      fnlevit ” I recently learned that the international law recoqnizes as refugees only those who actually fled, i.e. only the 1st generation. I also learned on these pages the following argument – the life expectance in 1948 was around 50 years so now after 65 years very few people are left to return. Would you say these are correct arguments?”

      The UNGA res 194 definition is quite clear

      Article 1

      Are to be considered as refugees under paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 persons of Arab origin who, after 29 November 1947, left territory at present under the control of the Israel authorities and who were Palestinian citizens at that date.

      Are also to be considered as refugees under the said paragraph stateless persons of Arab origin who after 29 November 1947 left the aforementioned territory where they had been settled up to that date.
      Article 2

      The following shall be considered as covered by the provisions of Article 1 above:
      1. Persons of Arab origin who left the said territory after 6 August 1924 and before 29 November 1947 and who at that latter date were Palestinian citizens;

      2. Persons of Arab origin who left the territory in question before 6 August 1924 and who, having opted for Palestinian citizenship, retained that citizenship up to 29 November 1947. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7

      Life expectancy 1950 42M 45F http://books.google.com.au/books?id=GkbzYoZtaJMC&pg=PA398&lpg=PA398&dq=Palestinian+Mortality,+1860-2000#v=onepage&q=Palestinian%20Mortality%2C%201860-2000&f=false

      Simple maths tells us the majority have very likely passed on after 65 years

      Why are you asking? Didn’t you learn? Was there something incorrect? Nothing in your Hasbara handbook to counter facts?

      “UNRWA of course continues to support even in the 3rd generation

      The Palestinian claim for RoR is under UNGA res 194 (1948) UNRWA didn’t exist in 1948 when UNGA res 194 was adopted.

      The UNRWA definition is irrelevant to RoR.

      (Q) “Is UNRWA involved in the Middle East peace negotiations and in the discussions on a solution to the refugee issue?”
      (A) “No. UNRWA is a humanitarian agency and its mandate defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees. However, UNRWA highlights the international community’s obligation to provide a just and durable solution for Palestine refugees.” http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=87#final_status

      ” For instance 12 mln German refugees were not supported. Same with 850 000 Jews expelled from Arab countries.”

      Until 1952, UNRWA serviced both Arabs and lews who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the Arab-Israeli 1948 War.
      When Israel assumed responsibility for Jewish refugees in 1952 … http://books.google.com.au/books?id=80j612aFo_4C&pg=PA12&dq=UNRWA+%22jewish+refugees%22+1952#v=onepage&q=UNRWA%20%22jewish%20refugees%22%201952&f=false

      Why don’t you check? Too stupid? Not allowed? Or perhaps like all propagandists, you simply don’t care what you say, because facts and/or truth simply aren’t a part of your brief…

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        August 23, 2013, 4:15 pm

        “Simple maths tells us the majority have very likely passed on after 65 years .”

        No, their descendants are also considered as refugees. Same thing under UNHCR (right to family reunification).

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 23, 2013, 8:57 pm

        @ Talkback

        “No, their descendants are also considered as refugees. Same thing under UNHCR (right to family reunification)”

        A) Descendants do not effect the mathematical likelihood of the majority of those born in or before 1948 having very likely passed on after 65 years B) Their descendants are considered refugees because they’re stateless not because they’re ‘from’ “territory at present under the control of the Israel authorities” http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7 C) Family reunification can only take place if there is already family in situ to be reunified with.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        August 25, 2013, 3:57 am

        talknic says: “A) Descendants do not effect the mathematical likelihood of the majority of those born in or before 1948 having very likely passed on after 65 years.”

        No, but the number of the majority who have refugee status.

        “Their descendants are considered refugees because they’re stateless …”

        Says who?

        “C) Family reunification can only take place if there is already family in situ to be reunified with.”

        That’s usually the case, if a refugee becomes a parent.

        Hostage quoted Chris Gunness, the UNRWA’s spokesman, explaiining General Assembly policy:

        “All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved. Refugees in Kenya administered by UNHCR are a good example. In this regard, the accusation that UNRWA uniquely perpetuates the Palestine refugee problem is ignorant of international refugee law and practice.”

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 26, 2013, 1:50 am

        @ Talkback “No, but the number of the majority who have refugee status”

        Correct. Because some have died, there are less with RoR specifically to the area that became Israel 1948. Refugee status does not necessarily mean they have RoR to that specific territory. There is also RoR which the Occupying Power doesn’t allow, to Palestinian territories

        //“Their descendants are considered refugees because they’re stateless …”

        Says who?//

        http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=131971&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1061687

        http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c155.html

        //“C) Family reunification can only take place if there is already family in situ to be reunified with.”

        That’s usually the case, if a refugee becomes a parent.//

        Re-unification can only happen if there is already a family member in the territory that became Israel 1948. If they’re a refugee , they’re NOT returned, not in situ.

        “Hostage quoted Chris Gunness…”

        Agreed.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 26, 2013, 2:54 am

        “Their descendants are considered refugees because they’re stateless …”

        I like to cite the example of the post WWII German Constitution, but I don’t think Israel can go to an international court and argue that stateless Palestinian refugees have no right under customary international law to return to their ancestral homeland without the whole San Remo Resolution/Mandate for Palestine/UN Charter Article 80/Israeli Law of Return hasbara argument screaming so loudly that it would drown-out whatever else they have to say on the subject. International law is not blind to state practice and the concept of equity.

        That’s why the Zionist have spent 120+ years shaping public opinion and avoiding a showdown in the PCIJ, ICJ, or ICC.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 23, 2013, 9:43 pm

        talknic:

        The Palestinian claim for RoR is under UNGA res 194 (1948)

        Can you provide some evidence for that claim.

        Previously:

        “the RoR, which does not exist as the Palestinians define it” UNGA res 194 (’48) is how they define it.

        I asked:

        “I don’t necessarily disagree, but could you provide some evidence that major Palestinian leaders, negotiators or popular organizations strictly interpret “RoR” that way? Thanks.”

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 26, 2013, 1:59 am

        @ Sibiriak “Can you provide some evidence for that claim”

        Abbas told me, “and everybody looks to return back, to see his home, to see his land, to see the rest of his family if there is [any]. So everybody is waiting for right of return. According to the Arab Peace Initiative, we found a solution that this issue should be dealt in this way; that we will find a just and agreed upon solution with the Israelis, according to U.N. Resolution 194″

        http://world.time.com/2012/11/06/the-palestinian-right-of-return-abbas-wades-into-the-morass/#ixzz2d3H2eUnT

        “could you provide some evidence that major Palestinian leaders, negotiators or popular organizations strictly interpret “RoR” that way? Thanks.:”

        If the Palestinians claim RoR under UNGA res 194, and they do, they must accept the definition under UNGA res 194 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 26, 2013, 7:12 am

        Talknic:

        [Sibiriak:]“could you provide some evidence that major Palestinian leaders, negotiators or popular organizations strictly interpret “RoR” that way?…”

        If the Palestinians claim RoR under UNGA res 194, and they do

        I understand that is your claim, but I was asking for supportive *evidence* that Palestinian leaders, popular organizations etc., (not just Abbas) have restricted the basis of their RoR claims to the principles and definitions in res. 194.

        For example, we find in Wikipedia:

        The Palestinian right of return …is a political position or principle asserting that Palestinian refugees, both first-generation refugees and their descendants, have a right to return, and a right to the property they or their forebears left or which they were forced to leave…

        Proponents of the right of return hold that it is a “sacred” right,[3] as well as an inalienable and basic human right, whose applicability both generally and specifically to the Palestinians is protected under international law.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return

        The article then goes on to present various detailed arguments for a RoR that cite numerous resolutions, treaties, charters, conventions, customary international law, humanitarian law etc., going well-beyond res. 194.

        ***At no point does your notion that Palestinian claims of a RoR are based exclusively on res. 194 ever appear.

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 24, 2013, 6:40 am

        “Why don’t you check? Too stupid? Not allowed? Or perhaps like all propagandists, you simply don’t care what you say, because facts and/or truth simply aren’t a part of your brief…Talknic

        Have you checked his profile.He claims to be a Professor of Physics.Yeah, we are dealing with a real Einstein here.

    • mondonut
      mondonut
      August 23, 2013, 9:02 pm

      talknic says:Why don’t you check? Too stupid? Not allowed? Or perhaps like all propagandists, you simply don’t care what you say, because facts and/or truth simply aren’t a part of your brief…
      ===============
      Voila. Right on cue.

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 26, 2013, 2:05 am

        mondonut
        “Voila. Right on cue”

        You have a problem with appropriate comments?

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      August 23, 2013, 9:58 pm

      fnlevit says:

      I also learned on these pages the following argument – the life expectance in 1948 was around 50 years so now after 65 years very few people are left to return. Would you say these are correct arguments?

      Good question. Talknic has strong views on this. Many disagree.

      It seems fairly certain, imo, that any negotiated settlement will involve 1) only a small number of Palestinians returning to Israel 2) compensation for others 3) some symbolic statement about the origin of the refugee problem.

      For example, in 2008 Olmert reached such a deal with Abbas.

      As Uri Avnery described it:

      Olmert agreed that Israel should admit its part in the creation of the problem, and proposed to Abbas a comprehensive plan for the re-settlement of all refugees, including the return of some tens of thousands to Israel.

      The importance of this point cannot be exaggerated. The refugee problem has profound emotional ramifications. It touches the very roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

      Until now, all Israeli governments have denied our responsibility and refused to discuss the return of even one refugee (except some miserly “family reunion” cases).

      To my mind, the number proposed by Olmert is less important than his agreement to allow the return of refugees at all. As the joke goes, after the respectable lady agreed to sleep with the gentleman for a million dollars, “Now that we have agreed on the principle, we must discuss the price.”

      If the negotiations are no longer about “whether” refugees will come back, but about “how many,” no doubt agreement can be reached.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 25, 2013, 9:58 pm

        If the negotiations are no longer about “whether” refugees will come back, but about “how many,” no doubt agreement can be reached.

        Bear in mind that Nasser and the Egyptians were proposing very reasonable terms for a final settlement with Israel on all of the issues as early as 1955, e.g. http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v14/d416

        That included the not so radical proposal from Nasser that the actual wishes of the refugees registered with the UNRWA be consulted to determine if they actually wanted to return. He felt that most would not want to be second class citizens in Israel and would opt for compensation and resettlement elsewhere, which is supposedly their right under the explicit terms of resolution 194(III). The United States rejected the proposal because it was afraid of the possible outcome of the poll.
        http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v14/d428

        So here we are decades later, still dealing with hypothetical objections and red lines that may have no basis in reality at all.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 25, 2013, 11:01 pm

        Hostage:

        That included the not so radical proposal from Nasser that the actual wishes of the refugees registered with the UNRWA be consulted to determine if they actually wanted to return.

        Thanks for that info. It seems the U.S. official thought that a poll of the refugees might backfire:

        [Nasser] thought however it would be most difficult for any Arab leader to take a position which deprived the refugee of his right to return. He therefore favored an approach which would allow the refugee to make his own decision about repatriation vis-à-vis resettlement and compensation.

        He agreed that this would be most difficult for Israel and wondered whether some impartial sensing of the real refugee opinion was possible through an agency such as UNRWA which could relieve both Israel and Arabs of difficult political problem.

        Told him I feared any such poll would indicate a far greater desire to return to Israel than would be actual case if opportunity were in fact presented.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 23, 2013, 10:05 pm

      On the pages of this site I recently learned that the international law recoqnizes as refugees only those who actually fled, i.e. only the 1st generation.

      No, that was a discussion about UN General Assembly resolution 194(III), not conventional or customary international law. The state parties have left it up to the General Assembly to decide the status of persons receiving UN assistance.

      The fact is that the post war German constitution restored the citizenship of both the Jews and their descendants who would have otherwise been German nationals, if not for the affects of the Nuremberg race laws. Those laws were declared null and void. That is evidence of state practice.

      Article 1 “Definition of the term Refugee”, paragraph D, of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention has always stipulated that Palestinians registered with UNRWA will automatically become eligible for protection as refugees under the terms of the Convention in the event that UNRWA relief ceases for any reason before their position is definitively settled in accordance with relevant resolutions of the General Assembly

      D. This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.

      When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention.

      http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

      Chris Gunness, the UNRWA’s spokesman, explained General Assembly policy:

      All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved. Refugees in Kenya administered by UNHCR are a good example. In this regard, the accusation that UNRWA uniquely perpetuates the Palestine refugee problem is ignorant of international refugee law and practice.

      link to ynetnews.com

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 23, 2013, 11:05 pm

        Hostage:

        Chris Gunness, the UNRWA’s spokesman, explained General Assembly policy:

        All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved.

        But as Hostage argued previously in these pages:

        Finkelstein noted that there are many people who interpret RoR to mean that Israel must resettle 6 million Palestinian refugees in its territory.

        You obviously can’t argue that the presence of 600 thousand Jewish settlers, living among 4 million Palestinians, has destroyed the territorial integrity (demographic balance) of Palestine so severely that it precludes the establishment of two viable states, while at one and the same time maintaining that 6 million additional Palestinians can take-up residence among the 7.5 million existing Israelis without making the two state solution non-viable as well.

        Finkelstein says that you won’t succeed in fooling anyone outside of the BDS movement if you try – and I think he is correct about that.

        You can explain all about the Roman exile of the Jews and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 48 and 67, but most people will still refuse to accept the idea of an unqualified “right of return” for descendants born in other countries decades, or even generations later.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/norman-finkelsteins-disinformation-about-bds.html/comment-page-1#comment-472392

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 25, 2013, 11:15 pm

        Hostage:

        Chris Gunness, the UNRWA’s spokesman, explained General Assembly policy:

        All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved.

        But as Hostage argued previously in these pages:

        Your are comparing refugee communities to refugees residing outside their country of origin and ignoring the prescribed modes of resolving the individual’s final status other than repatriation. The refugee status assigned to descendants by the UN does not in any way depend upon their presence outside their country of origin. The conventional law contained in the UN Charter and Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention can extend protection to any group as “refugees” per se, until their status is resolved in accordance with the applicable resolutions of the General Assembly.

        The General Assembly has adopted resolutions and endorsed reports from its subordinate organs which say that Israel is under a binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967.

        So far as I know, the General Assembly has never adopted an unambiguous resolution on the final status of the adult descendants of refugees who were subsequently born abroad. It has affirmed and reaffirmed relevant Security Council resolutions which call for “a just settlement of the Palestine refugee question”. The term “settlement” is incompatible with the exercise of an unqualified right.

        I’ve noted many times that there is a great deal of evidence regarding the customary state practice of restoring citizenship in cases where the individual concerned would have been one, if not for the adoption of discriminatory laws. It’s a fact that customary law, unlike conventional law, is not pre-empted by the supremacy clause in the UN Charter and that the General Assembly and Security Council are unconditionally bound to respect customary norms. But even if the ICJ advised that descendants had a right of return to Israel, I think Finkelstein’s observations about the lack of public support for enforcement are still correct.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 23, 2013, 11:24 pm

        fnlevit, consider also:

        Hostage:

        The refugees right to return and take-up residency in Israel and the right to compensation for expropriated property are STRICTLY BASED UPON GUARANTEES CONTAINED IN UN RESOLUTIONS that became legally binding upon the State of Israel under the old fashioned contract law theory of acceptance spelled-out in General Assembly resolution 181(II).

        (emphasis added)

        ———————

        Hostage:

        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.

        ———————-

        Hostage:

        …972 Magazine ran an article which said that polls conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research indicated 90 percent of the refugees preferred compensation in lieu of the right of return to Israel.

        ———————-

        Walid:

        The Arab peace proposal of 2002 (Beirut) that contained a provision about numbers of returnees to be mutually agreed upon, to be gradual and over number of years, was endorsed by Arafat, who at the time was under siege in his Ramallah compound.

        The issue crept again a little while back with the Jazeera-leaked Palestine papers that described the RoR negotiations between Israel and Erekat/Abbas that discussed something like 10,000 returnees at most over a 10 or 15 year period. So we can more or less say that Abbas has also agreed.

        One of the stumbling blocks with RoR not being openly discussed is Israel’s wish to impose some kind of limitation on the number of returnees to a new Palestine. Israel’s concerns had been about being drowned by the millions of returnees to the West Bank and Gaza along with the ensuing water problems for both Palestine and Israel. Another is the refugee population in Lebanon and others in Syria and Jordan (total is around 2 million) that none of these countries can absorb.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 24, 2013, 9:09 pm

        In Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey et al, decision of 1 March 2010, — ECHR 2010

        There are quite a few caveats regarding the judgment in that case that tend to make it inapplicable to the situation of displaced or exiled Palestinians.

        1) The government of Israel has repeatedly acknowledged the obligation to pay compensation to the Palestinian refugees.

        2) The European Court of Human Rights was only dealing with the means of exercising human rights and obtaining remedies “pending” a final solution of the Cyprus problem. It ordered the plaintiffs to first seek a remedy from the Turkish Immovable Property Commission as an intermediate step. The Turkish Commission’s statute stipulates that it’s decisions can be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. The statute also notes that the decisions of the Commission are not final and that “a decision for restitution of property may take effect after the settlement of the Cyprus Problem, in line with the provisions of the settlement.”

        3) The complaints and judgment were based entirely upon the European Convention on Human Rights, not upon the Geneva Conventions or Protocols. The latter make it a war crime, not just “a lamentable situation”, to delay repatriation of displaced persons or refugees.
        http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079

        4) The European Convention and the judgment require exhaustion of remedies under local law. But those laws have been declared null and void or legally invalid by the UN Security Council pursuant to resolution 451 (1983), & etc. The remedy proposed by Turkey was based upon the TRNC Constitution and a TRNC law modeled on the Annan Plan. But the Annan Plan was rejected in a national referendum conducted by the government of Cyprus. The provisions of special agreements can’t renounce the protections for displaced persons contained in the Geneva Conventions in any event. See Articles 6, 7, and 8 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
        * http://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/380
        * http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/541%20%281983%29

        5) The Israeli Supreme Court has rejected arguments based upon the passage of time, the arrival of new generations, the fact the property has changed hands several times, & etc. It has ordered evictions and restitution of property to the original owners or their successors in interest based upon Ottoman era titles older than those in the Demopoulos case. In fact the ECHR noted that the Turkish Immovable Property Commission had ordered restitution in at least two cases and compensation for lost rents and usage in many more, including individual awards of more than a million dollars.

        6) The arguments advanced by the government of Cyprus on behalf of the plaintiffs, based upon international law and the applicable Security Council resolutions, would prevail in any case before the ICJ or ICC.
        http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-97649

      • annie
        annie
        August 25, 2013, 4:21 pm

        Sibiriak , i fail to grasp your overriding point. could you ad some commentary to your ‘evidence’ provided in your blockquotes as to your point, assuming there is one.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 26, 2013, 12:58 am

        Annie Robbins

        Sibiriak , i fail to grasp your overriding point.

        My “overriding point” is that the exact meaning and requirements of international law in regards to the Palestinian RoR are not at all clear, and the Palestinian position is quite flexible on actual implemenation of the RoR.

        As Hostage recently reiterated in response to my posts:

        So far as I know, the General Assembly has never adopted an unambiguous resolution on the final status of the adult descendants of refugees who were subsequently born abroad. It has affirmed and reaffirmed relevant Security Council resolutions which call for “a just settlement of the Palestine refugee question”. The term “settlement” is incompatible with the exercise of an unqualified right.

        And:

        … even if the ICJ advised that descendants had a right of return to Israel, I think Finkelstein’s observations about the lack of public support for enforcement are still correct.

        “Even if” implies the ICJ might very well advise that descendants DID NOT have a right to return. In any case, as Finkelstein and Hostage pointed out, there is little governmental or public support for an unqualified RoR, so enforcement would be highly problematic.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 26, 2013, 3:39 am

        “Even if” implies the ICJ might very well advise that descendants DID NOT have a right to return.

        Flip the question around and ask why didn’t the Zionists ever go to Court to vindicate their own claims to a Jewish RoR? All their arguments are pseudolegal-sounding irredentist nonsense meant only for public consumption.

        These ideas are not the sort of thing the Court’s are likley to endorse or encourage. No Court would ever have upheld the right of 6 or 7 million Jewish descendants to do what the Zionists have done in Palestine. They aren’t likely to do it on behalf of Palestinian descendants either. It’s still a different question from the issue of compensation for heirs and assignees of estates for their losses.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 24, 2013, 12:00 am

        Hostage:

        The state parties have left it up to the General Assembly to decide the status of persons receiving UN assistance.

        On the other hand, Hostage has pointed out that:

        …the General Assembly simply delegated responsibility for identifying and registering the Palestine and other refugees to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), or the UN Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Those organs made the determination that all refugee communities have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved.

        That determination is not grounded on any requirement of international law.

        In all likelihood Israel would challenge that in the ICJ as ultra vires to the powers and functions of the General Assembly if Palestinians ever attempted to enforce the right of return.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/bds-interview-fallout-finkelstein-showed-his-own-fear-of-the-paradigm-shift-in-discourse-on-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict.html/comment-page-1#comment-426066

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 26, 2013, 12:23 am

        Hostage:

        The state parties have left it up to the General Assembly to decide the status of persons receiving UN assistance.

        On the other hand, Hostage has pointed out that:

        I fail to see your point. Article 22 of the UN Charter empowers the General Assembly to establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions. J.C. Hurewitz was writing articles in the Eisenhower era which said it had already created a dozen to deal with the Question of Palestine. The rest of what I said is simply an observation. The determinations made by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), or the UN Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) weren’t based upon any requirement of international law.

        There is a safeguarding clause in the Refugee Convention which allows a descendant residing in his or her own country of origin and receiving support or protection from a UN Agency to continue to enjoy the protection of the Refugee Convention, until such time as that person’s status is definitively settled in accordance with resolutions of the General Assembly. But the protections of that Convention do not provide for an automatic right of repatriation to a second-party state.

        Israel has publicly challenged the determination of the UNRWA on the refugee status of descendants. I don’t think that’s a winning argument. But it’s another question altogether whether the parties to the UN Charter or the Refugee Convention intended to grant the General Assembly the discretion to confer a right of residency or citizenship on a person born abroad, since that isn’t one of its functions and powers under the UN Charter or one of the protections mentioned in the Refugee Convention.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 26, 2013, 1:14 am

        Hostage:

        [Sibiriak] On the other hand, Hostage has pointed out that:

        I fail to see your point.

        My point was simply to restate this point of yours, which you just repeated–

        The determinations made by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), or the UN Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) weren’t based upon any requirement of international law.

        –and to elicit further discussion of the topic. You make good points, in that regard:

        the protections of that [Refugee] Convention do not provide for an automatic right of repatriation to a second-party state.

        it’s another question altogether whether the parties to the UN Charter or the Refugee Convention intended to grant the General Assembly the discretion to confer a right of residency or citizenship on a person born abroad, since that isn’t one of its functions and powers under the UN Charter or one of the protections mentioned in the Refugee Convention.

        Those are important observations, imo.

  8. August 23, 2013, 1:29 pm

    Here is another poll conducted by Haaretz
    Survey: 55% of Israelis say they’re inclined to vote for peace deal

    Thirty-nine percent of respondents said they would support any plan Netanyahu presented, while another 16 percent said they would probably approve such a plan. Twenty percent were sure they would vote against.
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.537586

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      August 23, 2013, 2:33 pm

      Did they poll the idf and ask soldiers which side in the jewish civil war over thevevacuation of hebron they would choose?

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      August 23, 2013, 4:17 pm

      fnlevit says: “Thirty-nine percent of respondents said they would support any plan Netanyahu presented, while another 16 percent said they would probably approve such a plan.”

      I’m sure they would do, we all know what plan Netanyahu and other revisionists would “present”.

  9. August 23, 2013, 1:35 pm

    Here are the results for the other side – comparable.
    The survey, conducted between July 31 and August 3, covered some 500 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and has a margin of error of 5 percent.

    According to the poll, 51% of respondents support the resumption of peace talks with Israel. Only 38% said they were opposed to the resumption of the peace talks, while another 6.3% said they had no opinion.
    http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Over-50-percent-of-Palestinians-back-peace-talks-survey-finds-322291

  10. seafoid
    seafoid
    August 23, 2013, 5:05 pm

    ” many Israelis now favor negotiating a temporary agreement in which all territorial concessions will be postponed to what many hope will be the indefinite future. ”

    Israel may never get a better chance to secure the Jewish future in the Middle East. It would be a pity to lose the house by betting on YESHA.

  11. Shingo
    Shingo
    August 23, 2013, 6:08 pm

    Let’s see Miriam try to spin this poll as misleading.

  12. Les
    Les
    August 24, 2013, 4:18 pm

    53% piece loving versus 39% peace loving.

  13. BillM
    BillM
    August 26, 2013, 11:20 am

    The JPost had an even worse poll:

    http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Poll-One-fifth-of-Jewish-Israelis-prefer-Palestinian-state-in-Jordan-rather-than-the-West-Bank-324254

    Result is support for:
    Palestinian state in the West Bank – 11% (!)
    Palestinian state in Jordan – 19% (no info on support for Palestinian state on the moon)
    Status quo – 41% (who says Israel doesn’t love it?)
    No idea – 29%

    This strikes me as far more accurate than the previous poll, i.e. that before you even start talking devilish details, Jewish Israeli support for a two state solution is near single digits.

Leave a Reply