Trending Topics:

Ending seventy years of exile for Palestinian refugees

Israel/Palestine

As I write this piece 47 Palestinians have been shot dead and thousands injured in Gaza by the Israeli army since the beginning of the “Great Return March” on March 30th. The March demands the realization of the right of return of Palestine refugees to the territory from which they were displaced between 1947 and 1949.

After seventy years, most of the over 6 million Palestinian refugees continue to reside in the Middle East, the vast majority spread between Jordan, Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon. Some fleeing instability in the region, have moved to Europe and North America and others, more recently, further afield, to Asia and Africa. For most of them, the conflict over Palestine is all but a past event. It is at the very root of the ongoing statelessness and ‘refugeehood’ the majority of them still endure.

For Palestinians the question of “return” is an existential matter, as its realization would redress the injustice of expulsion and dispossession and help them restore their dignity as ‘a people’, often denied by successive Israeli governments. For Israelis, the return of those displaced in 1947-1949, and their descendants, is by no means less existential, as it is often portrayed as a threat to the Jewish character, and therefore survival, of the State of Israel.

The right of return

The right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes and villages left behind in 1947-1949 (and from the rest of Mandate Palestine in the following years), is rooted in international law as it stood at the time. In 1948, Israel was already under an obligation to repatriate and compensate those displaced under the laws of war, which had become customary law by 1945, when it was also reaffirmed in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal Chart and then at the Nuremberg Trials. Through UN General Assembly Resolution 194 adopted in late 1948, the international community stated its will about how the conflict should be resolved. With reference to the refugees, it made the applicability of the right of return authoritatively specific to the Palestinian case, as part of the overall settlement the resolution contained. As Israel eventually signed various refugee, humanitarian and human rights conventions, its legal obligations vis-à-vis Palestinian refugees have grown stronger. In spite of this, the displacement of Palestinians from Israel continued throughout the early 1950s, and since 1967 from and within the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

The backing of international law notwithstanding, the path to fulfil the rights of Palestinian refugees appears to be as tortuous as ever.  The UNCCP, the UN body mandated to negotiate their return as part of a comprehensive solution to the conflict, has become de facto defunct since the early 1960s. Neither the Security Council, nor the various peace mediators and negotiators have succeeded to advance the issue. Within the narrow perimeter of the direct negotiations Israel-PLO, focus has progressively shifted from return to self-determination, with the view of establishing a Palestinian State. While the two rights are all but mutually exclusive, isolation around Palestinian refugees’ claims has grown thicker.

Diplomatic action from key countries has been limited to little more than lip service. Besides providing financial support to Palestinian refugees for decades, European countries have been unable to make progress towards fulfilling their stated wish for a political solution of the conflict in a way that would also address the claims of the refugees. The United States (with the exception, perhaps, of the Clinton’s administration) has long abdicated its role of refugee advocate enshrined in President Truman’s initial support for Palestinian refugees. The recent decision of the US Administration to dramatically curtail UNRWA funding is the last nail on the coffin of that role. Political convenience priming over established norms, seems to be the conclusion no one has ever dared to challenge.

Arab States have not been faring better in this respect. Commendably, they have been hosting the majority of Palestinian refugees, at times when their own capacities and resources were limited. While in some states most Palestinian refugees obtained socio-economic opportunities, either connected to citizenship (Jordan) or treatment on-par with nationals (pre-war Syria, pre-war Iraq); in some others, they have been treated as ‘aliens’, often denied of the most basic rights (Lebanon and subsequently Egypt). Improving refugees’ living conditions – was the adagio – will reduce their chances of return. Worth mentioning, this contrasts with both the obligations under the main human rights treaties most of them have progressively ratified and the fact that enjoying a decent standard of living doesn’t conflict with return. As time passed, Palestinian refugees in Arab countries resented the evolution (and stalemate) of the conflict with Israel, and often paid the brunt for the relationship Arab States-PLO. The multiple counts of displacements, and the related challenges, endured by hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in the region, such as Kuwait in 1991, Libya in 1995, Iraq in 2003, Syria from 2011, to name a few, speak volumes to the problem. Precarious status and progressive curtailing of their economic, social and physical wellbeing has limited the possibility of many Palestinian refugees to evolve into an accomplished, self-reliant and active diaspora, able to stand for and speak for itself. While strongly asserting the Palestinians’ right of return as the desired solution to their question, most Arab diplomacy, has substantially done little to advance this right.

Seventy years on, Palestinian refugees seem to have been trapped by their own right. Resolution 194 has been an inspiring model in resolving other refugee crises. Unlike millions of refugees who had fled conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia Herzegovina, East Timor and Central America, to name a few, for whom the UN Security Council affirmed the right to ‘safe return of the displaced to their homes’, Palestinian refugees have not seen this right coming any closer. In fact all the durable solutions afforded by international law to refugees (of which return is the most preferred one followed by local integration and resettlement) – none of which is tied to the political solution of an underlying conflict– have remained untouched to Palestinians. Other refugee situations demonstrate that the implementation of the right of return depends on political factors such as the will of the ‘country of origin’ and a firm stand by the international community. So far, Israel has been adamant in rejecting such a return, contesting its foundation, invoking security, demographic and existential concerns, and continuing to erode the grounds for its realization.  Despite this political constellation, Palestinian refugees have often been under pressure – by the PLO and Arab States – not to seek protection as refugees or stateless persons outside of the region, so that even amidst danger and violence in the region Palestinian refugees were not resettled. The recent counts of Palestinian refugees from Lebanon, ready to afford a perilous journey across the Mediterranean sea in search for a more decent life, testify the short-sightedness of this approach.   

While Israel remains the only country standing against the implementation of their right of return – as well as the main responsible for the ongoing occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza – it is no longer the only state whose actions’ legality and morality toward Palestinian refugees deserve scrutiny. The West’s route of disengagement, and the lack of coherence between words and deeds of some Arab states has also had a detrimental impact on the situation of Palestinian refugees and their long-term prospects.

The return of rights

Silenced politically and often legally misrepresented, the Palestinians’ right to return still offers much to be advocated for. After seventy years, Palestinian refugees need to see an end to their exile, starting with the recognition of their rights under human rights treaties both Israel and host countries have ratified. Their right to return, solidly grounded in international law, needs Western and Arab alignment for there to be any chance for it to be implemented or to be leveraged in favour of a solution to their question. Without international and regional pressure to seek acknowledgement of the plight of refugees and offer satisfaction to their claims (which does not necessarily mean accepting their return en masse), Israel will have no incentive to relinquish the status quo. Consequently, the return Palestinians are longing for will not have a chance to materialize, even in limited part. Pending a resolution to the conflict, Palestinian refugees should enjoy effective protection, and be supported to pursue solutions to their situation based on their will, independently from any political agenda.

The “Great Return March” is a sobering reminder of the conspicuous lack of political will that has been maintaining the Palestinian refugees in a status of oblivion. The ‘return’ that the refugees are invoking through the march represents much more than physical return to lost homes and villages. It is a cry for justice, a call for recognition of dignity and humanity amidst continuous negation of the most basic rights endured through long years of exile and inaction of the international community. It is also a reminder to all of us that the Palestinian question was a ‘refugee question’ first and foremost, and without a just solution for the refugees, a resolution of the conflict will not be sustainable. As Martin Luther King said, “A right delayed is a right denied”. And over 70 years of denial seem more than enough.

Francesca Albanese
About Francesca Albanese

Francesca Albanese is an international lawyer based in Washington DC. After working eight years for the United Nations including in the Middle East and in Jerusalem, the heart of the conflict over Palestine, she is currently engaged in research and advocacy on various humanitarian issues including the end of the military occupation in Palestine and the full recognition of Palestinians’ fundamental rights under international law.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

69 Responses

  1. mondonut
    mondonut
    May 10, 2018, 2:10 pm

    Once again, the Palestinians have no “right” to “return”. But props must be given for pure inventiveness, both for invoking non-existent 1945 customary law and bizarrely discovering a RoR within the trials of Nazis.

    And for the millionth time, UNGA 194 provides no rights at all. Nor does any General Assembly Resolution.

    • gamal
      gamal
      May 10, 2018, 2:51 pm

      “And for the millionth time, UNGA 194 provides no rights at all. Nor does any General Assembly Resolution”

      Yes thats Gods job

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        May 10, 2018, 5:08 pm

        @gamal

        Whose God?

    • pjdude
      pjdude
      May 10, 2018, 3:54 pm

      repeating a lie does make a fact yes they do

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        May 10, 2018, 5:07 pm

        @pjdude

        Then by all means, tell the world from where this “right” springs.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 10, 2018, 7:39 pm

        “Then by all means, tell the world from where this “right” springs.”

        Simple! They, the Palestinians, were living there, and got chased off by the Zionists, and their property stolen and many killed. They have a right to get it back, and to go back.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 10, 2018, 9:05 pm

        Mooser, you are appealing to morality.
        By now you should understand that Zionists don’t understand morality at all, and only understand legality when they can make the laws.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        May 10, 2018, 9:18 pm

        @Mooser

        Yea, that is “simple”. It is not however a legal right.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        May 10, 2018, 9:28 pm

        the same right everyone fleeing from war has to return to their homes. plus the terrorist state of israel set the rules you get 2 millenia to decide if you want to come back. the palestinians have a legal right to return to their country. that fascists prevent them with violence doesn’t negate that right.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        May 10, 2018, 9:44 pm

        @RoHa, Zionists don’t understand morality at all…

        Ha! Claiming the moral high ground by way of bigoted, sweeping generalizations.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        May 10, 2018, 9:49 pm

        @pjdude, the same right everyone fleeing from war has…

        Once again, if you want to claim a legal right, go ahead and tell everyone where that right comes from. Name the law, the treaty, the agreement or whatever you have.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 10, 2018, 10:11 pm

        Everybody fasten your seat belt, we’re going to flying down to San Remo where there’s rhythm and rights. C’mon fella, twirl that ol’ propeller!

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 11, 2018, 12:03 am

        It is a generalization based on observation of a lot of Zionists. You fit right in with your call for a legal right.

        People who understand morality know that moral rights are more important than legal rights when action is to be decided.

        People who only take legal rights into account work on the principle that legal rights can be enforced. This is, ultimately, appeal to force. Such a position shows a lack of understanding of morality.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        May 11, 2018, 3:28 am

        the geneva conventions for starters but given you support israel its doubtful you feel they matter.
        article 49 of the fourth to be specific. also the universal decleration of human rights. again i get it as a zionist you feel jews deserve to be special and have veto privilages over others rights you don’t

      • Misterioso
        Misterioso
        May 11, 2018, 10:35 am

        @mondonut

        “Once again, if you want to claim a legal right, go ahead and tell everyone where that right comes from. Name the law, the treaty, the agreement or whatever you have.”

        Sigh.
        Reality:

        On 11 December 1948, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 (III) of which paragraph 11 resolves “…refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the 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 the Governments or authorities responsible….”

        On 11 May 1949, the General Assembly passed Resolution 273 granting Israel admittance to the UN (after being rejected twice.) As a pre-condition, Israel formally agreed at the UN to obey General Assembly Resolution 194. Along with Arab states and Palestinian representatives, Israel also signed the Lausanne Protocol at the 1949 Lausanne Peace Conference to the same effect.

        Israel’s pledge to abide by the terms of Resolution 194 was made legally binding by incorporating it into Resolution 273 (11 May 1949) granting Israel UN membership: “Recalling and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by [Israel]…in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, the General Assembly… decides to admit Israel into membership in the United Nations.” Israel is the only state admitted to the UN on the condition that specific resolutions would be implemented.

        Over the years several UN resolutions have been passed affirming the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. One of the most important is General Assembly Resolution 3236 (22 November 1974) which acknowledges that all those made refugees since 1947 have an inalienable right to return. Paragraph 1 refers to the national inalienable rights of “the Palestinian people” and paragraph 2 provides that the General Assembly “[r]eaffirms also the inalienable rights of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return.”

        Mandatory UN Security Council Resolution 605 (22 December 1987) reaffirmed that all Palestinian refugees, including those of the 1947-48 conflict, have an inalienable right to return to their homes. Resolution 605 refers to “the inalienable rights of all peoples recognized by the Charter of the United Nations and proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

        Throughout history the right of return was so universally accepted that it was not codified until 1215, in Chapter 42 of the Magna Carta: “It shall be lawful in the future for anyone…to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water….”

        The right of return was further enshrined in international law when the United Nations adopted The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 1948) of which Article 13(2) states: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country.” The United Nations adopted The Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 (Resolution 217 A III), the day before Resolution 194 was passed. By gaining UN membership Israel agreed to abide by the Declaration’s terms.

        The next important document dealing with human rights, including the right of return, was the Fourth Geneva Convention (12 August 1949) of which Article 49 states “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.” Israel is a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

        The legality and sanctity of the right of return was further demonstrated by the vigorous diplomatic and military efforts on the part of Western powers to ensure the return of refugees in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor.

        To sum up: The Palestinian refugees’ right of return is an “inalienable” human right. Under no circumstances can it be renounced by their leadership. It can only be surrendered on an individual basis, e.g., as stipulated in Resolution 194, by accepting financial compensation for losses incurred rather than the right of return. Indeed, it is not only the legal right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to insist on their right of return, it is their duty on behalf of all humanity.

        BTW, there is no special provision in international law that enables Israel to violate it with impunity.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        May 11, 2018, 2:12 pm

        @Misterioso, Big sigh…
        @pjdude. again, I get it… (No. No you do not)

        Nice cut and paste job, but I seriously doubt you even read what you posted.

        UN General Assembly Resolution 194: Once again, this is a GA Resolution and it confers no rights. So, a big nope.

        UN General Assembly Resolution 273: While the UNGA resolution that gave recognition to Israel mentioned the earlier UNGA resolutions, nothing in its language says that Israel’s becoming a member of the UN is contingent on its acceptance of those non-binding resolutions. Recalling a resolution in the preamble does not constitute an obligation and most importantly, as you noted, the UN took note of Israel’s statement that it was not consenting to those resoltions:

        Referring to the jurisprudence of the United Nations relating to the admission of new Members, the representative of Israel stated that it was his Government’s understanding that nothing but the provisions of Article 4 were relevant in the consideration of an application for membership. That conviction, based on the spirit and the language of the Charter, had been confirmed by the General Assembly resolution of 8 December 1948 (197 (III)), which stated that juridically no State was entitled to make its consent to the admission of an applicant dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Charter.

        Lausanne Protocol: The Lausanne Protocol was an agreement on the framework for a comprehensive peace plan. Again, no obligation or binding agreement. It was simply an agreement on agenda items.

        UN General Assembly Resolution 3236: Another GA Resolution. Another big nope.

        UN Security Council Resolution 605: If I thought for a minute that you wrote any this, this is were I would call you a liar. That however is reserved for whoever did write it. The word “return” does not appear is this resolution, nor does the resolution attempt to make any agreement retroactive to 1947-48.

        The Magna Carta: Seriously?

        Fourth Geneva Convention (12 August 1949): This came into effect on came into effect on October 21, 1950, and no, it was not retroactive.

        The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Return to his country? And what country would that be? Certainly not Israel. And beyond that fact that the Declaration is non-binding, a mass migration of Palestinians into Israel would deprive Israelis of their rights in UDHR, specifcally Articel 30: “Nothing in this declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

      • Misterioso
        Misterioso
        May 11, 2018, 3:46 pm

        @modonut

        Triple sigh.
        BTW, I did “cut and paste,” but from my own university notes.

        To be clear: Apart from internal UN matters, resolutions passed by the General Assembly are recommendatory only. General Assembly resolutions are binding, however, if, as in the case of Resolution 194 (11), December 1948, (calling for the return of and/or compensation for Palestinian refugees of the 1948 conflict), they reflect international law, e.g., the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was passed and adopted by the UN on 10 December 1948. Resolutions passed by the Security Council are mandatory or binding, providing of course, that they comply with international law.

        As I previously noted, Israel’s pledge to abide by the terms of Resolution 194 and the Partition Plan was made legally binding by including it in General Assembly Resolution 273 (11 May 1949) granting Israel UN membership. The full text of Resolution 273 is as follows:
        “Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,
        “Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
        “Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,
        “Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it ‘unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations,
        “Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 [UNGA Resolution 181, the Partition Plan] 3/ and 11 December 1948 (UNGA Resolution 194 regarding repatriation of Palestinian refugees] and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,
        “The General Assembly,
        “Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
        “1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
        “2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.”

        To repeat,Israel is the only state admitted to the UN on the condition that specific resolutions would be obeyed

        Needless to say, Israel reneged on its commitment to abide by the terms of Resolution 194 as well as Resolution 181, the Partition Plan, which the Arab delegation, including Palestinian representatives, had accepted as a basis for peace negotiations at the Lausanne Peace Conference.

        There is no question whatsoever that Israel is legally bound to abide by the terms of Resolution 194 regarding refugees. Only Washington’s protection has prevented Israel from having its UN membership suspended, as happened to apartheid South Africa. Arab and Palestinian acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 242, 22 November 1967, resulted in Israel no longer having to obey Resolution 181, the Partition Plan, as it was rendered irrelevant. Resolution 194, however, remains fully in effect.

        For the record: Commenting on Israel’s refusal to live up to its commitment to abide by Resolution 194 as a precondition for gaining admittance to the UN, Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law, declared: “Insofar as Israel has violated its conditions for admission to UN membership, it must accordingly be suspended on a de facto basis from any participation throughout the entire United Nations system.” (Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, Clarity Press, Atlanta, 2003)

        Paragraph 11 of Resolution 194 resolves “that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the 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 the Governments or authorities responsible….”

        The Conciliation Commission for Palestine, formed in accordance with Resolution 194 and comprised of United States, France, and Turkey, is instructed by paragraph 11 “to initiate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency [UNRWA] for Palestine refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations.”

        After careful analysis, the Conciliation Commission for Palestine interpreted paragraph 11 as follows: “The General Assembly has laid down the principle of the right of the refugees to exercise a free choice between returning to their homes and being compensated for the loss of or damage to their property on the one hand, or, on the other, of not returning to their homes and being adequately compensated for the value of the property abandoned by them.” (Paragraph 38; UN Document A/AC. 25/W.81/Rev.2, pp. 20-21)

        The UN Secretariat (office of the secretary general) affirmed that Resolution 194 conferred individual rights on refugees by concluding that paragraph 11 “intended to confer upon the refugees as individuals the right of exercising a free choice as to their future.” (UN Doc. A/AC.25/w.45, 1950)

        Enough said. Throw away your hasbara handbook and due some basic research.
        To repeat, there is no special provision in international humanitarian law that enables Israel to violate it with impunity.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        May 11, 2018, 6:11 pm

        What can a refugee be except a) someone rightly exclude from home and country b) someone who was wrongfully excluded and who, since wrong does not create or destroy right, has a right to return hme? The first category is almost certainly empty, therefore all refugeees have a right of return. It doesn’t need a committee to meet and recognise this. Refugees status can be laid down if citizenship elsewhere is taken up. But where the status does continue so must the rights that the status logicslly brings with it,

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        May 11, 2018, 7:59 pm

        Mist,
        What were the “declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation..”
        Did Israel promise to fulfill the return of the refugees in these statements?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 11, 2018, 8:20 pm

        “Did Israel promise to fulfill the return of the refugees in these statements?”

        Did Hitler promise he wouldn’t go after the Jews? So how can anybody condemn Hitler for it?

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        May 12, 2018, 1:19 am

        @mondonut
        firstly thanks for admitting the lack of morality in your position by arguing but we did it before so are crimes are ok. jesus could you be any more morally bankrupt. secondly the fourth geneva convention reafirms and expands upon the hague conventions of 1899 and 1907 which if you’ll note is well after the jewish terrorists in palestine formed israel. so your wrong. the palestinians have their right to return to palestine, that your favorite war criminals and terrorists don’t want to is irrelevant they have the right to return.

        what rights do israelis have. a right cannot be confirmed through a crime? you cannot deny somneones preexisting rights by going nah uh i stole it fair and square.

  2. Keith
    Keith
    May 10, 2018, 4:59 pm

    FRANCESCA ALBANESE- (From the bio)- “Francesca Albanese is an international lawyer based in Washington DC.”

    Things look different from a DC armchair than from the ground in Gaza. I am with Norman Finkelstein on this. To emphasize the Right of Return while dozens of people are killed, many thousands injured and maimed by snipers, in the Gaza prison, while an illegal and immoral blockade continues will culminate in a complete disaster. A victory (how many have there been?) over the blockade would inspire the resistance. Another bloody defeat will likely break the resistance completely. If you can’t stop the killing and maiming NOW, and end the illegal blockade, you cannot reasonably expect to accomplish anything. You will have shown the Israeli Zionists that the BDS solidarity movement has no red lines which would cause mass mobilizations, preferring instead to focus on getting Rock Stars to not perform in Israel.

  3. Boris
    Boris
    May 11, 2018, 8:55 am

    3 key excerpts from this article:

    “For Palestinians the question of “return” is an existential matter”

    Yes, the Palestinian identity was created to flood Israel with Arabs and destroy the only Jewish state.

    “Palestinian refugees have often been under pressure – by the PLO and Arab States – not to seek protection as refugees or stateless persons outside of the region”

    They also don’t allow them to be absorbed into neighboring Arab countries and become citizens. On the other hand, one million Jews had been forced out of Arab/Muslim countries. There is plenty of space to settle these “refugees”, yet, countries hostile to Israel resist.

    “The recent counts of Palestinian refugees from Lebanon, ready to afford a perilous journey across the Mediterranean sea in search for a more decent life, testify the short-sightedness of this approach. “

    Here, you’ve read it. Settle them, stop calling them refugees, and the problem is solved.

    • Keith
      Keith
      May 11, 2018, 10:35 am

      BORIS- “Here, you’ve read it. Settle them, stop calling them refugees, and the problem is solved.”

      The impetus for all of these articles is the Gaza protest marches. The Gazans are under a blockade and cannot leave Gaza. They are illegally trapped under inhumane conditions. Your comment is a perfect example of why emphasizing the Right of Return instead of the illegal and immoral blockade is a bad idea. How easily you are able to misrepresent reality to make it appear that the Gazans could easily solve the problem. End the blockade and the killing and maiming, then we’ll talk.

    • Maghlawatan
      Maghlawatan
      May 11, 2018, 12:30 pm

      “Yes, the Palestinian identity was created to flood Israel with Arabs and destroy the only Jewish state.”

      Never argue with a moron

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        May 11, 2018, 6:13 pm

        The right not to be excluded from home and country of legitimate residence is eternal.

  4. Misterioso
    Misterioso
    May 11, 2018, 11:04 am

    @Boris

    “On the other hand, one million Jews had been forced out of Arab/Muslim countries.”

    Reality:
    To quote Yehouda Shenhav, of Iraqi Jewish heritage and professor of sociology and anthropology at Tel Aviv University: “Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi [Arab] Jews is unfounded. Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine….Those who left did not do so of their own volition. In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations.” (Ha’aretz, 8 October 2004.)

    Eminent historian, Avi Shlaim, born into an affluent and influential family in Baghdad: “We are not refugees, nobody expelled us from Iraq, nobody told us that we were unwanted. But we are the victims of the Israeli-Arab conflict.” (Ha’aretz, August 11, 2005)

    Yisrael Yeshayahu, speaker of the Knesset: “We are not refugees…. We had messianic aspirations.”

    Shlomo Hillel, former minister and speaker of the Knesset: “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”

    During a Knesset hearing into the matter, Ran Cohen, member of the Knesset: “I am not a refugee….I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee.”
    (Ha’aretz, October 8, 2004)

    It should not be forgotten that after having its bid for UN membership rejected twice, Israel signed the 1949 Lausanne Peace Conference Protocol and declared before the UN General Assembly that it would comply with UN Resolution 194, which, based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, calls for the repatriation of and/or compensation for the then near 800,000 Palestinian refugees dispossessed and expelled by Jewish forces and the IDF before and during the 1948 war (including 400,000 between late 1947 and 15 May 1948), as a precondition for gaining UN admittance (see UNGA Resolution 273, 11 May 1949.) Israel is the only country admitted to the UN subject to a precondition. It has since refused to comply with its pledge and should have long since had its UN membership cancelled or suspended.

    The bottom line is that while well over one million Palestinians were brutally expelled from their homeland by Jewish militias and the IDF between late 1947 and 1967, they played no role whatsoever in the emigration of or any ill treatment and or loss of assets that Jews of Arab origin may have experienced in their former homelands. In short, apples and oranges.

    • May 11, 2018, 6:44 pm

      Man you’re good – thx Misterioso for your wonderfully concise rebuttals.

      The Zionists who frequent this site do their part to
      parrot the misreps, half truths, lies and other deceptions hasbara central has sanctioned allowing the rest of us to expose their misinformation.

      Aside from the informative articles, those who i have directed to this site always tell me that the comment section was instrumental in swaying them to support the cause. Boris, jon s, Mayhem, Dabakr, et al (once again assuming they are separate people) thank you for assisting in ramping up support for the Palestinians by spewing easily refutable misinformation.

  5. wdr
    wdr
    May 11, 2018, 6:53 pm

    The great majority of these people are not refugees- despite what the author asserts. The only “refugees” are those who actually left in 1948, not their descendants, who have no conceivable “right of return.” Some of my great-grandparents left Russia for the US as refugees from Czarist anti-semitism. This does not make me a “refugee” from Russia, and I have no “right of return” to it.
    The whole case made by anti-Zionists about the “right of return” is utter nonsense. The Palestinians were offered 80% of the Mandate by the Peel Commission in 1936, and rejected the offer. They were offered 55% of the Mandate by the UN in 1947, and rejected the offer, with five Arab armies invading Israel to wipe it out. In 1949-67, the West Bank and Gaza were in Arab hands, but they were annexed by Jordan and Egypt without creating a Palestinian state. No Israeli government will ever allow any significant numbers of “refugees” to “return,” and activists like this author are wasting their time. Harping on this simply diverts from more realistic matters of negotiation. Israel is not going to commit national suicide.

    • eljay
      eljay
      May 11, 2018, 7:43 pm

      || wdr: The great majority of these people are not refugees- despite what the author asserts. The only “refugees” are those who actually left in 1948, not their descendants, who have no conceivable “right of return.” … ||

      Great. So we agree that the world should put pressure on Israel to:
      – repatriate the great minority of Israeli refugees back to within its / Partition borders; and
      – end its decades-long and on-going military occupation and colonization of Partition-borders Palestine so that all remaining refugees can return to their new homeland.

      || … The whole case made by anti-Zionists about the “right of return” is utter nonsense. … ||

      It pales by comparison to the utterly nonsensical case made by Zionists about:
      – Jewish citizens of homelands all over the world being “exiles” from geographic Palestine; and
      – geographic Palestine being the “ancient / historic / one true homeland” of every person in the world who chooses to be/come Jewish.

      || … Israel is not going to commit national suicide. ||

      Zionists aren’t worried about Israel – they’re worried about religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

    • pjdude
      pjdude
      May 12, 2018, 1:24 am

      again repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. this is a load of bs that was debunked decades ago. it is only indicative of your own biases.

  6. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    May 11, 2018, 10:16 pm

    Particularly as the winds of war are threatening us, it feels unwise to express optimistic thoughts about the rainbow that will come after the deluge that has not yet shown its worst. Nonetheless… If there is to be a real reconciliation between Jewish Zionists and Palestinians it will involve a coming to terms by Jewish zionists of the damage they (we) have done to the Palestinians and a mere intellectual concession will be insufficient if there is not a move in the direction of righting those wrongs, if not as complete as envisioned here. But focusing on the wrongs when we are not at the point of reconciliation seems to take our focus off of what needs to be the immediate concern: returning the Gaza strip to a degree of normalcy. Bibi and Lieberman are dedicated to the overthrow of Hamas: the disarming of Hamas. I have nothing against this goal, but I do not see it happening within the next 6 years, so I prefer a policy of reaching a modus vivendi with Hamas. I view the Gaza demonstrations/riots in that context, rather than in the context of solving the big problem.

  7. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    May 12, 2018, 9:39 am

    @YF
    ” Bibi and Lieberman are dedicated to the overthrow of Hamas: the disarming of Hamas. I have nothing against this goal, but I do not see it happening within the next 6 years, so I prefer a policy of reaching a modus vivendi with Hamas”

    Sorry Yonah I think that you need a factory refix or refit on this one. The Yahoo and Herr Liebermann have zero interest in a “modus vivendi” with Hamas. Remember Zioland helped spawn them in the first place as a divide and rule mechanism:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7grSsuFSS0
    In Hamas what they have now and what they have had for a long time is a tailor made convenient nasty existentially life threatening “terrorist” ogre firing occasional fireworks into Zioland on top of the supreme ogre Hezbollah and both of them supported supplied and funded by the greatest threat to humanity since the chosen started to walk on all fours Iran.
    A “modus vivendi” would de facto mean a peace agreement of some kind so no more bleating and whinging to the UN/World look at”existential threats” from Gaza. It would mean an end to the blockade. It would mean an end to those “lawn mowing” aerial bombing treats and it would mean an end to the freebie Untermenschen kills which the Chosen are currently enjoying so much. It would probably leave Israeli Zios traumatised particularly the most moral who may come down with an inverted form of PTSD – what you mean we can`t shoot them at will any more , why are you depriving us of our right to have fun . Counselling may have to be offered especially to the medics in their numbers.

  8. Qualtrough
    Qualtrough
    May 12, 2018, 1:59 pm

    For the life of me, I can’t understand people who say it is ridiculous for Palestinians to want the right of return while at the same time believing in the right of return for anyone who is Jewish. The mental gymnastics necessary to believe that must be exhausting.

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976
      May 12, 2018, 6:11 pm

      You hit that nail squarely on the head, Q. But the exhausting mental gymnastics win applause

      • Qualtrough
        Qualtrough
        May 13, 2018, 12:51 am

        Thanks. Here’s another one. US President and Israeli surrogate Donald Trump just signed a law requiring European countries to document steps they have taken to recompense holocaust victims who suffered damages when they were expelled by the Nazis and Nazi-backed regimes and their property confiscated. Admirable. But to consider doing the same for the 800,000 dispossessed Palestinians and their descendants is sheer craziness. You can’t make this stuff up.

        https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-trump-signs-law-to-recover-jewish-property-from-holocaust-1.6075141

  9. Nathan
    Nathan
    May 12, 2018, 2:07 pm

    “So far, Israel has been adamant in rejecting such a return, contesting its foundation, invoking security, demographic and existential concerns…”

    Since the author of the article, Francesca Albanese, is an international lawyer “currently engaged in research and advocacy on various humanitarian issues…” – I would like to refer her to a document that any international lawyer should be familiar with: The Interim Agreement (Oslo 2), signed on Sept 28, 1995.

    In the Interim Agreement, it was agreed upon that the final status agreement (the end of conflict) will deal with five issues: Jerusalem, Palestinian statehood, settlements, borders, and REFUGEES. In very simple terms, it has been agreed that the refugee issue will be resolved through negotiations and the signing of an end-of-conflict deal. Mr Arafat signed that agreement. Moreover, the signing was witnessed by the UN, the EU, the USA, the Russian Federation, Egypt, Jordan and Norway. It’s now an international agreement.

    Now, does the negotiation of the refugee issue mean that there is a right of return? No. It means that the two sides must reach an agreement. The content of that agreement is still unknown. The Arab League peace initiative also clarifies that the there must be an agreement about the refugees.

    The public debate should now focus on renewing the negotiations. The lack of negotiations means that the interim status quo continues indefinitely.

    Obviously, the problem of the anti-Israel community is that a negotiated end of the conflict means having to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel (and that’s final and forever). Since such an option is unthinkable, the author has to pretend that there is no need to negotiate with Israel the goals of the Palestinians, “none of which is tied to the political solution of an underlying conflict” (as she phrased it). However, it has been agreed that all issues are tied to the political solution of the underlying conflict.

    I understand that in the anti-Israel community it is absolutely impossible to criticize the Palestinian conduct in this conflict. The logic is that any criticism might be understood as being a pro-Israel statement. It should be added, however, that a real pro-Palestinian person is one who is able to express some constructive criticism. This means having the courage to say to them that it’s in their best interest to renew the negotiations. This means having the courage to tell them that that refusing to end the conflict with Israel is a statement that they actually prefer the continuing refugee status.

    However, there are very few pro-Palestinian activists around – even among the Palestinians themselves. There are, on the other hand, plenty of anti-Israel activists.

    • pjdude
      pjdude
      May 12, 2018, 4:01 pm

      Israel reneged on the deal almost from day one. one is not beholden to contract when the other party has violated it. a people cannot give away their rights nor can they be forced to do so.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        May 12, 2018, 5:55 pm

        Pj,
        “a people cannot give away their rights”
        People waive their rights for many reasons. Individually or collectively.
        For example, you may waive your right to remain silent during a police interrogation.
        One of the reasons for Brexit is the desire of Britain to regain control of isome of its rights to immigration and border policy. Rights which it gave up and relegated to the EU.
        https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/waiver

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        May 13, 2018, 5:29 pm

        jon you’ll note neither of the things you used as examples in regards to brexit are rights. and while you can waive your miranda rights you know by speaking but by waiving the right its only in a unique instance you cannot just give up the right wholesale and as you ignored you cannot be coerced into doing so. everything the palestinians have given up has been coerced.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        May 13, 2018, 9:20 pm

        Pj,
        The Brexit examples are sovereign rights of a country/people.
        Miranda was one example of a right that can be waived. Individuals waive rights to many things all of the time.
        It’s not waiving a right if its coerced. But individuals may waive for many reasons.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      May 14, 2018, 2:02 am

      Since Israel has violated the Oslo accords, they are now a dead letter. It is time for you to understand this.

      Even if we revive the Oslo accords and accept the idea of negotiation, I will point out that being prepared to negotiate does not abrogate the right of return. On the contrary, what is to be negotiated is a just solution, and justice requires the right to be recognised. The negotiations could be about how the right is to be realised, or about whether some Palestinians would rather give up the right in return for compensation.

      But I’m not sure what point there would be in negotiating with a party that will not keep any agreement.

      • Nathan
        Nathan
        May 22, 2018, 9:45 am

        No, RoHa, being prepared to negotiate the issue of refugees means that no one knows what will be the results of the negotiation. Maybe it will be agreed that refugees will be allowed to return, but maybe it will be agreed that they won’t. Who knows?

        The Oslo Agreement is, obviously, still valid. Anti-Israel people don’t like the Oslo Agreement (it recognized the State of Israel), so they like to claim that it has “timed out” or that it has “been violated” or whatever. However, the PA still exists, the collecting of taxes still goes on, the security coordination is still intact, etc.

        It’s interesting that you oppose negotiating with Israel. Not negotiating means that the present situation continues. It’s hard to imagine that pro-Palestinian people can gripe and cry about the plight of the Palestinians while at the same time they can’t imagine negotiating an end of conflict with Israel. The conclusion is so obvious: There aren’t really any pro-Palestinian activists. The real activism is anti-Israel activism.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 22, 2018, 10:54 am

        || Nathan: … It’s hard to imagine that pro-Palestinian people can gripe and cry about the plight of the Palestinians while at the same time they can’t imagine negotiating an end of conflict with Israel. … ||

        Zionists love the idea of negotiating “peace” because “peace”:
        – allows Israel to remain a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”;
        – allows Israel to keep most of what it has stolen;
        – absolves Israel of its obligations under international law (incl. RoR); and
        – absolves Israel of accountability for past and on-going (war) crimes committed.

        It’s not hard at all to imagine that pro-victim people care about the plight of the victims but don’t want to negotiate an “end of conflict” with the rapist.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 23, 2018, 12:44 am

        I know what you think negotiation of the refugee issue means.

        “The Oslo Agreement is, obviously, still valid.”

        There may be aspects of the Oslo agreement that are still in place, but the various serious breaches mean that the agreement is now defunct.

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-israel-reneged-colonial-palestine
        http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/13/oslo-accords-explained.html
        https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/101671/palestinian-authority-chairman-abbas-oslo-agreement-dead/

        “… they can’t imagine negotiating an end of conflict with Israel.”

        It is obvious that the only end to the conflict that Israel would agree to is one in which Israel gets everything and the Palestinians go away. Israel will lie, cheat, and break any interim agreement that does not achieve that end. (Shared values with the USA: can’t be trusted to keep a deal.)
        So, as I said, not a lot of point in negotiating.

  10. jon s
    jon s
    May 12, 2018, 5:58 pm

    Resolution 194, article 11. “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the 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 the Governments or authorities responsible;”

    A few notes:

    All the Arab states voted against resolution 194 at the time.

    It does not specifically mention Palestinian refugees. It could be understood to include the Jews forced to leave the Arab countries.

    It does not mention descendants of the refugees.

    “…live at peace with their neighbors…” Probably one of the reasons the Arab states rejected it.

    …”Governments or authorities responsible”. Note “governments” in the plural. Not (only ) Israel.

    • pjdude
      pjdude
      May 13, 2018, 5:30 pm

      of course it didn’t mentioned descendants no one thought a country would so viciously abrograte its responsibilities. but israel did but what can you expect of a country founded on by war criminals and terrorists.

    • Jackdaw
      Jackdaw
      May 14, 2018, 12:50 am

      “It does not mention descendants of the refugees.”
      “It does not mention descendants of the refugees.”
      “It does not mention descendants of the refugees.”

      That statement bears repetition.

      “It does not mention descendants of the refugees.”
      “It does not mention descendants of the refugees.”

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 14, 2018, 8:14 am

        || Jackdaw: “It does not mention descendants of the refugees.” … That statement bears repetition. … ||

        But it does mention refugees. Get that through your thick head, hop to it and repatriate those refugees before they’re all dead and…oh, I see what you Zionists are doing.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        May 14, 2018, 5:43 pm

        spirit vs letter of the law.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      May 14, 2018, 2:13 am

      “It does not specifically mention Palestinian refugees. It could be understood to include the Jews forced to leave the Arab countries.”

      I suspect that is the way it should be read. Including Jews does not exclude Palestinians.

  11. German Lefty
    German Lefty
    May 13, 2018, 4:55 pm

    I just read this German-language article about the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem. I am amazed that the article mentions the Nakba and explains what it is.
    https://www.freenet.de/nachrichten/politik/israel-bereitet-sich-auf-einweihung-der-neuen-usbotschaft-und-proteste-vor_6609298_4702788.html

  12. Jackdaw
    Jackdaw
    May 14, 2018, 12:47 am

    500,000+ Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

    Shhh.

    • eljay
      eljay
      May 14, 2018, 8:10 am

      || Jackdaw: 500,000+ Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

      Shhh. ||

      Since they’ve acquired citizenship elsewhere, they’re not refugees. Shhh.

      Poor Konrad Lorenz… :-(

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        May 14, 2018, 10:26 am

        Eljay,
        “Since they’ve acquired citizenship elsewhere, they’re not refugees.”
        Apparently that rule does not apply to Palestinian refugees although you would think so.

        “More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.

        Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship.”
        https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/jordan

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 14, 2018, 12:00 pm

        || Jon66: Eljay,
        “Since they’ve acquired citizenship elsewhere, they’re not refugees.”
        Apparently that rule does not apply to Palestinian refugees although you would think so.

        “More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.

        Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship.”
        https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/jordan ||

        IMO if they have accepted citizenship they are not refugees – they are citizens of Jordan.

        With that “demographic threat” (as Zionists like to call non-Jews) out of the way, Israel can get on with:
        – expediting the return to Partition-borders Israel of those Palestinians who are still refugees from Partition-borders Israel; and
        – no longer preventing the return to Partition-borders Palestine of those Palestinians who are still refugees from Partition-borders Palestine.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        May 14, 2018, 1:02 pm

        Eljay,
        We still are facing the central issue that before any repatriation, we don’t even have an agreed definition of who is or is not a refugee. UNWRA defines Palestinians who have accepted alternative citizenship as refugees, but common usage does not.
        Personally, I think Israel should allow repatriation and citizenship to any individuals who resided in the area that is now Israel prior to 1948 and who are willing to live in peace with their neighbors. But neither the definition or policy is up to me.
        Do you have any thoughts on why UNWRA A would have this policy?

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 14, 2018, 1:12 pm

        || Jon66: Eljay,
        We still are facing the central issue that before any repatriation, we don’t even have an agreed definition of who is or is not a refugee. … ||

        Israel didn’t need an “agreed definition” in order to drive Palestinians out; IMO it doesn’t need an “agreed definition” in order to start bringing them back in.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        May 14, 2018, 4:18 pm

        Eljay,
        “Israel didn’t need an “agreed definition” in order to drive Palestinians out; IMO it doesn’t need an “agreed definition” in order to start bringing them back in.”

        Of course it does. Otherwise anyone who claims to be a “refugee” could simply enter. Then it’s just an open border.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 14, 2018, 5:20 pm

        || Jon66: … Of course it does. Otherwise anyone who claims to be a “refugee” could simply enter. Then it’s just an open border. ||

        What’s required – with or without a definition – is a way to validate a claim. I imagine that some Palestinian refugees from Israel have documentation that would validate their refugee claims. Nothing prevents Israel from processing their claims immediately and repatriating them while it waits for a definition.

        Where there’s a will, there’s a way. It’s clear that Israel does not have the will to repatriate non-Jewish refugees back to their homeland.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        May 14, 2018, 10:41 pm

        Eljay,
        “It’s clear that Israel does not have the will to repatriate non-Jewish refugees back to their homeland.”
        I agree. Israel will not allow any refugees entrance without a comprehensive agreement that ends the hostilities.
        Whether you call it validation or definition, some criteria need to be agreed upon in determine who has a valid claim.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 15, 2018, 7:42 am

        || Jon66: … I agree. Israel will not allow any refugees entrance without a comprehensive agreement that ends the hostilities. … ||

        I agree. Israel has the power:
        – to end its on-going occupation and colonization of Palestine;
        – to withdraw to within its / Partition borders; and
        – to begin repatriating its non-Jewish Israeli refugees.

        || … Whether you call it validation or definition, some criteria need to be agreed upon in determine who has a valid claim. ||

        Based on its behaviour to date, it seems that the only proof of claim the “Jewish State” will accept from a non-Jewish Israeli refugee is his death certificate.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 15, 2018, 10:09 am

        “Israel didn’t need an “agreed definition” in order to drive Palestinians out;”

        In order to be driven out by the Israelis, Palestinians had to fulfill two conditions:

        1. Not a Jew.
        2. In Palestine.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 15, 2018, 10:23 am

        || RoHa: “Israel didn’t need an “agreed definition” in order to drive Palestinians out;”

        In order to be driven out by the Israelis, Palestinians had to fulfill two conditions:

        1. Not a Jew.
        2. In Palestine. ||

        I’m pretty sure the Palestinians didn’t agree to that definition.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 15, 2018, 8:05 pm

        No-one cares what the Palestinians agree to. They have to be cleared out to make the place Jewish. Jews matter, others don’t.

      • Keith
        Keith
        May 16, 2018, 10:56 am

        ROHA- “They have to be cleared out to make the place Jewish.”

        Since the Gazans are imprisoned in Gaza and cannot flee, and since Gaza is now more-or-less unlivable, the intent appears to be to get Egypt to be responsible for Gaza. No? We will see. The empire is on a rampage, Gaza a small part of a bigger ugly picture.

      • Nathan
        Nathan
        May 22, 2018, 9:26 pm

        I didn’t realize that anti-Israel activists were aware of the fact that acquiring citizenship means that one is no longer a refugee. Obviously, your comment is focused on the Jews who left the various Arab states, but your comment is nevertheless true also for the Palestinian refugees. For example, you might find it interesting to learn that there is today Palestinian citizenship.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      May 14, 2018, 8:47 am

      Why shush? All the victims of Zionism should be remembered.

  13. RoHa
    RoHa
    May 14, 2018, 2:08 am

    The process of ethnic cleansing of Palestine began before 1947, and is still going on. There is no sign that the Zionists have given up their goal of driving out all the Palestinians.

    So all this talk of “the children of the 48ers are not real refugees”, and so forth, is just a way of trying to legitimate the past theft and ignore the present and future theft.

    Fine article here.

    https://electronicintifada.net/content/future-nakba/24236

Leave a Reply