While the author makes many valid arguments, the message is convoluted. Make it simple: We will only recognize the UNHCR definition of a refugee. The UNRWA definition is only specific to the palestinians in that allows refugee status to be passed onto descendants. No other group, religious, ethnic, or national, has ever been able to do this. It is inherently favoring one group over another and completely unfair, especially to the over 500,000 Jews who were expelled from the Arab world, but were defined by the UNHCR. If it's good enough for our citizenry and the other billions of people on this planet it also MUST apply to the palestinians! Fully stop, if you were actually a refugee from the war mainly those that even born during the war, i.e. 62 years of age and older may negotiate compensation, but it must be in broader framework that includes all those Jews expelled from the Arab world!

Until now, I had never understood the duplicity and the objection to the right of return. Your article clarified everything. You were very clear to state that a Law of Return as we Jews have it is not what they insist on but rather they want the Right of return to Israel proper in addition to the Law of Return. This is indeed Chutzpa. Then the best solution would be NO to Palestine.

Lieberman is the only one telling the truth about this, and it's why he didn't go to Washington. Both Israel and the PA know that the talks in Washington were simply a charade, but Lieberman would have told them so.

there is only a problem with the way Arabs use (willing) human beings as pawns. Israel on the other hand has taken it its refugees (like my father and mother) and integrated them.

There is no right of return in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194. Article 11 only said refugees "SHOULD BE ALLOWED" and conditioned return only to those who who were willing to live in Peace. In any and all events Resolution 242 which was passed by the Security Council and passed under chapter 7 overrides 194 rendering it null and void.

There are no "refugees" and there is no "right of return". There is thereby no reason to say no to something which doesn't exist in other than Arab racist imperial dreams.

Return", one that is not based on neither legal, ethical or historical grounds but strictly on political ones, political motives behind which is the demise of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. This, historically, ethically and legally can't be accepted and will not be accepted.

Taub’s article is flawed in many regards. Firstly it should be noted that the Israeli Law of Return is a domestic law and has no basis on International Law. The universal Right of Return however is based on International Law and has literally no bearing on Jews making Aliyah to the State of Israel. Jews in Diaspora have (and I can think of no exceptions off hand) citizenship in other countries thus they cannot be classed as ‘refugees’. In principle the Right of Return would only apply to Jews if they fled Israel for reasons of persecution based on religion, nationality, etc. It should also be noted that the illegal Israeli settlers have no grounds to reside in the Palestinian WB based on the Israeli Law of Return, the universal Right of Return or any other legal basis or previous UNSC resolutions/UN Partition Plan - they are, in simple terms, illegal squatters. Israel is bound by UNSC Res 242 & 338 and therefore has agreed to “a just settlement of the (Palestinian) refugee problem” as well as “a just and durable peace in the Middle East”. In addition Israel is also bound to the “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”, this of course includes any ‘future’ states ie: the State of Palestine. As Israel has committed itself to “a just settlement of the (Palestinian) refugee problem” yet has indicated that it is unwilling to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their former homes and land within Israel the only remaining recourse is compensation. In short any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians must include as a bare minimum: 1) Israel paying compensation to the Palestinian refugees it refuses to allow to return to Israel. 2) Israel acknowledges of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Palestine 3) The removal of all illegal Israeli settlers from the Palestinian WB unless otherwise agreed with the PA in which case a 1:1 land swap will be agreed upon. While point 1 & 3 will cost Israel billions this is the price Israel must pay for its continued belligerent occupation of Palestinian land and insistence on applying racist policies in relation to Israeli citizenship.

I see that you (and other) were suckered into relying to my impostor on the “Egypt's FM: Israel as 'Jewish state' cause for concern” thread. You should know by now that I don’t style my headers as: “:: Reply to Omri” ie: omit the post number as reference if I am replying to a post. And as for “Despite the recent influx of undesirables from eastern Europe and the Middle East” well that was a dead giveaway. If anything it only goes to show how gullible some posters are.

There are no refugees? I understand that YNet's readers dont want Palestinians to return but to profess there are no refugees and that there was no Nakba is tantamount to Holocaust denial. As someone who lost 2 grandparents in the Holocaust Im ashamed of your ignorance and racism.

The refugees are all in their 60's and 70's by now. At issue here is the UNRWA definition that enshrines this status to anyone and everyone born after the 1945-1948 definition used by the UN. By this thinking, a 'Palestinian' born in Lebanon in 2010 is still being considered a refugee of 1948. This is of course ludicrous.

ISRAEL NEVER belonged to the them!

Good article. However, in thinking about arguments against the return of refugees, what if someone said that the settlers and refugees' desires to live where they want are not the same because the refugees personally experienced expulsion while the settlers (with the exception of Gush Katif, etc.) did not?

All Palestinian refugees to convert to Judaism. Then they are entitled to go back home under the Law of Return. Once there, they convert back to whatever they were before (Muslims, Christians). Problem solved.

1) The palestinian "right of return" is based on 1951 Convention Related to the Status of Refugees and additional protocol of 1967, which Israel has signed and is bound by it. This convention establishes that ONLY the people who were immediately displaced can be considered refugees with a right of return. Since this happened well over sixty years ago, within ten fifteen-years all the people who can possibly qualify for refugee status will be dead, and the legal "right of return" for Palestinians will disappear forever. Children of refugees and their spouses who are not refugees themselves do NOT have a right of return. It is an individual, conditional right. One of the conditions for execution of that right is a waiver of hostility - i.e. oath of loyalty. 2) The jewish right of return is based on RECOGNITION of existing jewish national rights, as was affirmed by fifty nations at San Remo conference in 1922. The international community, at the same conference, has expressly and deliberately REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE palestinian national rights for the simple reason that at the time no one thought palestinians are a nation and therefore have national rights. Unlike the palestinian one, which is an individual and conditional right, the jewish one is COLLECTIVE AND UNCONDITIONAL. 3) The wording of UNSCR 242 regarding "just settlement of refugee problem" is devious and politically charged, and can not and should not exceed the provisions of the aforementioned 1951 treaty. Moreover, the section that pertains to "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area" expressly refers to STATES - Palestine is not a state, and the Security Council can not create political national rights out of thin air. The conflict of 1967 was between Israel and Arab countries, Palestine not being one. So the countering conclusions are: 1) Israel can either admit or compensate ONLY the refugees who were personally displaced and ONLY upon their waiver of belligerent activities 2) Israel does not have to acknowledge sovereignty, autonomy or borders of "Palestine" because no such country exists, neither has it ever existed, nor is there a particularly good reason for it to exist without first having negotiated its final borders with Israel 3) As the jewish people have a permanent, internationally recognized, collective right to settle anywhere in the territory of Mandate Palestine (sans the areas upon which Jordanian sovereignty legitimately extends), the settlers do not have to be removed, neither are they illegal (except for the cases of forceful removal of arabs), and the settlement enterprise is a valid and moral political tool to apply pressure on the palestinians.

Palestinian refugees with exception of first generation refugees. That would make the youngest to be at least 43 years old. All the people who weren't born in so called Palestine are not qualified as refugees and it is per UN definition. People who are 43 and older and who can prove that they were residents of the area at some point can be considered for return, but nobody else. If you wish to discuss compensation it must only be reciprocal with respect to Jewish refugees.

Sorry but the so-called 'Right of Return' is a violation of international law. Immigration is an internal matter for every nation and nobody else has any right to decide that. That is Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the UN Charter. Since the Arabs have no claim at all to any land west of the Jordan our laws do apply, regardless of the opinion of a racist moron like our drunken Irishman.

AHAHAHAHAHA Sorry but you have got to be kidding me. The writing style matches you perfectly. Generally the impostor writes terribly, poor lexicon and so on. We know it's you and it was obvious that in your haste, you wrote your honest feelings about the 'undesirables' entering your country. At least in this case matty man up. Now in regard to your post other post #8 I still believe that the simplest solution for Israel with dealing with this non-sense is to simply state that it is leaving the UN as the organization has continued to refuse to grant Israel sovereign equality required to it as stated by the UN charter. The fact is that it is ironic that Israel is constantly bombarded with resolutions it can in no way ever influence from the Security council and expected to follow them all when it has no legal recourse. This singes with legal corruption, and to be honest I don't recognize the legality of these motions. Next even considering these cases, Israel is only legally obliged to observe and deal with all the refugees under the UNHCR definition. This is the definition that was applied to its citizenry and should be applied to the palestinians as well. Now onto the meat of the story: "1) Israel paying compensation to the Palestinian refugees it refuses to allow to return to Israel. " As long as they fit into the UNHCR definition this will then be negeotiated but required to show that they fled due to the actual war. Not due to calls from the invading Arab armies to leave and make it easier to 'deal' with the Jewish population. Then they should talk to their fellow Arab countries that led to that situation of displacement, as it is obvious in those cases it was not due to Israeli forces. "2) Israel acknowledges of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Palestine " And the palestinians must mutually recognize Israel as a Jewish National home. As required by the UN as this is the basis of the San Remo conference which is still legally in play by the UN's action of adopting the League of Nations resolutions. "3) The removal of all illegal Israeli settlers from the Palestinian WB unless otherwise agreed with the PA in which case a 1:1 land swap will be agreed upon. " This is all up for a negotiations, based between Israel and the palestinians, not a racist Irishman. "While point 1 & 3 will cost Israel billions this is the price Israel must pay for its continued belligerent occupation of Palestinian land and insistence on applying racist policies in relation to Israeli citizenship. " And the palestinians will have to pay billions in return as reparations for their active support the Nazi's during WWII, their terrorism aimed at annihilating the native Jewish population since the 1920's. Their continued terror activities for nearly 80 years. Services, such as medical treatments done over the 'green line' and so on. Lets balance the books before claiming financial victory.

You state, " that there was no Nakba is tantamount to Holocaust denial." This shows a total lack of understanding of the Nekba as viewed by Arabs. What is termed the Nekba is a complex event. It is not the dislocation of 650,000 people - that is part of it. But more so, It is the Arab narrative describing the events of 1947-1949. This focuses the defeat of the Arab armies, the “colonization” of Palestine, the founding of a Jewish state. The refugee issue is just the one issue that resonates most strongly among Western supporters of the Palestinian cause. Therefore, trying to equate Nekba denial to Holocaust denial is a complete distortion of the former. It is a false analogy which totally ignores the culpability of both the Arabs of Palestine and the Arab states in the creation of the refugee problem and the Arab/Israel in the first place.

less, arabs ALWAYS expect the world to bow to their requests, However that doesnt apply to Israel. arabs left when (4) arab countries ATTACKED the fledgling state more than once, so they forfeit ANY rights to return, unlike the jewish populations EXPULLED from arab countries, they were KICKED out or else, these are not the same circumstances.

ok, you stole lands and homes and kill people for more than 60 years now and you talk about law ! reality is the jews are tow parts sons of israel and none sons of israel , for sons of israel they were a people of this land and they have the right to reside here (state of majority) NOT TO KILL AND STEAL LANDS from palestinian and make a state , for the second part none sons of israel they have nothing to do here

there must be something to it, because I've always viewd him as a bit of a leftist.

palestinian refugees is a palestinian problem. in a future peace deal, with a new palestinian state (gaza and west bank with some modifications) all the "refugees" could return to their new state....... forbide palestinians an state is impossible. they deserve their state, but is someone wants to return, he would returnm to their state................ why the arabs don't say nothing about the 900000 jews expelled from arab lands?................... no refugees into Israel, and if they want any kind of compensation, no any shekel until the arab countries don't recognize the jewish refugees the same rights................ is imposibble for jews to return to arab countries (return to Irak, yemen... suicide) and is impossible palestinians returning to israel................................

It is a made-up stumbling block, crafted by the Palestinians because they are not interested in a two-state solution or peaceful co-existence with Israel; they are interested in Israel. They cannot and do not build; they are leeches and parasites and destroyers. We have seen that for better than sixty years. We have also seen three rejections of a two-state solution that would have granted the Palestinians statehood. The offer is now off the table. The Palestinians seem to have some expectation that the world is going to automatically grant them statehood and allow them to supplant Israel. Not going to happen. But it has been extremely entertaining to watch the Palestinians dig themselves ever deeper and deeper into a hole from which they will never emerge. To do so would require a sea change in the mindset of the Palestinian people; good luck with that one. There is no "right of return," any more than Jews have a right of return to their homes in the Arab and Islamic world. The Palestinians need to understand this, and move on. Their feet of clay has not stood them in good stead; you'd think they'd have figured that out by now. But I suspect that a very large part of being Palestinian is not being able to figure things out.

Universal right of return? What HAVE you been smoking?

What you fail to realize is that your refugee status is of your own making. Besides which, you have had three opportunities to accept a two-state solution, and have failed to take advantage of any of them. Stop feeling so sorry for yourselves, and move on with your lives. Do you think that you are the only people in the world who have ever been refugees? You're not. You consume the vast amount of resources available for refugees, and have nothing to show for it but violence and terror. Here's a news flash: the world is pretty sick to death of the Palestinian people. Really.

to return to land they lost by attacking us Israeli's. The arabs always asked for the rediculous requests and on this on they should be told to" stick it up their as..". When mooselims allow Jews to return to mecca, medina then we can talk. Loser terrorists have no rights period.

land was never theirs---ever

I could never spot the difference between Gadi Taub and Hamas, but thanks to this op-ed, I finally understand the difference. However, Taub was incomplete. He supports two ethnically pure states. What does he intend to do with the Arab citizens of Israel? Does he side with Lieberman and advocate letting them join their brethren?