Interestingly, this paper reflects the same errors as all previous endeavours. There is only one way to create as separate Palestinian state. That is to dismantle UNWRA and its support for fundamental Islamism's efforts to exterminate Jews.
It seems forgotten that post WW2, around 10 Million people have been displaced from their homelands, and relocated into other countries. This does not require that they change their identity, but, just as Jews throughout the centuries, integrate into host societies.
Similarly, it's forgotten that the land issue, i.e. Israelis taking Palestinian Land, from people inexistent prior to 1967, was actually bought from Arab landowners.
Inconvenient though these facts are, they are still facts.
UNRWA was originally established to permanently resettle displaced Jews as well as Arabs. Through the efforts of the Jewish Agency and Jewish charities, the work of resettling 800,000 displaced middle eastern Jews was completed in a decade, and UNRWA reimbursed for services rendered. It later became UNRWA's "policy" to preserve the "refugee" status of Arabs so that they can maintain the fictitious "right to return" to areas inside Israel's "pre-1967" boundaries. Add to that UNRWA's Palestinian employees being almost exclusively friends of Hamas if not outright members, a fact that France, Britain, Canada and Australia are well aware but prefer to go on funding.
This is not entirely correct. UNWRA was established to assist Arab refugees after the 1948 war against Israel. In fact, the 800K claim, as evidenced in Joan Peter's "From Time Immemorial", is dubious, in any event this is long before any one had heard of Palestinians.
Similarly, UNR 242 explicitly states that it is the Arabs and Israel who must agree frontiers between the postulated Arab state in Palestine. Of course, the reality is that the issue is Islam's denunciation of the Jews, which can be dated to the 622 CE Hijra.
The right of return was conjured up by Arafat, who had absolutely no intention of allowing a Jewish state to exist.
The point about the 'wishful thinking of Canada, UK and Australian Governments' is that they're frightened of their Muslim communities. Why else appointed a devout Muslim, Shabana Mahmood, as Home Secretary. It's difficult to think of a more obvious threat to the Jewish Community.
The right of return was actually in UN Resolution 194 that Israel agreed to in 1949 to become a member of the UN. The difficulty today is that the descendants of the original refugees, whether they live in Gaza, Ramallah or New York are considered to be refugees from Palestine. Interestingly the Arab states in the UN initially voted against 194.
There is no “right of return” in UN resolution 194. There were a series of interlocking recommendations including a conditional offer of repatriation - itself conditional. And, of course, it only applied to those alive in 1948.
Just like the 1947 partition resolution, it was a non-binding recommendation and therefore could create no rights under international law.
In any event, as you point out, the Arabs rejected the resolution, making it a dead letter.
Indeed, I agree that it should only apply to those who were alive in 1948, not their descendants who were born elsewhere. That would amount to around 10,000 people.
17,000 Palestinian Jews were displaced during the War of Independence, primarily when the Jordan armed forces invaded and annexed the "West Bank". They were placed on UNRWA's rolls until they were removed in 1950. So yes, I was wrong about the 800,000 Jews displaced from neighbouring countries, but not about the original mandate of UNRWA.
Actually, the numbers are a sine qua non. The important point is that there is, and never has been, hopefully never will be, a country called Palestine. In fact, UN Resolutions refer to the Arabs of Palestine.
The root of the noun relates to the Greek Philistia, Philistines, which was used by the Romans to rename the land Palestina, after the 135 CE revolt. Subsequently, Sir Mark Sykes, in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, anglicised it. Subsequently, the name was attributed to the land that extended from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Mediterranean, which was to be a 'homeland for the Jewish People'.
What is never mentioned, is that the influx of finance from world wide Jewry, vastly improved the economy; in turn causing illegal migration from areas designated by the League of Nations for the Arabs, to Jewish areas. This is well documented in Joan Peter's, sadly out of print, "From Time Immemorial", with citations from British sources.
In fact, as I discovered in the Zionist Archives in Jerusalem, there's considerable correspondence between the Zionist Leadership in Palestine during WW1 and the British Administration under Gen. Money.
You say that recognising Palestine will do little "on its own" to promote a Two State Solution. That is probably true, but then surely there is no one thing that will do much on its own to promote such a solution. It will take a lot of things, and that is conceivably one of them. You also say that opponents of a Two State Solution "are yet to propose an alternative that is legal, moral and viable". That is surely right. A single secular democratic state is a lot less plausible than two separate states, and the single Islamist state "from the river to the sea" favoured by Hamas and its western supporters is never going to happen (but a lot more people can die in the attempt to make it happen). The main alternative to two states seems to be a single Jewish state "from the river to the sea". On the face of it, that is not impossible, but it's not something any democrat could support. So something needs to be done to reinvigorate the Two State Solution, and anyone who thinks recognition is not a good move in this context ought to spell out what other steps could be taken.
There is also the international factors that governs Palestinian politics, Arab States that, after loosing 2 majors wars, lost their appetite for sacrifice. Iran filled the gap, spreading its tentacles. UN and other international ngo that interpret Palestinian national interests with the constant condemnation of Israel, without any pressure on Palestinians to seek a compromise, The flow of money that keeps “rejectionist” as a condition for constant help.
In contrast to Taiwan which is in everyway a State, but we don’t recognise.
Interestingly, this paper reflects the same errors as all previous endeavours. There is only one way to create as separate Palestinian state. That is to dismantle UNWRA and its support for fundamental Islamism's efforts to exterminate Jews.
It seems forgotten that post WW2, around 10 Million people have been displaced from their homelands, and relocated into other countries. This does not require that they change their identity, but, just as Jews throughout the centuries, integrate into host societies.
Similarly, it's forgotten that the land issue, i.e. Israelis taking Palestinian Land, from people inexistent prior to 1967, was actually bought from Arab landowners.
Inconvenient though these facts are, they are still facts.
UNRWA was originally established to permanently resettle displaced Jews as well as Arabs. Through the efforts of the Jewish Agency and Jewish charities, the work of resettling 800,000 displaced middle eastern Jews was completed in a decade, and UNRWA reimbursed for services rendered. It later became UNRWA's "policy" to preserve the "refugee" status of Arabs so that they can maintain the fictitious "right to return" to areas inside Israel's "pre-1967" boundaries. Add to that UNRWA's Palestinian employees being almost exclusively friends of Hamas if not outright members, a fact that France, Britain, Canada and Australia are well aware but prefer to go on funding.
This is not entirely correct. UNWRA was established to assist Arab refugees after the 1948 war against Israel. In fact, the 800K claim, as evidenced in Joan Peter's "From Time Immemorial", is dubious, in any event this is long before any one had heard of Palestinians.
Similarly, UNR 242 explicitly states that it is the Arabs and Israel who must agree frontiers between the postulated Arab state in Palestine. Of course, the reality is that the issue is Islam's denunciation of the Jews, which can be dated to the 622 CE Hijra.
The right of return was conjured up by Arafat, who had absolutely no intention of allowing a Jewish state to exist.
The point about the 'wishful thinking of Canada, UK and Australian Governments' is that they're frightened of their Muslim communities. Why else appointed a devout Muslim, Shabana Mahmood, as Home Secretary. It's difficult to think of a more obvious threat to the Jewish Community.
The right of return was actually in UN Resolution 194 that Israel agreed to in 1949 to become a member of the UN. The difficulty today is that the descendants of the original refugees, whether they live in Gaza, Ramallah or New York are considered to be refugees from Palestine. Interestingly the Arab states in the UN initially voted against 194.
There is no “right of return” in UN resolution 194. There were a series of interlocking recommendations including a conditional offer of repatriation - itself conditional. And, of course, it only applied to those alive in 1948.
Just like the 1947 partition resolution, it was a non-binding recommendation and therefore could create no rights under international law.
In any event, as you point out, the Arabs rejected the resolution, making it a dead letter.
Indeed, I agree that it should only apply to those who were alive in 1948, not their descendants who were born elsewhere. That would amount to around 10,000 people.
17,000 Palestinian Jews were displaced during the War of Independence, primarily when the Jordan armed forces invaded and annexed the "West Bank". They were placed on UNRWA's rolls until they were removed in 1950. So yes, I was wrong about the 800,000 Jews displaced from neighbouring countries, but not about the original mandate of UNRWA.
https://www.jewishrefugees.org.uk/2018/09/unwra-and-jews.html
Actually, the numbers are a sine qua non. The important point is that there is, and never has been, hopefully never will be, a country called Palestine. In fact, UN Resolutions refer to the Arabs of Palestine.
The root of the noun relates to the Greek Philistia, Philistines, which was used by the Romans to rename the land Palestina, after the 135 CE revolt. Subsequently, Sir Mark Sykes, in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, anglicised it. Subsequently, the name was attributed to the land that extended from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Mediterranean, which was to be a 'homeland for the Jewish People'.
What is never mentioned, is that the influx of finance from world wide Jewry, vastly improved the economy; in turn causing illegal migration from areas designated by the League of Nations for the Arabs, to Jewish areas. This is well documented in Joan Peter's, sadly out of print, "From Time Immemorial", with citations from British sources.
In fact, as I discovered in the Zionist Archives in Jerusalem, there's considerable correspondence between the Zionist Leadership in Palestine during WW1 and the British Administration under Gen. Money.
You say that recognising Palestine will do little "on its own" to promote a Two State Solution. That is probably true, but then surely there is no one thing that will do much on its own to promote such a solution. It will take a lot of things, and that is conceivably one of them. You also say that opponents of a Two State Solution "are yet to propose an alternative that is legal, moral and viable". That is surely right. A single secular democratic state is a lot less plausible than two separate states, and the single Islamist state "from the river to the sea" favoured by Hamas and its western supporters is never going to happen (but a lot more people can die in the attempt to make it happen). The main alternative to two states seems to be a single Jewish state "from the river to the sea". On the face of it, that is not impossible, but it's not something any democrat could support. So something needs to be done to reinvigorate the Two State Solution, and anyone who thinks recognition is not a good move in this context ought to spell out what other steps could be taken.
There is also the international factors that governs Palestinian politics, Arab States that, after loosing 2 majors wars, lost their appetite for sacrifice. Iran filled the gap, spreading its tentacles. UN and other international ngo that interpret Palestinian national interests with the constant condemnation of Israel, without any pressure on Palestinians to seek a compromise, The flow of money that keeps “rejectionist” as a condition for constant help.