[wat0n]

So you 're saying that Palestinians should compensate Jews with property in areas that Israel is(West Bank) or has been occupying(Gaza)? Are any of those Jews you mention expelled as a result of Palestinian actions? Because you know people compensate people when they actually steal their property like Israel has been doing and Palestinians are not responsible for the actions of either Israel or foreign countries.

No, I said explicitly that Jordan and the respect states should compensate them precisely because Palestinians are not responsible for that (and because they can't pay anyway).

Yet, as a matter of realism, I'm pretty sure you can realize that this won't happen, and I assume you can also realize that if Palestinians were compensated by Israel it's also likely that they'd be the only ones who would be getting compensation. At last, I also assume you can realize why there are Israelis that would not be happy to see that some people get compensation for losing property while others don't.

Having said all of that, and as I said before, I still think Israel should compensate Palestinians regardless of negotiations subject to practical security concerns, simply because I think ending the conflict should have a higher priority and because, as you said, Palestinians aren't responsible for it.

The 2 instances that Jews were expelled by the Jordanians was the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem which has been rebuilt by Israel and the Gush Etzion (Hebrew: גּוּשׁ עֶצְיוֹן, lit. Etzion Bloc) is a cluster of Jewish settlements located in the Judaean Mountains, directly south of Jerusalem and Bethlehem in the West Bank. The core group includes four Jewish agricultural villages that were founded in 1940-1947 on property purchased in the 1920s and 1930s, and destroyed by the Arab Legion before the outbreak of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, in the Kfar Etzion massacre.[1] The area was left outside of Israel with the 1949 armistice lines. These settlements were rebuilt after the 1967 Six-Day War, along with new communities that have expanded the area of the Etzion Bloc.[2]

There were also some Jews who were evacuated from Hebron and other parts of the West Bank, though in smaller numbers than the cases of Jerusalem and Kfar Etzion.

Likewise, there are also some property claims that are from even before the 1948 war, such as those of the Jews who fled Hebron in the wake of the 1929 massacre during the British Mandate. But that's something the UK should compensate for (something I have never heard it ever did).

The adviser to the Turkish PM clearly says that Hamas and Israel have sat on the table and that he briefed the Turkish PM of the negotiations...at the table.

That's not confirmed until both sides acknowledge they are negotiating. The rest are just rumours.

PS: And now that I have time to read the Times of Israel article mentioned as the source, those would have been indirect talks with Blair as the mediator. There have been many rumors on this, mainly because as I said both have an interest in reaching some arrangement though as I also mentioned there are other factors in play (like the opinion of the other Palestinian factions, Egypt and other players).

First Hamas, then the PLO, then everybody. "They should get their monies, but not as long as they pay taxes to their governments."

I know you may not understand this, but the political situation of 1986 was quite different from the one in 2016. The PLO was the strongest Palestinian armed group fighting Israel back then while it has chosen peaceful methods now, and Hamas has taken that role instead.

As for the rest of your nonsense: All of those have been answered, but you are keen on distorting both what the third party sources and I have argued throughout our discussion whenever you have been unable to find anything to say about them, and have simply ignored whenever I have called you out on it or have pretended I changed my position when I did so. This only shows a deep seated intellectual dishonesty and indeed, unlike you, I actually acknowledged whenever you clarified your position when you felt I had misunderstood you and without claiming you changed your arguments or have multiple personalities or other nonsense like that.

[noemon]

Yet, as a matter of realism, I'm pretty sure you can realize that this won't happen, and I assume you can also realize that if Palestinians were compensated by Israel it's also likely that they'd be the only ones who would be getting compensation. At last, I also assume you can realize why there are Israelis that would not be happy to see that some people get compensation for losing property while others don't.

This is non-sensical and a ridiculous excuse to justify the non-compensation of Palestinians. Israel has all the property of the Jews and it is building neighborhoods in them so your argument that Jews are not getting compensation when Israel controls all their properties is ridiculous and is on Israel not on Palestine.

Having said all of that, and as I said before, I still think Israel should compensate Palestinians regardless of negotiations subject to practical security concerns, simply because I think ending the conflict should have a higher priority and because, as you said, Palestinians aren't responsible for it. I know you may not understand this, but the political situation of 1986 was quite different from the one in 2016. The PLO was the strongest Palestinian armed group fighting Israel back then while it has chosen peaceful methods now, and Hamas has taken that role instead.

Compensation and justice are human rights of people enjoyed by people for centuries like for example Jews getting justice from Muslims 2 centuries ago as you brought here. Everything else is cheap excuses created by people who are denying people their basic human rights. And you still have not replied to the question if Jews like yourself consider the Muslims "anti-semites" for giving them justice 2 centuries ago, what does that make the Israelis today who refuse it from the Muslims and who insist on stealing more properties from them?

Simple question that you keep ignoring.

That's not confirmed until both sides acknowledge they are negotiating. The rest are just rumors.

Unless you have evidence that the advisor to the Turkish PM is lying, your argument remains wrong. Hamas did sit on the table with Israel.

As for the rest of your nonsense: All of those have been answered, but you are keen on distorting both what the third party sources and I have argued throughout our discussion

Still no argument but just repeating yourself like a broken record. The fact that you change statements like t-shirts is quite evident and will remain here for posterity.

[wat0n]

This is non-sensical and a ridiculous excuse to justify the non-compensation of Palestinians. Israel has all the property of the Jews and it is building neighborhoods in them so your argument that Jews are not getting compensation when Israel controls all their properties is ridiculous and is on Israel not on Palestine.

It makes perfect sense to state Israelis may feel it is ubfair that Palestinians get compensated by Israel while they do not get compensated by the respective Arab states when you consider Israelis as having a right to be compensated for losing property, rather than having a special standard for them.

Compensation and justice are human rights of people enjoyed by people for centuries like for example Jews getting justice from Muslims 2 centuries ago as you brought here. Everything else is cheap excuses created by people who are denying people their basic human rights. And you still have not replied to the question if Jews like yourself consider the Muslims "anti-semites" for giving them justice 2 centuries ago, what does that make the Israelis today who refuse it from the Muslims and who insist on stealing more properties from them?

Simple question that you keep ignoring.

I don't need to answer a question that is entirely based in selectively reading both my arguments and the third party sources, especially after I showed this is what you've been doing.

I do find it amazing at how you pretend to care about human rights so much, yet cannot see that Israelis have a right to feel that compensating Palestinians is unfair if they won't be compensated by whichever Arab states took their property from them as a result of the 1948 war and also cannot realize that it would most certainly be against human rights to do so if the proceeds will be used to attack Israeli civilians.

Unless you have evidence that the advisor to the Turkish PM is lying, your argument remains wrong. Hamas did sit on the table with Israel.

And now ignoring the source stating that these are rumoured negotiations that would be taking place would be done indirectly rather than directly.

Still no argument but just repeating yourself like a broken record. The fact that you change statements like t-shirts is quite evident and will remain here for posterity.

It's sad to see you insist on distorting both what the sources and I have said.

[noemon]

It makes perfect sense when you consider Israelis as having a right to be compensated for losing property, rather than having a special standard for them.

It is non-sense because Israel owns the properties of the Jews and what Israel decides to do with the Jews bears no consequences on whether Palestinians should be compensated. If you claim that Israel oppresses the basic humans right of Jews, that is a subject that Jews should look into and it does not make Israel look any better, but it is still not a subject that is contingent with Palestinian compensations.

I don't need to answer a question

You can ignore the questions all you like but don't cry when you are rationalized as hypocritical and a sub-par interlocutor bent on chauvinism.

The Muslims gave justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago and you called them "anti-semites", what does that make Israel for refusing justice to Muslims in the present-day?

Do not believe for one second that you will escape this question.

I do find it amazing at how you pretend to care about human rights so much, yet cannot see that Israelis have a right to feel that compensating Palestinians is unfair if they won't be compensated by whichever Arab states took their property from them as a result of the 1948 war

Jews should get compensation by whomever they are entitled to get it, but they are not entitled to refuse compensation to Palestinians when Palestinians have not stolen any property from the Jews to exchange with their own property.

and also cannot realize that it would most certainly be against human rights to do so if the proceeds will be used to attack Israeli civilians.

This kind of supremacist chauvinism is quite pathetic, it implies that Israel is entitled to steal any properties it feels like because Palestinian property taxes may end up to its own government. Get a grip with yourself.

And now ignoring the source stating that these are rumored negotiations that would be taking place would be done indirectly rather than directly.

Directly or indirectly is irrelevant, unless you have evidence that the advisor to the Turkish PM is lying, your argument remains wrong. Hamas did sit on the table with Israel.

It's sad to see you insist on distorting both what the sources and I have said.

It's sad watching you fall so low once again. It truly is.

[wat0n]

It is non-sense because Israel owns the properties of the Jews and what Israel decides to do with the Jews bears no consequences on whether Palestinians should be compensated. If you claim that Israel oppresses the basic humans right of Jews, that is a subject that Jews should look into and it does not make Israel look any better, but it is still not a subject that is contingent with Palestinian compensations.

Nice distortion there, like ignoring the fact that I mentioned the Arab states that do still control property owned by Israeli citizens.

Jews should get compensation by whomever they are entitled to get it, but they are not entitled to refuse compensation to Palestinians when Palestinians have not stolen any property from the Jews to exchange with their own property.

Then do not feign surprise if there are Israelis who believe it is fundamentally unfair that they or their compatriots won't get compensated yet Palestinians will. Or what, you think the Arab states give a damn about compensating Israelis?

This kind of supremacist chauvinism is quite pathetic, it implies that Israel is entitled to steal any properties it feels like because Palestinian property taxes may end up to its own government. Get a grip with yourself.

On the contrary, Israel has every right to expect that compensation to Palestinian property owners isn't confiscated by Hamas to attack it - just like the UN felt no obligation to keep sending aid to Gaza when Hamas started taking over their international aid.

Directly or indirectly is irrelevant, unless you have evidence that the advisor to the Turkish PM is lying, your argument remains wrong. Hamas did sit on the table with Israel.

Of course it's relevant, directly negotiating means both acknowledge and recognize each other, signals that there is an intention to reach a permanent agreement and actually allows any observer to know for sure that both sides are engaging in negotiations.

It's sad watching you fall so low once again. It truly is.

I'd say that distorting what other posters say and what's stated in third party sources, while refusing to admit it or provide any justifications for it when called on it, is as low as one can fall in a discussion forum.

[noemon]

Nice distortion there, like ignoring the fact that I mentioned the Arab states that do still control property owned by Israeli citizens.

And I said: Jews should get compensation by whomever they are entitled to get it, but they are not entitled to refuse compensation to Palestinians when Palestinians have not stolen any property from the Jews to exchange with their own property.

Are you well in your head? I says that Jews should be compensated by whomever they are entitled and you accuse me of distorting something? And then you wonder why people think that you are ridiculous...

Are you losing your brain again?

Then do not feign surprise if there are Israelis who believe it is fundamentally unfair that they or their compatriots won't get compensated yet Palestinians will. Or what, you think the Arab states give a damn about compensating Israelis?

Since Israel owns the properties of the Jews and it is Israel who decides what to do with Jewish property it bears no consequences on whether Palestinians should be compensated. If you claim that Israel oppresses the basic humans right of Jews, that is a subject that Jews should look into and it does not make Israel look any better, but it is still not a subject that is contingent with Palestinian compensations.

On the contrary, Israel has every right to expect that compensation to Palestinian property owners isn't confiscated by Hamas to attack it

You are confused Israel has no international right to steal property and refuse people compensation and that is why it has been condemned by UN resolutions and that is why it is considered worse than the regime of Ibrahim Pasha 2 centuries ago.

The Muslims gave justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago and you called them "anti-semites", what does that make Israel for refusing justice to Muslims in the present-day?

Of course it's relevant, directly negotiating means both acknowledge and recognize each other, signals that there is an intention to reach a permanent agreement and actually allows any observer to know for sure that both sides are engaging in negotiations.

It is irrelevant to Palestinian compensation dear and especially when it is Israeli policy not to negotiate with Hamas:

On Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office released a statement saying that its policy of non-negotiation with Hamas had not changed.

[wat0n]

And I said: Jews should get compensation by whomever they are entitled to get it, but they are not entitled to refuse compensation to Palestinians when Palestinians have not stolen any property from the Jews to exchange with their own property.

Are you well in your head? I says that Jews should be compensated by whomever they are entitled and you accuse me of distorting something? And then you wonder why people think that you are ridiculous...

Are you losing your brain again?

How would such compensation take place outside of a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians? Would Iraq compensate Israelis who own property there without one, for example?

Since Israel owns the properties of the Jews and it is Israel who decides what to do with Jewish property it bears no consequences on whether Palestinians should be compensated. If you claim that Israel oppresses the basic humans right of Jews, that is a subject that Jews should look into and it does not make Israel look any better, but it is still not a subject that is contingent with Palestinian compensations.

You are ignoring the issue of the property of Israeli nationals that was taken by Arab states. Like it or not, the Israeli government cannot provide any compensation for that since it doesn't control it.

You are confused Israel has no international right to steal property and refuse people compensation and that is why it has been condemned by UN resolutions and that is why it is considered worse than the regime of Ibrahim Pasha 2 centuries ago.

The Muslims gave justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago and you called them "anti-semites", what does that make Israel for refusing justice to Muslims in the present-day?

Nice to see how you ignored the behavior of the UN when quoting me despite the fact that the comparison was a key part of what I said there. Don't be surprised that I say you are distorting my arguments when you remove relevant parts of a paragraph I wrote while refusing to address the rest of it.

And as I also said, the situations are fundamentally different simply because Ibrahim Pasha put Safed under the control of his troops.

It is irrelevant to Palestinian compensation dear and especially when it is Israeli policy not to negotiate with Hamas:

Has Hamas ever officially and publicly offered or agreed to negotiate directly with Israel or has it ever officially and publicly declared it is willing to abide by the Oslo Accords and join the PLO in negotiating with Israel (or that it will join the PLO and abide by the agreements it has signed)?

Israel already conducts negotiations with the PLO so negotiating separately with Hamas would go against its recognition that the PLO is the representative of the Palestinian People.

[noemon]

How would such compensation take place outside of a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians? Would Iraq compensate Israelis who own property there without one, for example?

Is that your new straw? Would Iraq compensate someone if Israel made peace with Palestine? And why would it?

And also where is the distortion that you were hallucinating with? And how can I not assume that different people respond to me every time you make a new post?

You are ignoring the issue of the property of Israeli nationals that was taken by Arab states. Like it or not, the Israeli government cannot provide any compensation for that since it doesn't control it. And as I also said, the situations are fundamentally different simply because Ibrahim Pasha put Safed under the control of his troops.

You are ignoring the fact that neither do the Palestinians control these properties, but Israel does control the properties of Palestinians and it has Palestine under its military control and it does carry on stealing them.

You are confused Israel has no international right to steal property and refuse people compensation and that is why it has been condemned by UN resolutions and that is why it is considered worse than the regime of Ibrahim Pasha 2 centuries ago.
The Muslims gave justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago and you called them "anti-semites", what does that make Israel for refusing justice to Muslims in the present-day?

Nice to see how you ignored the behavior of the UN when quoting me despite the fact that the comparison was a key part of what I said there.

Your straw-man to argue that the UN somehow justifies the lack of compensation when the UN has condemned Israel for refusing to compensate its victims is quite hilarious but it only serves to further the ridicule and hypocrisy. Your straw is addressed directly by the UN resolution which trashes it directly and explicitly.

Has Hamas ever officially and publicly offered or agreed to negotiate directly with Israel or has it ever officially and publicly declared it is willing to abide by the Oslo Accords and join the PLO in negotiating with Israel (or that it will join the PLO and abide by the agreements it has signed)?
Israel already conducts negotiations with the PLO so negotiating separately with Hamas would go against its recognition that the PLO is the representative of the Palestinian People.

So you admit that when you put Hamas' willingness to sit at the table as a condition for the compensations despite the fact that international law makes no such condition and despite the fact that Hamas has sat on the table for negotiation as the adviser to the Turkish PM confirmed, it was all a hypocritical attempt to justify the fact that Israel is not giving justice to Muslims unlike the butcher Ibrahim Pasha who did give justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago.

And before you start your ridiculous straw-men which I can see coming from a mile away about Israel disengaging from Gaza, remember that is again an Israel decision and that it cannot be used as an excuse to mistreat Palestinians.

[wat0n]

Is that your new straw? Would Iraq compensate someone if Israel made peace with Palestine? And why would it?

Why wouldn't it? It would have no excuse to refuse compensating Israeli nationals for the properties they lost after 1948 as Israel and Palestine would have signed peace.

In fact, it doesn't even have a valid excuse now but it would have literally no excuse to use in that event.

And also where is the distortion that you were hallucinating with? And how can I not assume that different people respond to me every time you make a new post?

How can I assume you are not deliberately distorting what I and third party sources state by selectively reading or quoting them and then pretending you don't understand my arguments?

You are ignoring the fact that neither do the Palestinians control these properties, but Israel does control the properties of Palestinians and it has Palestine under its military control and it does carry on stealing them.

Still evading the argument as to why many Israelis would regard an outcome that ends with Palestinians who lost their property in territory under Israeli control getting compensation for it and which doesn't end with Israelis who lost property they owned in Arab and Muslim states until the 1948 getting compensation for them as fundamentally unfair.

Your straw-man to argue that the UN somehow justifies the lack of compensation when the UN has condemned Israel for refusing to compensate its victims is quite hilarious but it only serves to further the ridicule and hypocrisy. Your straw is addressed directly by the UN resolution which trashes it directly and explicitly.

Israel is under no obligation to aid Hamas' war effort be it directly or indirectly, and indeed the UN shouldn't do it either which is why the UNRWA cut humanitarian aid off when Hamas seized it in 2009 despite of its duty to send humanitarian aid to the Gazan population if it requires it.

So you admit that when you put Hamas' willingness to sit at the table as a condition for the compensations despite the fact that international law makes no such condition and despite the fact that Hamas has sat on the table for negotiation as the adviser to the Turkish PM confirmed, it was all a hypocritical attempt to justify the fact that Israel is not giving justice to Muslims unlike the butcher Ibrahim Pasha who did give justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago.

International law doesn't obligate Israel to aid armed groups that fight it directly or indirectly, and the ToI article states explicitly that the negotiations were being carried out indirectly - Hamas and Israeli representatives never sat at any table to negotiate.

And before you start your ridiculous straw-men which I can see coming from a mile away about Israel disengaging from Gaza, remember that is again an Israel decision and that it cannot be used as an excuse to mistreat Palestinians.

Excuse me? It is Hamas' decision to fight Israel in Gaza even though Israel withdrew unilaterally, not Israel's. Hamas can choose between talking to Israel and fighting it.

I'm also not sure of how could that be an straw man.

[noemon]

Why wouldn't it? It would have no excuse to refuse compensating Israeli nationals for the properties they lost after 1948 as Israel and Palestine would have signed peace.

What does Iraq have to do with the Palestinian property stolen by Israel? And why would Palestinians not receive their compensation because of Iraq?

You' re starting to lose it again but I'm having a field day, these statements of yours will haunt you forever in here.

How can I assume you are not deliberately distorting what I and third party sources state by selectively reading or quoting them and then pretending you don't understand my arguments?

Where is the distortion that you were hallucinating with? And how can I not assume that different people respond to me every time you make a new post?

Still evading the argument as to why many Israelis would regard an outcome that ends with Palestinians who lost their property in territory under Israeli control getting compensation for it and which doesn't end with Israelis who lost property they owned in Arab and Muslim states until the 1948 getting compensation for them as fundamentally unfair. Israel is under no obligation to aid Hamas' war effort be it directly or indirectly, and indeed the UN shouldn't do it either which is why the UNRWA cut humanitarian aid off when Hamas seized it in 2009 despite of its duty to send humanitarian aid to the Gazan population if it requires it.

You are ignoring the fact that neither do the Palestinians control these properties, but Israel does control the properties of Palestinians and it has Palestine under its military control and it does carry on stealing them.

Your straw-man to argue that the UN somehow justifies the lack of compensation when the UN has condemned Israel for refusing to compensate its victims is quite hilarious but it only serves to further the ridicule and hypocrisy. Your straw is addressed directly by the UN resolution which trashes it directly and explicitly.

So you admit that when you put Hamas' willingness to sit at the table as a condition for the compensations despite the fact that international law makes no such condition and despite the fact that Hamas has sat on the table for negotiation as the adviser to the Turkish PM confirmed, it was all a hypocritical attempt to justify the fact that Israel is not giving justice to Muslims unlike the butcher Ibrahim Pasha who did give justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago.

International law doesn't obligate Israel

International Law does obligate Israel to compensate its victims.

Excuse me? It is Hamas' decision to fight Israel in Gaza even though Israel withdrew unilaterally, not Israel's.

It is Israel responsibility to compensate its victims as stated in UN resolutions.

[wat0n]

What does Iraq have to do with the Palestinian property stolen by Israel? And why would Palestinians not receive their compensation because of Iraq?

You are ignoring the fact that neither do the Palestinians control these properties, but Israel does control the properties of Palestinians and it has Palestine under its military control and it does carry on stealing them.

Why do you keep playing dumb and still pretend that I'm stating my own position on the matter of unilaterally compensating Palestinians, rather than analyzing why would some Israelis find it unfair to do so?

You' re starting to lose it again but I'm having a field day, these statements of yours will haunt you forever in here.

Where is the distortion that you were hallucinating with? And how can I not assume that different people respond to me every time you make a new post?

I've explained that so many times that I don't see any reason to do so again, given that you'll ignore or selectively read the explanation as you have done. How can I assume you are not doing so on purpose?

Your straw-man to argue that the UN somehow justifies the lack of compensation when the UN has condemned Israel for refusing to compensate its victims is quite hilarious but it only serves to further the ridicule and hypocrisy. Your straw is addressed directly by the UN resolution which trashes it directly and explicitly.

How is this objective fact an straw man? How exactly is saying that the UN refused to send aid to Hamas after it seized it a distortion of your claims?

And which UN resolution states that compensation should be given even if hostilities do not stop?

International Law does obligate Israel to compensate its victims.

Not if doing so would aid Hamas' war effort.

[noemon]

Why do you keep playing dumb and still pretend that I'm stating my own position on the matter of unilaterally compensating Palestinians, rather than analyzing why would some Israelis find it unfair to do so?

So you disagree with Israel and those Israelis who are pretending that Iraq is relevant to the properties of Palestinians?

I've explained that so many times that I don't see any reason to do so again, given that you'll ignore or selectively read the explanation as you have done. How can I assume you are not doing so on purpose?

Where is the distortion that you were hallucinating with? And how can I not assume that different people respond to me every time you make a new post?

How is this objective fact an straw man? How exactly is saying that the UN refused to send aid to Hamas after it seized it a distortion of your claims? And which UN resolution states that compensation should be given even if hostilities do not stop? Not if doing so would aid Hamas' war effort.

UN Resolution 194 Paragraph 11, which is a pre-condition for the recognition of the State of Israel.

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors 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.

Legal Analysis by:

The UN Mediator clearly regarded the right of return as the most appropriate remedy to correct the mass expulsion of Palestinians and the massive violation of their fundamental human rights. “The exodus of Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumors concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion,” wrote Count Bernadotte in his September 1948 report. “There have been numerous reports from reliable sources of large-scale pillaging and plundering, and of instances of destruction of villages without apparent necessity.... It would be an offense against the principles of elemental justice,” Bernadotte concluded, “if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes....”

Several principles are relevant to the implementation of the right of return as delineated in Resolution 194. First, the Resolution clearly identifies the exact place to which refugees are entitled to return - i.e., to their homes. The drafting history of this provision is instructive. In choosing the term “to their homes,” the UN Secretariat stated that the General Assembly clearly meant the return of each refugee specifically to “his house or lodging and not [just generally to] his homeland.”[10] The General Assembly rejected amendments that referred generally to “the areas from which they [i.e. the refugees] have come.”

Second, the Resolution affirms that return must be guided by the individual choice of each refugee. According to the UN Mediator’s report, it was an "unconditional right" of the refugees "to make a free choice [which] should be fully respected." Reviewing the drafting history of Resolution 194, the UN Secretariat stated that paragraph 11 “intended to confer upon the refugees as individuals the right of exercising a free choice as to their future.” The legal advisor to the UN Economic Survey Mission reached the same conclusion: “The verb ‘choose’ indicates that the General Assembly assumed that the principle [i.e., the right of return] would be fully implemented, and that all the refugees would be given a free choice as to whether or not they wished to return home.”[11] The principle of refugee choice had also recently been incorporated into the mandate of the International Refugee Organization, established in 1947 to facilitate solutions for WWII refugees in Europe, and would subsequently become a key principle governing durable solutions to refugee flows.

Third, Resolution 194 identifies the time frame for the return of refugees - i.e., "... at the earliest practicable date.” That the General Assembly intended for Israel to repatriate the Palestinian refugees immediately, and without waiting for any final peace agreement with the other parties to the conflict, is indicated by the chosen phrasing of paragraph 11. Based on the drafting history and debate, the UN Secretariat concluded that “the Assembly agreed that the refugees should be allowed to return when stable conditions had been established. It would appear indisputable that such conditions were established by the signing of the four Armistice Agreements” in 1949.

Fourth, Resolution 194 imposes an obligation on Israel to re-admit the refugees. The UN Secretariat held the view that Israel was obligated under the provisions of Resolution 194 to create the conditions that would facilitate the return of the refugees. Reviewing the meaning of the phrase that refugees wishing to return to their homes “should be permitted to do so,” the UN Secretariat noted that the injunction imposed an obligation “to ensure the peace of the returning refugees and protect them from any elements seeking to disturb that peace.”
Finally, Resolution 194 was drafted to apply to all refugees in Palestine. While the first two drafts of paragraph 11 used the term “Arab refugees” the final draft approved by the General Assembly on 11 December only used the term “refugees.”

The discussion in the General Assembly concerning the draft resolutions indicates that the term “Arab refugees” was initially used simply because most of the refugees were in fact Palestinian Arabs. By using the broader term “refugees,” however, the General Assembly indicated that the rights reaffirmed in paragraph 11 were to be applied on a non-discriminatory basis.
The fact that the General Assembly made Israel's admission as a member to the United Nations conditional upon implementation of Resolution 194 clearly indicates that the Assembly considered Israel to be fully bound to ensure full implementation of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return.[12]

[wat0n]

So you disagree with Israel and those Israelis who are pretending that Iraq is relevant to the properties of Palestinians?

I think they have a point that it would be unjust if compensation was given to the Palestinians who lost property but no compensation were given to Israelis who lost property in Iraq and other Arab and Islamic states, yet ending the conflict with the Palestinians is a higher imperative in my view and thus should be compensated regardless of whether Israelis who lost access to property in Arab and Islamic states subject to the practical issues I mentioned (namely, having guarantees that the proceeds will not be used to finance attacks against Israel).

Hopefully if you have something to say, you will not cut anything from that paragraph out and simply address it on its merits.

UN Resolution 194 Paragraph 11, which is a pre-condition for the recognition of the State of Israel.

Legal Analysis by:

The UN Mediator clearly regarded the right of return as the most appropriate remedy to correct the mass expulsion of Palestinians and the massive violation of their fundamental human rights. “The exodus of Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumors concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion,” wrote Count Bernadotte in his September 1948 report. “There have been numerous reports from reliable sources of large-scale pillaging and plundering, and of instances of destruction of villages without apparent necessity.... It would be an offense against the principles of elemental justice,” Bernadotte concluded, “if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes....”

Several principles are relevant to the implementation of the right of return as delineated in Resolution 194. First, the Resolution clearly identifies the exact place to which refugees are entitled to return - i.e., to their homes. The drafting history of this provision is instructive. In choosing the term “to their homes,” the UN Secretariat stated that the General Assembly clearly meant the return of each refugee specifically to “his house or lodging and not [just generally to] his homeland.”[10] The General Assembly rejected amendments that referred generally to “the areas from which they [i.e. the refugees] have come.”

Second, the Resolution affirms that return must be guided by the individual choice of each refugee. According to the UN Mediator’s report, it was an "unconditional right" of the refugees "to make a free choice [which] should be fully respected." Reviewing the drafting history of Resolution 194, the UN Secretariat stated that paragraph 11 “intended to confer upon the refugees as individuals the right of exercising a free choice as to their future.” The legal advisor to the UN Economic Survey Mission reached the same conclusion: “The verb ‘choose’ indicates that the General Assembly assumed that the principle [i.e., the right of return] would be fully implemented, and that all the refugees would be given a free choice as to whether or not they wished to return home.”[11] The principle of refugee choice had also recently been incorporated into the mandate of the International Refugee Organization, established in 1947 to facilitate solutions for WWII refugees in Europe, and would subsequently become a key principle governing durable solutions to refugee flows.

Third, Resolution 194 identifies the time frame for the return of refugees - i.e., "... at the earliest practicable date.” That the General Assembly intended for Israel to repatriate the Palestinian refugees immediately, and without waiting for any final peace agreement with the other parties to the conflict, is indicated by the chosen phrasing of paragraph 11. Based on the drafting history and debate, the UN Secretariat concluded that “the Assembly agreed that the refugees should be allowed to return when stable conditions had been established. It would appear indisputable that such conditions were established by the signing of the four Armistice Agreements” in 1949.

Fourth, Resolution 194 imposes an obligation on Israel to re-admit the refugees. The UN Secretariat held the view that Israel was obligated under the provisions of Resolution 194 to create the conditions that would facilitate the return of the refugees. Reviewing the meaning of the phrase that refugees wishing to return to their homes “should be permitted to do so,” the UN Secretariat noted that the injunction imposed an obligation “to ensure the peace of the returning refugees and protect them from any elements seeking to disturb that peace.”
Finally, Resolution 194 was drafted to apply to all refugees in Palestine. While the first two drafts of paragraph 11 used the term “Arab refugees” the final draft approved by the General Assembly on 11 December only used the term “refugees.”

The discussion in the General Assembly concerning the draft resolutions indicates that the term “Arab refugees” was initially used simply because most of the refugees were in fact Palestinian Arabs. By using the broader term “refugees,” however, the General Assembly indicated that the rights reaffirmed in paragraph 11 were to be applied on a non-discriminatory basis.
The fact that the General Assembly made Israel's admission as a member to the United Nations conditional upon implementation of Resolution 194 clearly indicates that the Assembly considered Israel to be fully bound to ensure full implementation of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return.[12]

I think it may be useful to read the preamble of the UNGA resolution that admitted Israel to the UN:

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 and 11 December 1948 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.

So, what did the representative of the Government of Israel tell the Ad-Hoc Political Committee regarding the refugee issue?

Mr. Eban then pointed out that the problem of the Arab refugees had been a direct consequence of the launching of a war for the purpose of overthrowing by force the General Assembly's November 1947 resolution on partition. No great movements of population would have occurred if the Arab world would have joined with Israel in an attempt to give peaceful implementation to that resolution. Such tragic movements were a familiar accompaniment of any war, and especially of wars affecting countries of mixed populations and conflicting allegiances. The representative of Lebanon had correctly remarked that it had never been the General Assembly's intention that the Arab population should be driven out of Palestine. But neither had it been its intention that Lebanon and six other States should wage war upon Israel, a war of which the plight of the Arab population of Palestine was a direct sequel.

The exodus of the Arab population had already assumed large proportions by the time the Government of Israel had been established. Efforts by that Government to stem the flood of refugees had been unavailing. A vivid account of the circumstances could be found in the April 1949 issue of The Economist of London. The French representative on the Conciliation Commission, who had undertaken a detailed interrogation of Arab refugees, had stated at a meeting of the Commission on 7 April 1949 that it was wrong to describe the refugees as having been driven out; rather, they had fled in an atmosphere of fear, insecurity and danger inseparable from war.

So many passions had been aroused by the problem of refugees that the issue of initial responsibility presented itself again and again. That responsibility lay with the Arab States which, by virtue of having proclaimed and initiated the war which had rendered those refugees homeless, were under moral obligation to take a full share in the solution of their problem, even apart from their own ties of kinship with the refugee population.

Mr. Eban took exception to the terms of the preamble to the Lebanese draft resolution which implied that the Conciliation Commission's conversation with the Prime Minister of Israel on 7 April 1949 had proved that the Israel Government's attitude to the question of repatriation was a negative one. The second progress report of the Commission showed that one of the chief points stressed by the Prime Minister of Israel on that occasion was that the refugee question should be examined and solved in the course of the general negotiations for the establishment of peace in Palestine. That view could hardly be challenged. The rehabilitation of displaced persons could not take place while the countries of the Near East were divided by armistice lines, while peaceful contact was not assured, while considerations of military security were still paramount, while all movements of the population, whether refugee or not, were subject to the restrictions of a wartime régime, and while the economic and social effort required for such rehabilitation was paralysed by mobilization and a war economy. Indeed it was particularly urgent that peace negotiations should be initiated, because only such negotiations could open the way to the solution of the grave humanitarian problem of refugees.

Furthermore, the restrictive conditions laid down by the General Assembly itself, such as that those who wished to "live in peace with their neighbours", should be permitted to return to their homes, clearly presupposed a situation of peace and excluded the possibility of a renewal of hostilities. Similarly, the reference in the resolution of 11 December 1948 to the "earliest practicable date" was also a definite acknowledgment of the fact that the restoration of normal conditions was essential to any fruitful discussion on the proportion of refugees willing and able to return, as against those eligible for resettlement and compensation. In stressing the need for a peace settlement as a condition for solving that problem, the Government of Israel was concerned not to postpone a solution but to accelerate the achievement of peace.

The second point stressed by the Prime Minister of Israel was that his Government did not exclude the possibility of a measure of repatriation. The third point, as set forth in the Conciliation Commission's second progress report that the Israeli Government recognized the humanitarian aspect of the problem and the opportunity it would have to take part in the efforts necessary for its solution in a spirit of sincere co-operation. Any Arab refugee to be rehabilitated either in Israel or in an Arab country would have to undergo a complicated process of resettlement. It was therefore legitimate to weigh the relative virtues of resettlement in the different countries of the Near East in the light of long-term Arab-Jewish relations of economic possibilities in the countries concerned, and of the genuine interests of the refugees themselves.

The Government of Israel had not taken any irrevocable decision. It was reluctant to commit itself either for or against any particular formula for a solution, and regarded the question of refugees as the main one which should form the subject of early negotiations under the auspices of the Conciliation Commission. The clear prospect of a genuine peacemaking effort, including the delimitation of frontiers, was so fundamental a requisite of any serious discussion that the Government of Israel found it difficult to state its principles more specifically until that prospect had matured. Israel was about to embark on negotiations with the Arab States, during which the latter might try to evade their share of responsibility in the matter and to place the full burden on Israel alone, as the Lebanese representative had suggested. It would be unfair to demand of the Israeli Government what was not demanded of the Arab side, namely a full and detailed statement of the exact extent of its possible contribution.

Israel had noted the general desire to learn its attitude with regard to the matter. Statements in the Press and within the United Nations had portrayed the attitude of the Government of Israel in an unjustifiably negative light. In calling attention to the advantages inherent in a regional programme of resettlement, the Government of Israel might inadvertently have conveyed the impression that it would refuse to make any contribution to a solution. In order to dispel that misapprehension, the representative of Israel was authorized by his Government to make the following statement of the principles governing its approach to the matter:

1. The problem of the Arab refugees was a direct consequence of the war launched by the Arab States which were entirely responsible for that as well as for other forms of suffering inflicted by that war;

2. The ensuing problem had raised a humanitarian issue and also had serious implications for the future peace, development and welfare of the Middle East. The Government of Israel believed that a solution of the problem was inseparably linked with a solution of the outstanding issues between it and the Arab States and that no satisfactory solution was possible except by the restoration of peace in the Middle East. A solution could be found only within a final settlement creating conditions of co-operation between Israel and its neighbours;

3. The Government of Israel was earnestly anxious to contribute to the solution of that problem although the problem was not of its making. That anxiety proceeded from moral considerations and from Israel's vital interest in stable conditions throughout the Middle East. Any rehabilitation of Arab refugees in any part of the Middle East, whether in Israel or in the neighbouring countries, involved intricate tasks of resettlement. The two most widely advocated principles were (a) resettlement of the refugees in the places from which they had fled, thus creating a large minority problem and a possible menace to internal peace and stability and also placing masses of Arabs under the rule of a Government which, while committed to an enlightened minority policy, was not akin to those Arabs in language, culture, religion or social or economic institutions; (b) the resettlement of the refugees in areas where they would live under a Government akin to them in spirit and tradition and in which their smooth integration would be immediately possible with no resultant friction. A study of the economic, irrigation and other potentialities of the under-populated and under-developed areas of the Arab States revealed greater possibilities for a stable solution by the latter method than by resettlement in Israel. Therefore, the Government of Israel contended that resettlement in neighbouring areas should be considered as the main principle of solution. Israel, however, would be ready to make its own contribution to a solution of the problem. It was not yet ascertainable how many Arabs wished to return under conditions that might be prescribed by the Assembly or how many Arabs Israel could receive in the light of existing political and economic considerations. Israel's first objective at Lausanne would be to reach an agreement by direct negotiation on the contribution to be made by each Government toward the settlement of that grave problem. The extent of the contribution of the Israeli Government would depend entirely on the formal establishment of peace and relations of good neighbourliness between Israel and the Arab States;

4. The Government of Israel had already announced its acceptance of obligations to make compensation for abandoned lands. The entire question of compensation as well as the general question of reparations and war damage might well be settled by negotiations at Lausanne;

5. The Government of Israel reaffirmed its obligation to protect the persons and property of all communities living within its borders. It would discountenance any discrimination or interference with the rights and liberties of individuals or groups forming such minorities. The Government of Israel looked forward to the restoration of peaceful conditions which might enable relaxation of any restrictions on the liberty of persons or property. Now that an armistice prevailed and peace talks had begun, it would be reasonable to expect the Arab Governments to contribute to an improvement in the atmosphere by a similar declaration of willingness to discontinue measures instituted against Jewish citizens in their countries and to restore their full freedom and equality of status. It was to be noted that the Economic and Social Council was so perturbed by the situation of Jews in Arab countries that it had formally submitted an item to the Security Council; 10/

6. Deeply conscious of the humanitarian problems involved, the Government of Israel observed with sympathy the efforts of international, governmental and non-governmental agencies to alleviate the immediate plight of those refugees suffering hardships as a result of the war. The Government of Israel was prepared to lend its assistance to those efforts;

7. The Government of Israel felt deeply that prolongation of that distress without alleviation and final settlement undermined the stability of the Middle East, the maintenance of which was its vital interest.

No other statement of view could be accurately taken as an authoritative expression of the Israeli Government's attitude on that question. Its hope was that with the clear prospect of a settlement, taking the Near Eastern countries as they were, and examining all schemes of refugee settlement on their merits, the Governments concerned would enter into peace negotiations which would lead to an agreed formula on the exact contribution to be made by each Government concerned and the amount of assistance required from the international community. That line of approach was fully in accord with the views of those in close contact with the problem. Thus the Conciliation Commission itself had declared in its second progress report that "the Commission is of the opinion that the refugee problem cannot be permanently solved unless other political questions, notably the questions of boundaries, are also solved".

If Boiling were right, the Conciliation Commission and the UNGA would have rejected the statement by the Israeli representative to the UN and would ha e not passed resolution 273. It would have most certainly not accepted Israel's interpretion that the refugee issue should be solved only in the context of general peace agreement, rather than the current status quo at the time in which there were only Armistice Agreements being signed rather than final ones.

The view that UNGA resolution 194 doesn't support the view by Boiling is also supported by experts in International Law like Eyal Benvenisti:

Resolution 194

Although it has the legal status of a recommendation rather than a binding obligation, UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 11 December 1948 is the starting point for the entire debate. The Resolution provides in Section 11:

[The UNGA] 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;

The Resolution was a product of much debate and negotiations. The intensity of the debate and its outcome can be gleaned by comparing the text of the Resolution to the Report of the United Nations Mediator Count Bernadotte. The recommendation of Bernadotte referred to
“the right of the Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish-controlled territory at the earliest possible date… and their repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation, and payment of adequate compensation for the property of those choosing not to return…” (my emphasis)
Thus, in the Resolution, return is presented not as a legal right, but as a demand that is subject to the decision of unidentified decision-makers, presumably the sovereign country who has authority under international law to grant access to its territory. These authorities have discretion, captured by the “should be permitted” to sift through the refugees and admit only “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours,” and stipulate when this return would be “practicable” (instead of “the earlier possible date” in the Mediator’s Report). Indeed, Resolution 194 was so disappointing to the Arab governments in that it implied the recognition of the State of Israel, by the precondition that only to those who are "ready to live at peace with their neighbors," could be returned. The PLO rejected the resolution, and only in 1988 it impliedly accepted it. Israel, on the other hand, expressed its acceptance, in principle, of this Resolution, which it saw as reflecting a policy according to which most refugees would be resettled in the areas beyond Israeli territory.
This restrictive reading of Resolution 194 was endorsed by the UN. Subsequent Resolutions indicated the understanding, which was also shared by the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine (CCP), that an unrestricted repatriation of refugees was neither a feasible option nor a preferred one. The CCP’s view was that since 1948 the physical conditions in this area have changed considerably. Therefore, every decision on return must be coordinated with the Israeli government rather than imposed on it, and that there should be an upper limit to the number of refugees whose return would be sought:
"The areas from which the refugees came are no longer vacant, and any movement of return would have to be carefully worked out and executed with the active co-operation of the Government of Israel. Therefore it is indispensable that this Government should have definite, concrete figures on which to work, so that it can integrate plans of repatriation into its own economy. On the other hand, it is equally necessary that the refugees who opt to return do so in the full knowledge of the actual conditions under which they would be repatriated."
This interpretation is further supported by the prevailing policy at that time, a policy that saw ethnic separation in a positive rather than negative light. (see Part IV(1) below).
Parallel to its continued reaffirmation of Resolution 194 (III), the General Assembly centered on programs that would include the resettlement of refugees in Arab countries. Article 4 of Resolution 393(V) of 2 December 1950 considered that, without prejudice to Resolution 194(III),

“the reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near East, either by repatriation or resettlement, is essential in preparation for the time when international assistance is no longer available, and for the realization of conditions of peace and stability in the area.”

Article 5 of the same Resolution instructed UNRWA "to establish a reintegration fund which shall be utilized for projects requested by any government in the Near East ... for the permanent re-establishment of refugees and their removal from relief."

The option of resettlement in addition to the "repatriation or compensation" option put forward by Resolution 194(III), was reiterated in Resolution 394(V) of 14 December 1950. Subsequent Resolutions treated the two options, namely, repatriation or resettlement, on an equal footing, thereby justifying the program recommended by UNRWA for "the relief and reintegration of Palestine refugees," which entailed large scale investments in the Arab countries that hosted the refugees. Later Resolutions requested the "Governments of the area, without prejudice to [Resolution 194(III)], in cooperation with the Director of [UNRWA], to plan and carry out projects capable of supporting substantial numbers of refugees." The General Assembly even criticized the refusal of Arab states to implement such projects of resettlement.

The restrictive reading of the General Assembly’s attitude towards the refugees of 1948 is further highlighted by the different, unequivocal, statement concerning the Palestinians who were displaced as a result of the 1967 War. Resolution 2452A (XXIII) of 19 December 1968 called for the "speedy return" of the displaced Palestinians, and "[c]all[s] upon the Government of Israel to take effective and immediate steps for the[ir] return without delay." This definite call with respect to the displaced persons of 1967 underlines the much nuanced approach to the problem of the 1948 refugees, as expressed in the Resolutions of the same period concerning the latter.

The weakness of the claim for a legal right of return and of repossession is reinforced by United Nations Resolutions concerning the settlement of the refugees problem in the Middle East. Security Council Resolution 242, which is adopted in the DOP, calls for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." It is worth noting that, by the time of the adoption of Resolution 242, numerous U.N. Resolutions had reiterated a solution to the refugee problem that did not necessarily include the return of all, or some, of the refugees to Israeli territory.

In the following years, with the consolidation of the anti-Israeli majority in the General Assembly, the tone of the Resolutions concerning the 1948 refugees changed. Reference to Resolution 394(V) was omitted in Resolution 2792 (XXVI) of 6 December 1971. Starting in 1981, General Assembly Resolutions made reference to the Palestinian refugees' entitlement to their property and the income derived from it. In Resolution 38/83J of 15 December 1983, the Assembly referred to an alleged Israeli plan to resettle Palestinian refugees in the West Bank as a violation of the refugees' "inalienable right of return." Note, however, that a much more balanced tone was adopted subsequent to the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles (DOP). Resolution 48/158D of 20 December, 1993, concerning "peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine," mentions the "resol[ution] [of] the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with [Res. 194(III)] and subsequent relevant resolutions," as one of the principles for comprehensive peace.

It is submitted that the resolutions adopted during the 1970s and the 1980s cannot retroactively influence the interpretation of Security Council Resolution 242. Therefore the call of Resolution 242 for a "just settlement of the refugee problem" should be construed in light of the numerous prior U.N. resolutions that emphasized resettlement and compensation as two major options in lieu of repatriation, and in light of the law that does not support repatriation. In accepting Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 as the basis for the permanent settlement, the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian accords imply a territorial compromise in Palestine/Eretz-Yisrael, and a rejection of a general right to return or to repossess property situated in Israel. While in past years the PLO opposed the 242-based solution, mainly due to this resolution's elusive treatment of the refugees' case, the acceptance of this resolution in the DOP may mark a departure from the struggle to return.

[noemon]

I think they have a point that it would be unjust

So you do not disagree with them that Palestinian compensation has nothing to do with Iraq? Since you do not disagree with them, why are you pretending? and crying for endorsing this opinion as you are clearly using it to justify the non-compensation of Palestinians anyway?

If Boiling were right, the Conciliation Commission and the UNGA would have rejected the statement by the Israeli representative to the UN and would ha e not passed resolution 273. It would have most certainly not accepted Israel's interpret ion that the refugee issue should be solved only in the context of general peace agreement, rather than the current status quo at the time in which there were only Armistice Agreements being signed rather than final ones.

It did not endorse Israel's interpretation, it merely took note of it as it recalled UN Res. 1947 & 1948.

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947[3] and 11 December 1948[4] and taking note of the declarations and explanations...

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors 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; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate 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 for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

General Provision
The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

Chapter I: Holy Places, Religious Buildings and Sites
Existing rights in respect of Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall not be denied or impaired.
In so far as Holy Places are concerned, the liberty of access, visit, and transit shall be guaranteed, in conformity with existing rights, to all residents and citizen of the other State and of the City of Jerusalem, as well as to aliens, without distinction as to nationality, subject to requirements of national security, public order and decorum.
Similarly, freedom of worship shall be guaranteed in conformity with existing rights, subject to the maintenance of public order and decorum.
Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall be preserved. No act shall be permitted which may in an way impair their sacred character. If at any time it appears to the Government that any particular Holy Place, religious, building or site is in need of urgent repair, the Government may call upon the community or communities concerned to carry out such repair. The Government may carry it out itself at the expense of the community or community concerned if no action is taken within a reasonable time.
No taxation shall be levied in respect of any Holy Place, religious building or site which was exempt from taxation on the date of the creation of the State.
No change in the incidence of such taxation shall be made which would either discriminate between the owners or occupiers of Holy Places, religious buildings or sites, or would place such owners or occupiers in a position less favourable in relation to the general incidence of taxation than existed at the time of the adoption of the Assembly's recommendations.
The Governor of the City of Jerusalem shall have the right to determine whether the provisions of the Constitution of the State in relation to Holy Places, religious buildings and sites within the borders of the State and the religious rights appertaining thereto, are being properly applied and respected, and to make decisions on the basis of existing rights in cases of disputes which may arise between the different religious communities or the rites of a religious community with respect to such places, buildings and sites. He shall receive full co-operation and such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of his functions in the State.
Chapter 2: Religious and Minority Rights
Freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, shall be ensured to all.
No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.
All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.
The family law and personal status of the various minorities and their religious interests, including endowments, shall be respected.
Except as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government, no measure shall be taken to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of religious or charitable bodies of all faiths or to discriminate against any representative or member of these bodies on the ground of his religion or nationality.
The State shall ensure adequate primary and secondary education for the Arab and Jewish minority, respectively, in its own language and its cultural traditions.
The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the State may impose, shall not be denied or impaired. Foreign educational establishments shall continue their activity on the basis of their existing rights.
No restriction shall be imposed on the free use by any citizen of the State of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, in religion, in the Press or in publications of any kind, or at public meetings.(3)
No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

[wat0n]

So you do not disagree with them that Palestinian compensation has nothing to do with Iraq? Since you are do not disagree with them, why are you pretending? and crying for endorsing this opinion as you are clearly using to justify the non-compensation of Palestinians anyway?

No, I am simply explaining you why you will have a tough time selling to Israelis that Palestinians should be compensated immediately.

It did not endorse Israel's interpretation, it merely took note of it as it recalled UN Res. 1947 & 1948.

If it believed that the Israeli interpretation was against resolutions 181 and 194, the UNGA wouldn't have accepted Israel's application for membership in the UN.

It should be noted that Israel set up an Absentee compensation fund precisely to deal with the issue of compensation in line with resolutions 181 and 194.

[noemon]

No, I am simply explaining you why you will have a tough time selling to Israelis that Palestinians should be compensated immediately.

I am not selling anything. Facts are not subject to a sale. So you disagree with them then? Why are you scared to speak?

If it believed that the Israeli interpretation was against resolutions 181 and 194, the UNGA wouldn't have accepted Israel's application for membership in the UN.

It accepted it on the condition of UN Res. 1947 and UN Res 1948 as UN res 1947 was the establishment of Israel itself.

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947[3] and 11 December 1948[4] and taking note of the declarations and explanations...

General Provision
The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors 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; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate 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 for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

[wat0n]

I am not selling anything. So you disagree with them then? Why are you scared to speak?

I think I stated quite a few times that my position is softer than theirs. Much, much softer .

It accepted it on the condition of UN Res. 1947 and UN Res 1948. :

After being aware of how Israel interpreted them. An interpretation that was consistent with the stance of the Conciliation Commission for Palestine, mind you.

[noemon]

I think I stated quite a few times that my position is softer than theirs. Much, much softer .

You are using it to justify the non-compensation of Palestinians though and at the end of the day, that is all that matters. So spare me the acting.

After being aware of how Israel interpreted them. An interpretation that was consistent with the stance of the Conciliation Commission for Palestine, mind you.

UN res 1947 is the very establishment of the State of Israel, it is quite explicit and precedes its admission to the UN GA.

General Provision
The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State [of Israel] and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

[wat0n]

You are using it to justify the non-compensation of Palestinians though and at the end of the day, that is all that matters. So spare me the acting.

Just like you weren't justifying Palestinian attacks against Israelis, I am not really justifying anything either.

If anything, compensating Palestinians subject to the practical considerations I mentioned may even prove an advantage for Israel in the long run.

UN res 1947 is the very establishment of the State of Israel, it is quite explicit and precedes its admission to the UN GA.

UN resolutions don't determine the constitutional law of states

In any event, the fact is that the UNGA voted for admitting Israel despite the statement by the Israeli representative in the UN on the interpretation of UNGA resolution 194 on Palestinian property claims.

[noemon]

Just like you weren't justifying Palestinian attacks against Israelis, I am not really justifying anything either.
If anything, compensating Palestinians subject to the practical considerations I mentioned may even prove an advantage for Israel in the long run.

I never used Palestinian attacks against Israelis as an argument nor did I ever put those words together, you are the one who is talking about the position of Israelis and the right of Israel not to compensate its victims.

UN resolutions don't determine the constitutional law of states

Unless they are the Declarations in the founding document of that State as in the case of Israel.

C. DECLARATION

A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses:

General Provision
The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State [of Israel] and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.