[Harmattan]

The resolution clearly says compensation should be paid to those who have suffered loss or damage to their properties(which at the present day is all of them), not just to those not wishing to return.

You are mistaking the land (which is a property) with the houses upon it (the parts that were destroyed). The resolution actually states that Palestinians have the right to return and claim the land, and should besides of that be compensated for the damages and incurred costs. (and it also adds a compensation for those who do not want to return).

Besides the BDS goes further: "3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194." This is an untold attempt to re-Arabize Israel, as has been the fact to maintain the descendants of Palestinians in camps for decades.

[ThirdTerm]

People tend to assume that the BDS movement is a human rights campaign but it's closely linked to Palestinian nationalism and far-right groups on the Arab side of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I have come cross jihadist websites promoting the BDS movement and I don't think we can trust these people orchestrating the boycott against Israel.

Norman Finkelstein is an unpopular man. Norman Finkelstein has always been an unpopular man, but for decades he had a cult following among leftists and supporters of the Palestinian cause. Since coming out in 2012 against the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, however, he has alienated his core followers. A few years ago, Finkelstein tells me, he made $40,000 in speaking fees from 80 talks to Palestinian Solidarity groups around North America. “This past year when I went to my accountant ... he said, 'I think you have a mistake here, it's only $3,000.' I said, 'No, it's not an error.' He said, 'What happened?' And I thought to myself: Am I going to explain to him BDS?"
https://newrepublic.com/article/122257/ ... s-movement

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan – October 12–14, 2002 The second national PSM conference, held at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, attracted over 400 people, included former University of South Florida Professor Sami al-Arian. Representatives of Al-Awda sold T-shirts with the inscription "Intifada! Palestine will be free from the river to the sea." According to two protestors, participants in the conference chanted "Chrad al Yahud", which they claimed means "Death to the Jews" in Arabic.[1] (Transliteration note: "Itbah al Yahud" - slaughter the Jews - or "Khaybar ya Yahood" - Jew, remember Khaybar, are plausible.) This was denied by the Dean of the University of Michigan, who was monitoring the event for any disturbances.[2] Furthermore, "Chrad" is not a word, colloquially or formally, in Arabic.[citation needed] The conference included presentations by a number of American, Palestinian, Jewish, and Israeli academics and speakers supporting divestment from the state of Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine ... y_Movement

[noemon]

I am not mistaking anything, properties include the land Harmattan and if the land cannot be returned the UN resolution suggests equitable compensation, and as I already said:

Also I highly doubt that if the BDS succeeds in its objectives* as presently established anyone in Europe or the US would push for any extras. The problem is that none of these basics are even being respected or discussed at the moment, let alone the right of Palestinians to return and assume full legal rights in Israel which as we are all aware is never going to happen anyway.

* Return to the 1967 borders
* Recognition of the State of Palestine
* Equal human rights for the Israeli-Arabs
* Compensation to the victims who lost their properties.

None of these objectives imply the destruction of Israel, and even if half of them are achieved the BDS and Palestine will lose momentum and support for further demands anyway as we are both much aware.

Lastly as we are all aware when you go to a negotiating table you go full-on in order to get half in compromise, Palestinians are no different in that regard and nor can they be blamed for operating according to international custom.

[wat0n]

Well noemon, I think that instead of wasting my time on explaining why that paragraph can be wrongly interpreted in the way I mentioned (particularly since I do not believe there is a right to restitution and return for Palestinians in those terms anyway, particularly since other UNGA resolutions, along with international practice in similar cases, clearly place restitution+return and compensation in equal standing, and may thus serve to interpret UNGA resolution 194 in a different manner), I think it may be useful to see where does one of the founders of BDS, Omar Barghouti, stand on restitution and return:

AM: Finally, you have argued numerous times in your published works that ultimately you would like to see in historic Palestine a binational, secular, democratic state.

OB: Not a binational state — I am completely against binationalism. A secular, democratic state, yes, but not binational. There is a big difference.

AM: What exactly is the sentiment on the ground in Palestine on this question?

OB: I must clarify that the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement takes no position on the shape of the political solution. It adopts a rights-based, not solutions-based, approach. I am completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land and therefore, we have to accommodate both national rights. I am completely opposed to that, but it would take me too long to explain why, so I will stick to the model I support, which is a secular, democratic state: one person, one vote — regardless of ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, and so on and so forth … Full equality under the law with the inclusion of the refugees — this must be based on the right of return for Palestinian refugees. In other words, a secular, democratic state that accommodates our inalienable rights as Palestinians with the acquired rights of Israeli Jews as settlers. Why do I see this as the main solution? Morally, it’s obviously the most moral solution because it treats people as equals, the two-state solution is not only impossible now — Israel has made it an absolute pipe dream that cannot happen — it is an immoral solution. At best, it would address some of the rights of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, while ignoring the majority of Palestinians — those in exile, the refugees, as well as the Palestinian citizens of Israel. There are three segments of the Palestinian people — unless you address the basic requirements of justice for all three segments than we will not have exercised our right to self-determination. The only way that we can exercise our right to self-determination, without imposing unnecessary injustice on our oppressors, is to have a secular, democratic state where nobody is thrown into the sea, nobody is sent back to Poland, and nobody is left in refugee camps. We can coexist ethically with our rights given back to us.

Now on the ground, back to your question, there is no political party in Palestine now or among Palestinians outside either calling for a secular, democratic one-state solution. Despite this, polls in the West Bank and Gaza have consistently in the last few years shown 25-30 percent support for a secular, democratic state. Two polls in 2007 showed two-thirds majority support for a single state solution in all flavors — some of them think of a purely Palestinian state without Israelis and so on — in exile it’s even much higher because the main issue is that refugees in particular, and people fighting for refugee rights like I am, know that you cannot reconcile the right of return for refugees with a two state solution. That is the big white elephant in the room and people are ignoring it — a return for refugees would end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. The right of return is a basic right that cannot be given away; it’s inalienable. Â A two-state solution was never moral and it’s no longer working — it’s impossible with all the Israeli settlements and so on. We need to move on to the more moral solution that treats everyone as equal under the law, whether they are Jewish-Israeli or Palestinian.

AM: You hear a lot of academics and public intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein saying that the two-state solution represents the international consensus, and that the one-state solution of the kind that you speak of is unrealistic.

OB: The siege against Gaza is also an expression of international consensus — that doesn’t make it right. It’s an international conspiracy that is a war crime — it’s a crime against humanity, despite support from the UN and all the powers that be around the world … It’s amazing for activists, and public intellectuals who are counted as activists, to support the international consensus when they like to, and they oppose it on every other account. When Professor Chomsky opposed the Indonesian occupation of East Timor there was an international consensus supporting Indonesia. No one raised, before Chomsky, the issue of freedom for East Timor — it was Chomsky first and foremost, and he single-handedly pushed this on the agenda until now we have the autonomy of East Timor and semi-independence. So international consensus often means that the main powers agree on an injustice because it fits their interests — that doesn’t mean that we have to accept that; we have to struggle to change that and the way we do that is on the ground. By proposing the more moral solution we are saying that this can mobilize universal support from around the world — except from those who are keen to maintain Israel as a racist, ethnocentric state.

[noemon]

I can see that Omar's statements reject even the one-state, bi-zonal, bi-national solution which is the solution that the nation with the demography on its side supports. This kind of solution is what many Greeks wanted for Cyprus and reasonably so.

As a Greek person who supports a one-State solution in Cyprus, I do not see anything inherently wrong with one-state solutions, they have worked in Switzerland, they have worked in Cyprus and they could be made to work in Israel on a bi-zonal bi-national basis which is the compromise that Greeks had to accept while coming to the table with the same demands as Omar's opinions. Not even the Greeks with the full-force of the EU can achieve such kind of solutions let alone Omar from Palestine, so we need to be a bit honest with each other if we are to discuss rationally and not behind trenches.

But as I said nations are expected to come to the table with full-demands as enabled by International Law and eventually agree to half. They are not expected to come to the table with the presumed solution that works best for their adversary in order to be called pragmatists. That is preposterous.

Of course if one's intention is to block any solution whatsoever, then one will grasp any straws that one may find to legitimise the block of the negotiations.

Well noemon, I think that instead of wasting my time on explaining why that paragraph can be wrongly interpreted in the way I mentioned (particularly since I do not believe there is a right to restitution and return for Palestinians in those terms anyway

Are you starting to get angry again? And are you in fact agreeing with me completely while rephrasing what I already told you, that the UN Resolution 194 is not in fact calling for the destruction of Israel as you claim but is simply asserting the Palestinians rights to equitable compensation?

This is an untold attempt to re-Arabize Israel, as has been the fact to maintain the descendants of Palestinians in camps for decades.

No, this is simply the rational demand that any self-respecting person is expected to hold just like all self-respecting European persons demand the exact same thing in Cyprus from Turkey regardless of what it means for the TRNC in practice. However the fact that one demands such a thing does not mean that compromise is automatically excluded by some magic wand and in fact it isn't. What is preposterous though is demanding that Palestinians come to the table demanding only what Israel is willing to give them. Are you serious?

[skinster]

People tend to assume that the BDS movement is a human rights campaign...

And they would be correct with that assumption, unless you can prove otherwise.

[wat0n]

Are you starting to get angry again? And are you in fact agreeing with me completely while rephrasing what I already told you, that the UN Resolution 194 is not in fact calling for the destruction of Israel as you claim but is simply asserting the Palestinians rights to equitable compensation?

Why would I be angry since you actually seem to acknowledge that the likes of Omar Barghouti do not seem to interpret it as you do without selectively reading the relevant part of the interview? Your interpretation is more consistent with the correct one, looking at later resolutions and the actual international practice in similar cases (like Cyprus).

I also agree with you, in that one cannot really expect him or Abbas to interpret it in a way that is favorable to Israeli interests. Yet that doesn't really mean that they are interpreting the law correctly either, so redcarpet is right on that one (and not only because of their apparent opposition to the two-state solution, there are parts of that specific resolution no one is currently demanding, like implementing article 8 on Jerusalem)

[layman]

Besides the BDS goes further: "3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194." This is an untold attempt to re-Arabize Israel, as has been the fact to maintain the descendants of Palestinians in camps for decades.

I agree.

Any solution that requires right of return for 5 million people and not recognising a jewish state is a waste of everyones time

The PLO wont even accept this in principle so until that happens, no point in talking about land.

[Silver10]

Neon You said the below....

* Return to the 1967 borders
* Recognition of the State of Palestine
* Equal human rights for the Israeli-Arabs
* Compensation to the victims who lost their properties.

None of these objectives imply the destruction of Israel, and even if half of them are achieved the BDS and Palestine will lose momentum and support for further demands anyway as we are both much aware.

Lastly as we are all aware when you go to a negotiating table you go full-on in order to get half in compromise, Palestinians are no different in that regard and nor can they be blamed for operating according to international custom.

You could flip all your above points for negotiation around and say that is the least Israel would expect minus some alterations to the border to include the main settlements. Which like it or not are now a fact on the ground. You can dress up the support for BDS as much as you like, actually the only people it really hurts are the Palestinans who rely on the companies in the West bank for work. Prime example was Soda Stream all they did was move to within Israel proper making lots of people redundant.

It is like here in the UK, councils have been caught supporting BDS which has in turn cost the local people more money. You wont be surprised the councils were mostly made up of Muslims. So instead of getting the best deal for the local poeple they did the opposite.

Most normal people even if they dont support Israel can see that the BDS is not about the Palestinans and their best interests. When we boycott the likes of Russia, China, Saudi who have far worse records then maybe people will start taking BDS a bit more seriously. Waiting for the protest about the barrel bombing of Syrians by Russia, Or the Kurds by Turkey...guess i will wait until Israel is involved.

Still keep dreaming about this Palestinian paradise that will just be another failed muslim state killing its own people. which lets be honest it is anyway.

[noemon]

You could flip all your above points for negotiation around and say that is the least Israel would expect

It is indeed the least Israel can expect from a Palestinian civil organization.

Most normal people even if they dont support Israel can see that the BDS is not about the Palestinans and their best interests.

Normal people can actually see very clearly that the BDS is a Palestinian civil organization and thus rightfully placed to speak about these peoples best interests, certainly more rightfully placed than zionists.

records then maybe people will start taking BDS a bit more seriously.

I don't think any normal person cares how seriously zionists take the BDS. Essentially it does not matter at all.

Waiting for the protest about the barrel bombing of Syrians by Russia, Or the Kurds by Turkey...guess i will wait until Israel is involved.

Are you claiming that there are no Syrian organizations who support sanctions against Russia and that there are no Kurdish organizations that support sanctions against Turkey?

Because if you do claim such a thing then that is quite mistaken. If you want to see how many people in here are supportive towards these movements then you can open a thread and ask them. If you believe that these kinds of movements should exist for these cases like I assume you do then I do not see what exactly it is you are trying to communicate. Do you?