פורום ארץ הצבי

Article II

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

http://www.mfa.gov.eg/getdoc.asp?id=45&cat=02

Egypt wants Eilat

Cairo's Al WAFD 9/23/99: ''Arab sources revealed that Egypt's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sent a legal memorandum to Israel about Egypt's right in Um-al-Rashrash village, known as ''Ilat'' by Israel. The memorandum referred to the village in question as Egyptian land occupied by Israel in 1948 and demanded Israel's withdrawal.
The same Arab sources said that Egypt's Ministry of Foreign Affairs based its memorandum on the articles of the Camp David Agreement stating the right to demand reconsidering the agreed upon borders after 20 years of signing the agreement. The memorandum was sent to Israel in complete secrecy, the Arab sources added.''

The Geneva Accord and the Right of Return as seen from Al-Baqa'a Refugee Camp

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2290.shtml
When you ask about the Geneva Accord on the streets of Al-Baqa'a, people answer with disgusted looks as they see it as nothing but the further dismissal of the history of the Palestinian struggle in its failure to recognize that the right of return for Palestinian refugees. For the residents of Al-Baqa'a, the right of return is not something that can be negotiated away by corrupt politicians of the Palestinian Authority, or by any government or nation-state.

The stark contrast between the pronouncements of Israeli and Palestinian politicians in Geneva, and the words spoken by the people on the streets of Al-Baqa'a, are a reminder that liberation struggles cannot be defined by politicians, and that the principles of the Palestinian struggle are kept alive by those living on-the-ground in Palestine and in the refugee camps throughout the world.

Haaretz, 16/10/2003

Geneva Accord makes no mention of `right of return'
Akiva Eldar

The people of Palestine, both internally and externally, are making a lot of commotion owing to the audacity of dropping the right of return in the Accord; the signers used to repeat frequently that it was the red line that could not be crossed. The people are worried at the extent of the crime committed by the people who claimed that they set out to liberate Palestine and return the refugees to their homes.

http://alaqsaintifada.org/geneva/statement.htm
PALESTINIANS REJECT AND DENOUNCE GENEVA ACCORD
[CLICK HERE FOR SECTION ON GENEVA ACCORD] [CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE STATEMENT]

1. We, the undersigned, reject and denounce the Geneva Accord because it fails to meet the requirements for a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Accord violates Palestinian national and human rights, contradicts international law, and seeks to consolidate and legitimize Apartheid rule in occupied Palestine, thus ensuring further conflict and violence. Specifically, the Accord:

Obstructs the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes and properties from which they were driven and ratifies the ethnic cleansing of 1947-1948 without any acknowledgment of Israel's culpability, responsibility, or remorse. The Accord allows Israel to set the number of refugees it will absorb, while the remainder would have to resettle elsewhere and pursue compensation from an international fund. The right of return is an inalienable human right that cannot be legally abrogated by treaty; this right is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and United Nations Resolution 194.

Resolution 194 stipulates that the refugees have the right to either return or receive compensation for their lost property. It has been accepted by the Arab parties, who insist it should be implemented as an indivisible whole. The angry reaction of many Palestinians to what they consider an unacceptable concession on the Palestinian right of return is a clear indication that any agreement that does not fully uphold what they perceive as their inalienable right has little chance of success. Justified though it may be, it is a reaction that could end up isolating the Palestinians instead of Sharon and his government of ultra-hawks from international public opinion, which now strongly supports the new peace initiative

Defend the Right of Return

(Please read, respond and forward)

13 October 2003
For Immediate Release

Al-Awda Action Call: The Right to Return Under Attack

Press reports indicate that recent talks held in Geneva and Amman between a
Palestinian delegation and Israeli opposition parties reached an
agreement which ignores the natural and historical rights of Palestinian
refugees to return and restitution, international law and United Nations
resolutions. If these press reports are correct, such an agreement sets a
disastrous precedent and is totally unacceptable. The press reports indicate
that the Palestinian delegation, which took part in the talks, was approved
by Mr. Yasser Arafat, President of the Palestinian Authority.

Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, calls on its members and
supporters to express their concerns directly to the leadership of the
Palestinian Authority:

Talking Points:

* The Palestinian right to return is an inalienable, natural and historical
right, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Geneva
Conventions and UN Resolution 194.

* According to international law, no agreement, negotiations or parties
which purport to trade away the right to return or any other inalienable
rights can have any legal basis and cannot bind or compel the Palestinian
people to end the struggle for the fulfillment of their rights.

* Any attempt to abrogate the rights of Palestinian refugees would set a
disastrous precedent in international human rights law, and provide a clear
signal that ethnic cleansers who expel civilians from their homes, steal
their property, and prevent refugees returning for long enough can expect to
have their illegal territorial conquests blessed with international
legitimacy.

* Implementation of the right to return as spelled out in UN resolution 194
is the core to a just resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

http://alaqsaintifada.org/geneva/geneva.htm

The Palestinian Authority and the Right of Return

The PA has been trying to concede the right of return for quite a long while and has pursued this by trying to slowly soften the Palestinian public opinion towards it. Palestinian officials would make statements suggesting forgoing the right of return, and if the public's opposition was too strong, the PA would distance itself from the statements, claiming that they only represented personal opinions of the individuals expressing them. After several repetitions of this same scenario, the concept becomes less shocking, making it easier for the PA to endorse.

Several politicians have played a key role in this scheme, most notably Sari Nusseibeh, the PA's former representative in Jerusalem, and now Dean of Al-Quds University. In September 2002, Nusseibeh reached an ''agreement'' with Ami Ayalon, former head of the Israeli intelligence service, which concludes that ''Palestinian refugees will return only to the State of Palestine.'' Naturally, Nusseibeh's positions were very well received in the U.S. and Israel, and he became widely quoted in the U.S. media, as well as being frequently invited to lecture. In fact, on Oct. 23, 2003 he and Ayalon will be speaking at the University of Washington in Seattle, undoubtedly to garner support for the ''Ayalon-Nusseibeh Agreement'' or the ''Geneva Accord'' (both amount to the same thing, and the first may have been a test balloon for the second).

Abed Rabbo has been involved for several years on working with Yossi Beilin to ''resolve'' the right of return issue, and had already indicated a willingness to forgo the right of return when he was the Minister of Information. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot in November 2002, he said ''the Palestinians will not insist on the implementation of the right of return for the refugees.''

Former Prime Minister Abu Mazen had also worked with Yossi Beilin, and formulated the Beilin-Abu Mazen Document in 1995, which suggested that refugees be ''rehabilitated and resettled'' in the Palestinian territories or other countries. The document also specified that this would be a ''full and final settlement of the refugee issue in all its dimensions,'' and that there would be no ''additional claims or demands arising from this issue.''

Another accomplice in the efforts to relinquish refugee rights is none other than Nabil Shaath, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. As far back as 1991, Shaath participated in an American-sponsored ''Framework for a Public Peace Process'' that, among other provisions, sought to ''resettle Palestinian refugees and to provide them with opportunities to live as citizens in permanent residence in the State of Palestine or in agreement with Arab States where they live at present.'' In July 1991, Shaath wrote to the organizers that he was ''authorized by the Palestine Liberation Organization to endorse and support this document as a valuable basis for future dialogue in the search for peace.'' Hanna Siniora, publisher of the Jerusalem Times, also participated in the forum and signed on to it.

Khalil Shikaki, of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, also gained popularity in the U.S. and Israel for his work. In February 2002, Shikaki participated in an Israeli conference on ''Countering Suicide Terrorism,'' and suggested that the way to reduce suicide bombings was to use harsher collective punishment against the Palestinian people. In July 2003, Shikaki claimed that his polls show that Palestinian refugees don't actually want to go home! Shikaki's poll gave Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories five options to choose from. The option of returning to their 1948 homes was presented as an unattractive scenario, with a limited annual quota being allowed to return, the requirement of Israeli citizenship (something most refugees would find emotionally unbearable), and receiving no compensation for their properties that were lost or destroyed (a stipulation that, aside from being illegal, is unattractive to poor refugees, especially since all other options included compensation). Given such conditions it is natural that most respondents would prefer to settle in the new Palestinian state, and Shikaki ran to the media with these ''findings.'' Infuriated refugees stormed into Shikaki's office and threw eggs at him, indicating how out-of-synch his claims were with reality.

http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/petition3.htm

It attempts to nullify the Palestinian right of return, both as a collective national right and as an individual right. By doing so, it strengthens existing attempts to relocate and scatter Palestinian refugees throughout the world and gives credence to plans to abrogate international law pertaining to the inalienable nature of the right of return. The net result would be to extract the very anchor of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination: the indivisible oneness of the Palestinian people and their right to their homes, properties and homeland.