The ICJ and IIRC the Israeli Supreme Court have issued opinions which disagree; I am inclined to their opinion
It's a simple historical fact. There has never been a state of Palestine. Opinions, as ever, are overwhelmed with facts.
- in fact if Israel is the successor to the mandate of Palestine and no Palestinian state had germane existence the right of return debacle would be simple as all persons in the territory would have acquired Israeli citizenship to hold the assumption against statelessness; this is a special dilemma which actually arises when the right to return issue is debated.
Israel declared it's own existence in accordance with UN resolution 181. A Palestinian state could have declared it's existence at the same time.
Those that did not want Israeli citizenship voted with their feet, they left. Why should any right of return include something they so emphatically rejected?
The right to return is contingent, not on citizenship, but on the Palestinians ability to co-exist peacefully.
It's a simple historical fact. There has never been a state of Palestine.
The West Bank Wall, the detention of persons disconnected with any criminal act and a citizenship policy that is as capricious as it is discriminatory all amount to a set of policies that have rightfully been condemned by Dugard and Falk in succession as the Special Rapporteur. Again absent pursuasive argument to the contrary I am inclined to accept Dugard and Falk's opinions supplemented by Jilani, Chinkin and Travers even if qualified by Goldstone.
So no I am afraid to defend the policies and practices of the government or military of Israel is to defy all evidence and to assemble an ideologically based fairy tale.
Faux outrage that doesn't actually explain how Israel discriminates against it's own citizens.[
Again on both counts you have presented a classic refusal to recognize the contradiction in your propositions: If the Palestinian people are not a people with a right to self determination then a right of return and the trappings of Israeli citizenship would apply to all people in the territory at the formation of Israel.
That's a huge
"If".
The argument falls apart on three points.
1 . UN Resolution 181 offered the Palestinian people exactly the same opportunity as it did the Israelis.
2. Arab Israelis do enjoy the trappings of Israeli citizenship.
3. Palestinians do not want to be Israelis, they which to supplant the Israeli state.
Now you may well argue that the Palestinian people have been denied the opportunity of statehood, but that denial wasn't orchestrated by Israel, but rather by the Arab nations of the region.
Finally the proposition that a person can be viewed as a second class citizen on the basis of not being a citizen of your own country flies in the face of international law - the principle of non-transmission of status impairment has been well established since the Atlantic slave trade and while such things should be redundant sadly it is not and the proposition currently upheld in all legal systems is that one state treats all persons of another state as being citizens of the same class regardless of internal discrimination that may arise.
Poppycock.
Non-Citizens, do not enjoy the same rights as citizens in any country. Sovereign states reserve the right to restrict access to territory, access to facilities, and access to office.
None the less, there is no question of Palestinians being second class citizens of Israel. They are NOT citizens of Israel.
