More on the so-called “right of return” from Efraim Karsh, who calls it a euphemism for annihilation:
While for most Western observers the term “occupation” describes Israel’s control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, areas that it conquered during the Six-Day war of June 1967, for Palestinians and Arabs the Israeli presence in these territories represents only the latest chapter in an uninterrupted story of “occupations,” dating back to the very creation of Israel on “stolen” land. Hence the “right of return” is meant to reverse the effects of the “1948 occupation” – that is, the establishment of the State of Israel itself.
There has been no objective more transparent than the Palestinian leadership’s goal of eradicating Israel. Whether through wars, terrorism, the “right of return”, or any other ploy, this objective has been stated loudly and clearly for everyone to hear.
So then why is the world so stubbornly blind to it? Maybe because we want to believe that a peaceful two-state solution is not only possible, but imminent? Maybe because from our perspective, we would give up territory for peace, so we expect their side to do the same?
especially when israel is such a large country, filled with a myriad of natural resources.
they do not know, nor care that the country is slightly larger than Rhode Island. just try to pacify the local natives and hope it does not come and bite them in the ass. but it already has, and is growing daily under their very eyes….islam=submit=you submit to them!!
There’s another euphemism for annihilation, itself a euphemism for genocide: it’s called ‘transfer’, and it’s the official policy of one branch of the Sharon coalition — which raises it to the level of potential public policy of the Israeli government.
This includes the transferring out of a local population and the transferring in of a foreign population — which is a violation of international law.
Another euphemism is ‘settlement,’ which actually means illegal construction on foreign territory.