Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians protest against the confiscation of their land for Jewish settlements near Beit Jala, West Bank. Photo by Mosab Shawer.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A Palestinian father and his little daughter sit on the ruins of their home which was demolished by Israeli occupation forces today morning in al-Khalil.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The entrance of Al-Khader Church, northeast of Ramallah, which was built in the fifth century AD and is one of the oldest churches in Palestine.

Too bad Christians are being forced out of the Palestinian territories.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

I have to be supportive of "Coyote's" position.

◈ As has been pointed out many times → the principle of "self-determination" been mentioned in the UN Charter (1945) as mentioned in Articles 2(1) and 55 are generally considered to be too vague to provide a right to self-determination.

◈ And I can find no body of binding law that unconditionally obligates a state to honor the "Right of Return."​

I have said this before, I don’t believe in any “right of return” down through the generations. In other words, once those expelled are gone, so is any right.

(COMMENT)

Yes, even if there were such a "right," it is not a "right" the is past → familia-generation to familia-generation.

On the agree side, I don't think that one should have a "right to return" to any territory or State where one or some of your ancestors once lived. That seems a bit ridiculous to me. On the other hand, there is a difference between forced expulsion and voluntary migration, with respect to the retention of rights.

I think individual "right of return" and collective rights to self-determination are two different things and should be distinguished from each other. Individual "right of return" can not be passed down to generations. However, collective rights to self-determination include the right to live on the territory of that self-determination. Did that make sense?

[/quote]
(COMMENT)

Yes, the rights [of "return" - and (collective) to self-determination)] are not the same thing and they are not dependent (on the other) rights.

Are "collective rights to self-determination" being conflated with "collective rights to return"? And if so...that would seem to me to then open the door for the Palestinians right to return.
That sort of applies to all collective rights of return IMO.

(COMMENT)

Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights

What is the practical difference between a "collective right" and the "right of all peoples?"


..........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

I have to be supportive of "Coyote's" position.

◈ As has been pointed out many times → the principle of "self-determination" been mentioned in the UN Charter (1945) as mentioned in Articles 2(1) and 55 are generally considered to be too vague to provide a right to self-determination.

◈ And I can find no body of binding law that unconditionally obligates a state to honor the "Right of Return."​

I have said this before, I don’t believe in any “right of return” down through the generations. In other words, once those expelled are gone, so is any right.

(COMMENT)

Yes, even if there were such a "right," it is not a "right" the is past → familia-generation to familia-generation.

On the agree side, I don't think that one should have a "right to return" to any territory or State where one or some of your ancestors once lived. That seems a bit ridiculous to me. On the other hand, there is a difference between forced expulsion and voluntary migration, with respect to the retention of rights.

I think individual "right of return" and collective rights to self-determination are two different things and should be distinguished from each other. Individual "right of return" can not be passed down to generations. However, collective rights to self-determination include the right to live on the territory of that self-determination. Did that make sense?

(COMMENT)

Yes, the rights [of "return" - and (collective) to self-determination)] are not the same thing and they are not dependent (on the other) rights.

Are "collective rights to self-determination" being conflated with "collective rights to return"? And if so...that would seem to me to then open the door for the Palestinians right to return.
That sort of applies to all collective rights of return IMO.

(COMMENT)

Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights

What is the practical difference between a "collective right" and the "right of all peoples?"


..........
Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

◈ And I can find no body of binding law that unconditionally obligates a state to honor the "Right of Return."

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

I have to be supportive of "Coyote's" position.

◈ As has been pointed out many times → the principle of "self-determination" been mentioned in the UN Charter (1945) as mentioned in Articles 2(1) and 55 are generally considered to be too vague to provide a right to self-determination.

◈ And I can find no body of binding law that unconditionally obligates a state to honor the "Right of Return."​

I have said this before, I don’t believe in any “right of return” down through the generations. In other words, once those expelled are gone, so is any right.

(COMMENT)

Yes, even if there were such a "right," it is not a "right" the is past → familia-generation to familia-generation.

On the agree side, I don't think that one should have a "right to return" to any territory or State where one or some of your ancestors once lived. That seems a bit ridiculous to me. On the other hand, there is a difference between forced expulsion and voluntary migration, with respect to the retention of rights.

I think individual "right of return" and collective rights to self-determination are two different things and should be distinguished from each other. Individual "right of return" can not be passed down to generations. However, collective rights to self-determination include the right to live on the territory of that self-determination. Did that make sense?

(COMMENT)

Yes, the rights [of "return" - and (collective) to self-determination)] are not the same thing and they are not dependent (on the other) rights.

Are "collective rights to self-determination" being conflated with "collective rights to return"? And if so...that would seem to me to then open the door for the Palestinians right to return.
That sort of applies to all collective rights of return IMO.

(COMMENT)

Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights

What is the practical difference between a "collective right" and the "right of all peoples?"


..........
Most Respectfully,
R

◈ And I can find no body of binding law that unconditionally obligates a state to honor the "Right of Return."

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.[/QUOTE]

Oh, get over it already. My parents were refugees from Poland. Do you know how many refugees there were from India, Pakistan, many countries from Europe after WW2?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

I have to be supportive of "Coyote's" position.

◈ As has been pointed out many times → the principle of "self-determination" been mentioned in the UN Charter (1945) as mentioned in Articles 2(1) and 55 are generally considered to be too vague to provide a right to self-determination.

◈ And I can find no body of binding law that unconditionally obligates a state to honor the "Right of Return."​

I have said this before, I don’t believe in any “right of return” down through the generations. In other words, once those expelled are gone, so is any right.

(COMMENT)

Yes, even if there were such a "right," it is not a "right" the is past → familia-generation to familia-generation.

On the agree side, I don't think that one should have a "right to return" to any territory or State where one or some of your ancestors once lived. That seems a bit ridiculous to me. On the other hand, there is a difference between forced expulsion and voluntary migration, with respect to the retention of rights.

I think individual "right of return" and collective rights to self-determination are two different things and should be distinguished from each other. Individual "right of return" can not be passed down to generations. However, collective rights to self-determination include the right to live on the territory of that self-determination. Did that make sense?

(COMMENT)

Yes, the rights [of "return" - and (collective) to self-determination)] are not the same thing and they are not dependent (on the other) rights.

Are "collective rights to self-determination" being conflated with "collective rights to return"? And if so...that would seem to me to then open the door for the Palestinians right to return.
That sort of applies to all collective rights of return IMO.

(COMMENT)

Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights

What is the practical difference between a "collective right" and the "right of all peoples?"


..........
Most Respectfully,
R

◈ And I can find no body of binding law that unconditionally obligates a state to honor the "Right of Return."

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Oh, get over it already. My parents were refugees from Poland. Do you know how many refugees there were from India, Pakistan, many countries from Europe after WW2?[/QUOTE]
So, that doesn't change anything.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, this has been repeated so many times, that it has become very distorted.

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

So, that doesn't change anything.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Middle East and the former territory of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, this was taken into account in Article 30, Treaty of Lausanne:

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

Basically, what this says is that → as an example scenario: I live in Ohio which borders Canada. I (not my children who live in PA and KY) own my own home. If the US were to transfer the political sovereignty of Ohio to Canada, I would still own my land; BUT, my nationality would transfer in with the land.

The way in which you from your statement is misleading and very elementary. This scenario I render demonstrates that I "belong" to the land and my nationality follows the land.

.........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, this has been repeated so many times, that it has become very distorted.

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

So, that doesn't change anything.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Middle East and the former territory of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, this was taken into account in Article 30, Treaty of Lausanne:

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

Basically, what this says is that → as an example scenario: I live in Ohio which borders Canada. I (not my children who live in PA and KY) own my own home. If the US were to transfer the political sovereignty of Ohio to Canada, I would still own my land; BUT, my nationality would transfer in with the land.

The way in which you from your statement is misleading and very elementary. This scenario I render demonstrates that I "belong" to the land and my nationality follows the land.

.........
Most Respectfully,
R

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
---------------------------
Nobody can explain how the Palestinians have less rights than any other people.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

I have to be supportive of "Coyote's" position.

◈ As has been pointed out many times → the principle of "self-determination" been mentioned in the UN Charter (1945) as mentioned in Articles 2(1) and 55 are generally considered to be too vague to provide a right to self-determination.

◈ And I can find no body of binding law that unconditionally obligates a state to honor the "Right of Return."​

I have said this before, I don’t believe in any “right of return” down through the generations. In other words, once those expelled are gone, so is any right.

(COMMENT)

Yes, even if there were such a "right," it is not a "right" the is past → familia-generation to familia-generation.

On the agree side, I don't think that one should have a "right to return" to any territory or State where one or some of your ancestors once lived. That seems a bit ridiculous to me. On the other hand, there is a difference between forced expulsion and voluntary migration, with respect to the retention of rights.

I think individual "right of return" and collective rights to self-determination are two different things and should be distinguished from each other. Individual "right of return" can not be passed down to generations. However, collective rights to self-determination include the right to live on the territory of that self-determination. Did that make sense?

(COMMENT)

Yes, the rights [of "return" - and (collective) to self-determination)] are not the same thing and they are not dependent (on the other) rights.

Are "collective rights to self-determination" being conflated with "collective rights to return"? And if so...that would seem to me to then open the door for the Palestinians right to return.
That sort of applies to all collective rights of return IMO.

(COMMENT)

Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights

What is the practical difference between a "collective right" and the "right of all peoples?"


..........
Most Respectfully,
R

Well I might not know enough of the details regarding these concepts, to which You might enlighten me, and certainly will not pretend to like Tinnie does each time giving his "legal opinion"...but from a short research these concepts of "Right of return", definition of who are to be considered a people, and the mere "right to self-determination" (and their levels of manifestation in application) all seem to dwell in some green area between a variety of crossing philosophies still being in discussion, rather than concretely set in stone.

Seems to me this grey area is a fertile ground on which the Arab propaganda flourishes to manipulate the public discourse - choosing certain parts of these philosophies as if they were set in stone while denying the existence of others to spread disinformation. Much like the reliance on those UN resolutions while ignoring they're not at all binding laws.

Needless to say, it seems unlikely the Arab governments would follow any of those in practice, in case it favors the sovereignty of the Nation of Israel.

That said, please explain, what definite validity do they have in given case?

 

[Coyote]

I have said this before, I don’t believe in any “right of return” down through the generations. In other words, once those expelled are gone, so is any right.

I both agree and disagree with this.

On the disagree side, I worry that this opens the door to abuse. In that it creates the condition of making expulsion a viable method of removing rights from people. We should guard against that.

On the agree side, I don't think that one should have a "right to return" to any territory or State where one or some of your ancestors once lived. That seems a bit ridiculous to me. On the other hand, there is a difference between forced expulsion and voluntary migration, with respect to retention of rights.

I think individual "right of return" and collective rights to self-determination are two different things and should be distinguished from each other. Individual "right of return" can not be passed down to generations. However, collective rights to self-determination include the right to live on the territory of that self-determination. Did that make sense?

It makes sense but it still seems problematic...maybe you could elaborate.

Are "collective rights to self determination" being conflated with "collective rights to return"? And if so...that would seem to me to then open the door for the Palestinians right to return.

Self-determination has to MEAN something, right? It is intended for a peoples of a specific culture, originating on that territory, to create a space where that particular culture colors the landscape. Its values, its language, its holiday celebrations, its particular rhythm of life, its ideology is the ice cream flavor of the day, every day. Right? Otherwise the entire idea of self-determination has no value.

(This doesn't mean that other cultures are unable to practice and live their culture. And their culture should be protected, but that its just not the color of the sky, you know?)

So, given that the goal is two states (likely actually four) -- each with their own color -- the collective right of return involves returning to the state which offers your color. It gives people the collective right to live under their own sky.

Individuals who would rather return to their own specific home, would have individual rights to do so. But their descendants would not.

Clear?

Yes, that clarifies it. But I dont agree, because I don't agree that there is any collective right of return beyond what a state is willing to give.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, this has been repeated so many times, that it has become very distorted.

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

So, that doesn't change anything.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Middle East and the former territory of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, this was taken into account in Article 30, Treaty of Lausanne:

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

Basically, what this says is that → as an example scenario: I live in Ohio which borders Canada. I (not my children who live in PA and KY) own my own home. If the US were to transfer the political sovereignty of Ohio to Canada, I would still own my land; BUT, my nationality would transfer in with the land.

The way in which you from your statement is misleading and very elementary. This scenario I render demonstrates that I "belong" to the land and my nationality follows the land.

.........
Most Respectfully,
R

Again this discussion about "Right of Return" seems to be merely misinformation by the Arab propaganda, relying on the false notion that such even exists, conflating it to granting citizenship privileges to certain groups as normally practiced in many nation states like Ireland, Greece etc, and in this case merely copying the name it was given under Israeli law to this practice, while no such right or binding law actually existing that could force a nation except those whom they have no interest in providing that privilege, for each nations' specific reasons.

Does this right actually exist, or is it another matter of grey area taken for granted?

 

[Coyote]

The right only exists in so far as the state is willing to grant it in so far as Ireland does or Israel does. And presumably if the Palestinians ever get autonomy they could legislate that same right in what ever state they control but imo it doesnt exist as a right outside of that.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, this has been repeated so many times, that it has become very distorted.

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

So, that doesn't change anything.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Middle East and the former territory of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, this was taken into account in Article 30, Treaty of Lausanne:

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

Basically, what this says is that → as an example scenario: I live in Ohio which borders Canada. I (not my children who live in PA and KY) own my own home. If the US were to transfer the political sovereignty of Ohio to Canada, I would still own my land; BUT, my nationality would transfer in with the land.

The way in which you from your statement is misleading and very elementary. This scenario I render demonstrates that I "belong" to the land and my nationality follows the land.

.........
Most Respectfully,
R

Again this discussion about "Right of Return" seems to be merely misinformation by the Arab propaganda, relying on the false notion that such even exists, conflating it to granting citizenship privileges to certain groups as normally practiced in many nation states like Ireland, Greece etc, and in this case merely copying the name it was given under Israeli law to this practice, while no such right or binding law actually existing that could force a nation except those whom they have no interest in providing that privilege, for each nations' specific reasons.

Does this right actually exist, or is it another matter of grey area taken for granted?

Let me add to this ^^^^

that in practice, in the reality of the middle eastern conflicts, it's unlikely that even if such concepts are accepted by the western community, will be fully or if at all respected in the region, and most probably denied under Tinnie's favorite excuse to deny Jews any form of independence as - "foreign intervention".

Furthermore given the clear bias against Israel, whether it follows any of these concepts or not, any of their actions or decisions in relation to the Arab governments will be automatically deemed "illegal"; While none of them were or will be demanded from the Arab side in the opposite direction.

Therefore what is left is to discuss the real concepts, and cultural archetypes that influence the development on the ground and stay in contradiction to (what seems to me) most of the modern Western concepts according to which various solutions are measured.

Specifically the concept under Jewish Law - of specific land forever belonging to a specific nation only , regardless of who might have invaded it and inhabits in any given time. This in a way resembles the modern western understanding of the status of indigenous cultures in their lands of origin, however with rare exception, remains only as intellectual concept.

And the dual Arab Muslim concept - of 'Dar al-Islam' and 'Dar al-Harb', meaning land already governed under Muslim rule, vs land not yet dominated that is under a non-Muslim rule. However with that also comes a clause which allows specifically only Arab rule in the Arabian peninsula.

Therefore the question should be rather - can these 3 systems of law practically come to terms,
and in what way?

 

[rylah]

A Palestinian father and his little daughter sit on the ruins of their home which was demolished by Israeli occupation forces today morning in al-Khalil.

This is not Al-Khalil/ Hebron, probably some random picture as usually used by the Arab propaganda, like they usually do to gain sympathy under false premises.

Demolition of houses, usually only parts of them (as will be explained further), are conducted in response to murder of Israelis for deterrence, and simply as a way to bring minimal justice, which is why usually only the specific rooms of the murderers are demolished while keeping the rest standing, as seen behind the ruins in the picture above.

This is also probably the reason why no names are mentioned, and why you never provide links in such posts, that would usually expose much more than needed for these Arab propaganda pieces to have any effect on the naive and uninformed.

 

[rylah]

Palestinians protest against the confiscation of their land for Jewish settlements near Beit Jala, West Bank. Photo by Mosab Shawer.

Level of credibility - some guys who get 50$ for holding a placard.

However there bears a simple question - why is it fine for Arabs to settle the land and not the Jews?

I won't hold my breath expecting an answer...

 

[rylah]

Yes. There is. But is that nuance present in Rylah’s post?

Not especially. But it isn't in yours either.

It reads more along the lines of the all to common Muslims are evil” theme.

No, it doesn't. He specifically used the term "Islamist", indicating he is speaking of a very distinct group of extremists.

Now any demand coming from IS is not to be taken seriously ...

IS as in Islamic State? On the contrary, they should be taken very seriously.

No. What was not taken seriously was a demand of a right of return.

And no...he used the term Islamist buddies, referring to historic Muslims, putting ISIS in the same category as historic Muslims, his distinct group was in reality very broad.

Well, I can't take seriously something that doesn't exist,
especially under the circumstance.

And yes I specifically used the term "Islamists", to give the context to what might be the considerations of the king of Spain in refusing those demands.

If all you can do is reserve to strawman arguments, and invent new terms ("historic Muslims" - what does it even mean regarding Spain??) to deny the concerns of European societies in dealing with (i)mmigration from the middle east, then I can only assume you're either totally ignorant of reality and history, or simply motivated by disrespect to anyone who, for natural reason, doesn't buy into your manipulation of identity politics in blind faith, for the sake of their own people.

But let's assume this term you've just invented - "Historic Muslims" actually was in use and meaningful.
The term itself provides more backing to the king's decision, rather than your defense of this claim for "Right of Return" to the African Muslims who actually demand it.

For the simple reason that "Historic Muslims" could rationally only be applied to those Muslims who belong to any of the original Arab tribes of the Arabian Peninsula, the historic origin of Islam, who were the only Muslims in history, at the time predating the invasion and colonization by the Caliphate Empire to the entire middle east, Asia and parts of Europe, while forcefully converting or totally erasing most (if not whole) indigenous populations and cultures on their way, were the only

You might blame anyone who disagrees and insist on denying that, but once nations expel their invaders and regain independence, they tend to not want have anything with those who tried to subjugate them.

And if you don't like to deal with the history of Muslim invasions to others' lands, that's just your issue to deal with, and nothing to be blamed on the government of Spain or anyone who faced a similar history.

 

[Shusha]

I have said this before, I don’t believe in any “right of return” down through the generations. In other words, once those expelled are gone, so is any right.

I both agree and disagree with this.

On the disagree side, I worry that this opens the door to abuse. In that it creates the condition of making expulsion a viable method of removing rights from people. We should guard against that.

On the agree side, I don't think that one should have a "right to return" to any territory or State where one or some of your ancestors once lived. That seems a bit ridiculous to me. On the other hand, there is a difference between forced expulsion and voluntary migration, with respect to retention of rights.

I think individual "right of return" and collective rights to self-determination are two different things and should be distinguished from each other. Individual "right of return" can not be passed down to generations. However, collective rights to self-determination include the right to live on the territory of that self-determination. Did that make sense?

It makes sense but it still seems problematic...maybe you could elaborate.

Are "collective rights to self determination" being conflated with "collective rights to return"? And if so...that would seem to me to then open the door for the Palestinians right to return.

Self-determination has to MEAN something, right? It is intended for a peoples of a specific culture, originating on that territory, to create a space where that particular culture colors the landscape. Its values, its language, its holiday celebrations, its particular rhythm of life, its ideology is the ice cream flavor of the day, every day. Right? Otherwise the entire idea of self-determination has no value.

(This doesn't mean that other cultures are unable to practice and live their culture. And their culture should be protected, but that its just not the color of the sky, you know?)

So, given that the goal is two states (likely actually four) -- each with their own color -- the collective right of return involves returning to the state which offers your color. It gives people the collective right to live under their own sky.

Individuals who would rather return to their own specific home, would have individual rights to do so. But their descendants would not.

Clear?

Yes, that clarifies it. But I dont agree, because I don't agree that there is any collective right of return beyond what a state is willing to give.

Sure. You are thinking of return as something which can happen only after self-determination and sovereignty has been achieved.

While I’m suggesting for a people with a large Diaspora it can be part of the process of achieving self-determination.