Here it is folks. The issue is so fundamental that Abbas is clearly saying that the choice between compromising on it and having peace (which would have happened a long ago if they agreed for flexibility). If like we are told by the folks in Meretz/Geneva/Arab League it is simply going to be a symbolic gesture (e.g. 1000, 2000 people) then it seems like a very illogical price to pay for abandoning this 'symbolic' gesture vs signing peace agreement a long time ago. It only makes sense 1. If it is not planned to be symbolic , 2. if it allows future generations to overturn the agreement since a 'Right' can not be signed away. Since the Right of Return is not exercised in any other conflict (how far would you go to exercise it? , Does it only applies to Palestinians? (like refugee definition which is unique only to Palestinians and no other refugees) (remember that the European Human Rights court even did not accept it in Cypress where the Turkish invasion is more recent and more clear cut) - The game is clear - we have been Duped (not the first time, and probably not the last) - the issue of right of return is as always been the destruction mechanism put in 'just in case' for at least future if not current generations for the conflict to persist.
Taliban attack police HQ in Kunduz (AP)