I'd like to ask everyone to please lay down the usual "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian" stances as best as you can for the purposes of this thread. We're not talking about whether Israel has a right to exist, or whether the world is better off with Palestinians without a homeland.

In almost every peace negotation, one of the big stumbling blocks is always the "Right of Return". I'm man enough to admit I don't understand this contentious issue anywhere near as much as I'd like. So I'd like to have a discussion about "Right of Return", nothing more, nothing less. What is it, is it feasible, is it fair, has it happened in other peace settlements? This is where I would like the discussion to focus.

If you want to bash Zionist scum or Jihadist maniacs, please, there's about 1000 threads that do that already. Just go resurrect one.

Anyway, here's my understanding of the "Right of Return" or ROR.

In 1967, during the 6 Days War, a lot of Palestinians left Israel (and a lot stayed). Those that left had nothing, they left all their proprety behind. Naturally, it's passed on to other hands over the past 40 years. Now, as part of the settlement, beyond the 2-states, the Palestinians want a clause that if they can make a verbal claim to a piece of property, it must automatically be returned to them. No argument, no appeal, if they say it's theirs, it's theirs.

Is this right? Has anything remotely like this ever happened in any war's concluding treaty?