Obama went to synagogue Rodeph Shalom in Philadelphia today to reassure Jews that he’s always been on our side, Rev. Wright notwithstanding. According to the pool report, Robert Wexler, the Florida congressman, opened up for Obama and assured the audience that "’Obama unequivocally rejects the Palestinian right of return’ because he understands that Israel must remain a Jewish state."
It is a great thing that the Right of Return is at last being debated in American politics. I pray we can open the discussion up, to include Ali Abunimah, who reports that in the eyes of F.W. De Clerk, the last president of apartheid South Africa, who dismantled that system, Israel’s division of land and immigration policies, all in the name of preserving a Jewish state, remind him of apartheid South Africa trying to maintain a white colony.
Myself, I am not even sure where I come down on this issue. I want help; I want an open robust discussion in the great US of A….
Related posts:
{ 21 comments }
Jews have a right of return to Israel and *if* there will be a Palestinian state then they should have an equal right to live in that state. I know we should just retreat back in to the sea and not interfere with the Middle East being "judenrien".
Jews have a right of return to Israel and *if* there will be a Palestinian state then they should have an equal right to live in that state. I know we should just retreat back in to the sea and not interfere with the Middle East being "judenrien".
.
Quote: Robert Wexler, the Florida congressman, opened up for Obama and assured the audience that "'Obama unequivocally rejects the Palestinian right of return' because he understands that Israel must remain a Jewish state." It is a great thing that the Right of Return is at last being debated in American politics.
Errrr, but IS it being debated? Sounds more like Wexler was trying to back Obama into a corner by making an assertion that, because Obama failed to counter it, gets transformed into a "commitment" to the Jewish community.
I would really resent having an introductory speaker play that sh*tty game with me on a podium, and would call him on it. But then, I'm not a political candidate who has to step and fetch it for private Jewish audiences in major cities across the country. And Wexler's little gambit probably was a mere love tap, compared to the way the Lobby breaks knuckles and kneecaps behind closed doors. Just a word to the wise, as it were.
Again, here we have an American Congressman presuming to dictate the terms of a peace settlement in a faraway place, simply because he belongs to one of the warring tribes. Zionism requires an ethnically-cleansed Jewish state, just as old Adolph wanted an ethnically-cleansed Aryan state. Different tribes, same twisted goal. But this time, the U.S. backs the ethnic cleansers.
I just hope Obama don't end up another FIEL' HAN' on Uncle Ehud's plantation, the way Sister Condi did. Slavery time s'posed to be over.
Edward Said had an essay describing what the 'right of return' should entail (I am going on memory here from something I read maybe 15 years back). What struck me was it did not entail the right of every Palestinian refugee to Israeli citizenship or residency. Mostly, it was that Israel should officially recognize the Nakba and that Palestinians had historic claims to land that is now Israel. It entitled every Palestinian refugee the right of citizenship and residency in the West Bank and Gaza. Otherwise it was quite ambiguous. Just the kind of thing that negotiators are paid to work out.
"Zionism requires an ethnically-cleansed Jewish state, just as old Adolph wanted an ethnically-cleansed Aryan state."…
F— you. Sorry I realize that I should be more politic, etc., but this kind of garbage does not deserve a decent response. Until all nationalisms are done away with then we have a right to our state as much as anyone else. I guess 21 or 22 states has just never been enough for the Arab nation.
The two-state solution is rational because of the balanced demographics of the two people, that have such different bases of association, and desires for sovereignty, and form of law, that they are not potentially capable of living in a single-state peacefully.
With a clear majority in either state, the majorities can tolerate a minority, and on equal footing legally and socially, possibly.
Israel need not be Arab-free, nor Palestine Jew-free.
I favor the opportunity for Arabs to seek legal redress for land claims in Israel and Palestine, and in the majority of cases settled in the form of compensation, NOT forced removal, nor even a general right of return to Israel for citizenship.
There is a pattern of ethnic exclusion and cleansing in both societies, of Jews over centuries. There still are laws in Palestine prohibiting sale of land to Jews.
Its not color-blind, and if a color-blind society is your goal in the region, it will take work, and agitation oriented to Palestine, that likely considers you foreign (So long as you willingly criticize. People that fawn over the existing power structure are liked, as ethically compromised as that is).
If the right of return creates a situation in either community that is in parity in population without first establishing a civil middle as THE prominent majority, comprised of a-nationalist civilists including leadership from both ethnicities, then civil war is the likely result.
Better to drop rhetorical idealism, for practical peace and viability.
The Israeli labor party does or did have a couple Arabs somewhat prominently in their list, and last year an Arab for the first time assumed a ministry role (though not one of the critical ministries).
Ali Abuminah is appealing to the dissenting community to force Israel to relent to a single-state, imagining South Africa and Israel/Palestine to be largely parallel situations, with parallel solutions.
That is DIFFERENT than what I perceive as a precondition of the civil middle forming the a-nationalist nucleus, rather than the primarily dissenting left.
Mr. Witty, your statement that "There still are laws in Palestine prohibiting sale of land to Jews," may be technically true (I don't know) but for real practical purposes, it is not. This is an example of suggesting that the situation in Palestine and Israel is an equal "conflict", and an ancient and murky one as well, rather than calling it a brutal occupation and a largely peaceful resistance to that occupation. This piece which I excerpt below, appeared in the Guardian a couple of days ago, and tells a very different story of the reality of obtaining and keeping a home for a Palestinian. It speaks to the urgency of all of us working to resolve the horrific injustice of life for Palestinians.
Area C strikes fear into the heart of Palestinians as homes are destroyed:
In the end it came down to a single-page letter, written in Hebrew and Arabic and hand-delivered by an Israeli army officer who knocked at the front door. The letter spelt the imminent destruction of the whitewashed three-storey home and small, tree-lined garden that Bassam Suleiman spent so long saving for and then built with his family a decade ago.
It was a final demolition order, with instructions to evacuate the house within three days.
If Suleiman was in any doubt about the Israeli military's intentions he had only to look outside his back door where large piles of rubble and broken concrete mark the remains of the seven of his neighbours' houses that were demolished in the same way last year…
"Everything I did in my life was for what's now inside this house and now it's going to be destroyed," said Suleiman. "It's very hard for me to find somewhere else to live."
…The Israeli authorities argue that Suleiman's house was built in a part of the West Bank known as area C, a designation from the era of the Oslo Accords which means Israel has full military and administrative control. In order to build, a Palestinian must apply for a permit from the Israeli authorities. If there is no permit – as in Suleiman's case – the building is liable for demolition.
Area C covers 60% of the West Bank, home to around 70,000 Palestinians. It is also the area in which most Jewish settlements, all illegal under international law, are built. Compelling statistical evidence shows that while it is extremely hard for Palestinians to obtain building permits, settlements continue to grow rapidly.
Research by the Israeli group Peace Now found that 94% of Palestinian permit applications for Area C building were refused between 2000 and September 2007. Only 91 permits were granted to Palestinians, but 18,472 housing units were built in Jewish settlements. As a result of demolition orders 1,663 Palestinian buildings were demolished, against only 199 in the settlements. "The denial of permits for Palestinians on such a large scale raises the fear that there is a specific policy by the authorities to encourage a 'silent transfer' of the Palestinian population from area C," Peace Now said.
The article continues. It is from the Guardian, April 15, the International Section
Richard Witty, it's not always easy to follow the output of your meandering brainwaves.
I could ask many, but ask only one question: "There still are laws in Palestine prohibiting sale of land to Jews,"
What is the history of this law? What do you know about it?
There are laws prohibiting sales of land to Jews in every Arab country. Which is logical I suppose because try going to Saudi Arabia on an Israeli passport. You have 22 countries where Islam is the official religion. You have multiple countries in Europe where Christianity is the official religion. The king of England isn't called defender of the faith for nothing. But for some reason it's the one Jewish state in the world, the size of NJ. That brings out the lunatics, Haygood, Ed, Keating, and the like. Interesting.
.
"Until all nationalisms are done away with then we have a right to our state as much as anyone else." — David Cherson
Where do you find this right? Many of the participants here are of U.S. nationality, which is not an ethnically or religiously exclusive nationality.
I'd like to join a libertarian/anarchist nation, but I cannot find any UN resolution or edict from God which says that we free-thinkers have a "right" to our own state. If it ever happens, we'll just have to buy it.
Ironically, Europe — with its multiplicity of micro-states such as San Marino, Leichtenstein, Andorra, Luxembourg, Vatican, etc. — probably would have been a far more receptive and fruitful ground for a Jewish state, composed largely of European Jews. The lingua franca could have been Yiddish instead of Hebrew. Would have been interesting.
Moving into the heart of Islam sounded good in theory. But those ancient scriptures can lead one far astray. They were meant to be taken metaphorically; they function as a leghold trap on the ankles of literal thinkers.
By the way, no offense taken at the F.U. bit. Say what you like. I'm listening to your opinion.
.
"You have 22 countries where Islam is the official religion. You have multiple countries in Europe where Christianity is the official religion. But for some reason it's the one Jewish state in the world, the size of NJ."
I, and I think you, live in a state (the U.S.) which rejects any national religion. That's one reason why it has been so successful. Religious states — of any creed — are a mistake. Getting sucked into Old World religious wars — Serbia vs. Albania, Israel vs. Palestine, etc. — is a catastrophe. Renounce the $3 billion a year tribute, and I'll say no more. But as long as Israel is picking my pocket, I'll bitch and complain the livelong day, Lawdy I will!
actually, jews, if they wish, have about 180 or 190 countries they could call home if they wish.
size of new jersey? a crock. the state of jewry is every day expanding. nj is too small.
"I know we should just retreat back in to the sea"
assuming you speak for all jews, when did you all come from the sea?
Leander,
In Haaretz about six months ago, there was a story about a man imprisoned under the law.
I asked a Lebanese activist, with whom I had had conflict if it was true. She confirmed it.
She had similar statements to many here, of "how dare you even ask such a question".
Well, I think it is a very relevant question to determine the intent of Palestinian society.
Many on the left advocate for Palestinian rights on the basis that they are oppressed, but if their policy is not to install a more democratic state than Israel is, then I would think that that would reduce the urge of my dissent.
It leaves a politics of negation, an implication that removing wrong is the way to make good, even if good isn't really in the cards.
"Richard Witty | April 16, 2008 at 04:12 PM "
so, jews set the standards by which others are judged.
doesnt matter if i am good. what is mine is mine. you do not have a right to it just because you make up bigoted rules.
I know that friends of mine needed a Turkish stooge/straw men to built a summer residence at the seaside. It's officially not allowed for foreigners [e.g. Europeans] to buy land, build or own houses there.
What I would like to know is: What are the traditions of this law, what was its first shape and how did it develop, what problems did it try to solve, what interests where served …
Are there traces of Ottoman (French, British)legal traditions in the Arab laws. Has this led to a common approach concerning foreign ownership, again traditions, history , developments …
And especially what exactly happened with these laws from the late 19century till today in Syrian, Jordanian, Lebanon, and Egyptian, Palestian law. What thought traditions shaped them.
Would be interesting. Any specialists??
******************************************
Richard Witty:
"Many on the left advocate for Palestinian rights on the basis that they are oppressed, but if their policy is not to install a more democratic state than Israel is, then I would think that that would reduce the urge of my dissent."
Let me try to rewrite the above. How far away from what you tried to put into words is this:
The left defends the Palestinians since they consider them as victims. But if they do not intend to change Israels institutional and legal system, than I wouldn't really bother too much.
"A more democratic state than Israel is?"
Are you trying to avoid to say: I would object to equal rights for the Arabs?
Why do your mails sometimes get so distorted? Do you always have to take care what the evil-Mondoweiss-fans can and what they cannot be told?
Bondo, I know your sorry that you missed being one of the triggerman at Babi Yar but stick it up your ass. Haygood, I can't figure out whether your a spade or a redneck but your at least interesting. Even if you are a Jew baiting asshole.
Obama: “Hamas is not a state, Hamas is a terrorist organization…"
Not a state? In the area it governs it certainly fills the goverment posts with people from its organization. It was democratically elected by the Palestinians.
Maybe he means because it has called for the ending of the Israeli occupation by armed struggle, if necessary,it is not a "legitimate state". No, not in Israel's eyes. But they are the oppressor aren't they?
And is he saying because it has used "terror tactics" it can not be a legitimate state?
That's strange. History tells us Israel came into existance by means of armed struggle, including the use of terror to force the Palestinians from their land. Are we talking ends justify the means here. Terror used for "good" ends, in the case of Israel to create a safe haven for world Jews, is justified? Obama apparently was sleeping during the Reverand's sermons…especially the one on: "YOOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW"
You reep what you sow…
Leander,
The spirit of the question is "be careful what you wish for".
I urge improvement for Palestinian and Israeli welfare, improvement in the degree of civil rights in the world in general and in Israel and in Palestine.
It is a goal orientation, not a reaction orientation.
And, I don't see it happening with the idea of unlimited right of return applied.
I see likely civil war, with likely increased Israeli dominance (also likely Hamas dominance), and likely excuse for further ethnic removal of Arabs from the region to "complete" the exercise of annexation.
Both likud and hamas desire confrontation to increase their power within their own communities. They see the others as too dually-loyal to civility and patriotism simultaneously.
The time from the exiles to decide whether they in fact wish to return to the integrated state will be when it arrives, but it will have to start from its existing population, not from an abstraction – i.e., its basic citizenship law will be jus soli, not jus sanguinis.
As per Ron Paul: No entangling alliances.
RE: "Both likud and hamas desire confrontation to increase their power within their own communities."
And the USA bows down to the former (thanks to AIPAC et al), heavily funds it continually while the USA goes bankrupt to foreign national regimes like China's, and doesn't even recognize the democratically elected officials of the latter. Is this sane? In the over all USA interest? If a taxpaying American citizen questions this issue, even a former president and Noble Peace prize winner, he is tar brushed as an anti-semite. Be interesting to see if this nationally disgraceful taboo actually breaks out at some point in the coming general USA elections. Time for recognition of the nakba by the fair-minded USA taxpayers.
Comments on this entry are closed.