More about that 1948 t-shirt I mentioned yesterday, worn by a Palestinian protester. "I saw a number of these shirts in Deheisheh refugee camp near Bethlehem," says Michael F. Brown of Interfaith Peace-Builders, just back from a trip to Israel/Palestine. He points out that the t-shirt has the numerals 194 in white and the 8 in red. "194 is the UN General Assembly resolution on the right of return." (Passed in Dec. '48.)
The significance of the t-shirt is that because of the failure of the peace process, which is about 1967, the 1948 issue is reasserting itself. My own sense is that both Israelis and Palestinians bear responsibility for the failure of the peace process–because neither side truly believes in the ‘67 (i.e., ‘49) borders. During Michael Brown’s tour, Muhammad Jaradat of Badil said, “What Israeli leader has the charisma to pull 500,000 settlers out of the West Bank and East Jerusalem?” Yes and what Palestinian leader has the charisma to accept a limited right of return and land swaps and sell that to the Palestinian people? Nadia Hijab says that when Arafat died, the 2-state solution died with him.
I don’t know the answer to these questions. I believe that going back to 1948 is essential from a moral and emotional standpoint–Israel must acknowledge and apologize for the Nakba–but that a peaceful resolution of this dispute, with compromise and generosity and fairness, is in the interest of the world. When Jaradat asks who is that Israeli leader, the answer is: the United States. When our leaders take a firm stand, and shift our Middle East policy, who knows the effect on the combatants there. To have the Syrians on board? To have American leadership on board? I look for miracles. Remember a president with great strength of character, Ronald Reagan? “Mr. Olmert, tear down this wall!”
Related posts:
- 1948 Vs 1967. Some Thoughts on the Right of Return
- A peace process that has been obsessed with 1967 needs to refocus on 1948
- Survey: Almost half of Israeli Jews believe Israel expelled Palestinians in 1948
- John Mearsheimer Eviscerates the ‘Times’ Review of ‘1948′
- Did Israel’s Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons Lead to 1967 War?
{ 13 comments }
.
"My own sense is that both Israelis and Palestinians bear responsibility for the failure of the peace process–because neither side truly believes in the '67 (i.e., '49) borders." — Phil
Probably a fair statement, and another reason that a two-state solution is doomed. In a single state, both peoples could feel that they had access to the whole territory. The stumbling block is Zionism; the demand for a Jewish state, where Jews are THE MAN, and 'Palis' is they niggahs.
As for the shirt, good graphics are important, especially in viral videos such as the one Phil posted yesterday.
From my limited vantage point, I'm guessing that Israel's 60th birthday celebration was a bit of a fizzle. Because this time, the Nakba got … not equal time, but at least a mention.
Zionism lasted sixty years only because of managed information, via the stegosaurus Mainstream Media. The internet is killing the MSM sauri (Slimes, WaPo, et al), and it's gonna kill the murderous ideology of zionism too, as more folks see how zionism operates at the rifle-butt-in-the-face level.
There must be forty-eleven reasons to remember '48.
"I believe that going back to 1948 is essential from a moral and emotional standpoint–Israel must acknowledge and apologize for the Nakba"
Going back to 1917 is the essential point. 1917-1948 was exactly the same as 1949-2008, just with British rather than US patronage. It's racist settler colonialism as a project which needs to be apologised for, and more importantly, remedied. The Nakba as inherent in the Balfour declaration.
Otto, your statement is useless. Why? Because I don't know how one can go back to 1917 any more than one can go back to pre-Mayflower days in the US. Jewish immigrants that came to Palestine since 1917 came mostly through immigration quotas set by the British mandate. They settled mostly on lands legitimately bought by Jews – yes, mostly form rich effendi, i.e., absent landlords which in turn drove away poor fellahin – but in a totally legit manner nonetheless. There was violence on both sides just as there was cooperation on both sides (see a fascinating article by Benni Morris on Arab cooperation with Zionists: http://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=0e100478-298c-438c-a994-e1800474ad19)
Going back to 1917 – what does it really mean? That all the Jews in Israel need to go to UK?
Undoing 1917 means allowing all the expelled arabs back in, in the context of a one state solution with a de-privileging of the jewish colonists, just like post-Apartheid South Africa has de-privileged the Afrikaner colonists, within the context of native majority rule. And similarly with French Algeria's pieds-noirs. Its the obvious long-term outcome and we're best to ease it on its way. Colonialism is over.
In 1917 there were no expelled Arabs. I agree that 1948-1967 expelled Arabs should be by and large allowed in or compensated in some other way acceptable to them.
In 1917-1948, the arabs were colonised by those who planned to expel them. It's the one-state solution aka decolonisation, not compensation, which is only reasonable outcome, and the only long term one in any event.
I take issue with the sweeping statement "were colonised by those who planned to expel them", because while there were definitely those who intended to expel Arab to ensure Jewish majority in Palestine it was certainly not all and maybe not even the most of those who immigrated to the Palestine in the years 1917-48. That's a topic for a separate discussion, though.
I agree that long term preferable solution might be one state. I hope it will happen one day. How reasonable it is in the short term – short term being one generation at least – hardly anyone knows. I like bringing the example of Belgium – a country with one millionth of the problems that Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine face and that is on the brink of collapse along ethnic lines. From what I see a two-state solution seems to be a more realistic one in the short term. However, I will stress that it must be a just two-state solution, meaning that the Palestinian state will be fully fledged and independent and especially free of any kind of Israeli yoke. This will be extremely hard to achieve in the current situation, mostly thanks to the Israeli expansionist policy in the last decades. Still, looks to me a more solvable problem than making two people who by and large hate each other's guts and are of vastly different cultural backgrounds and economic standings to live together in peace on a tiny piece of land.
And I take issue with "My own sense is that both Israelis and Palestinians bear responsibility for the failure of the peace process–because neither side truly believes in the '67 (i.e., '49) borders."
I don't really understand what you mean in regard to the Palestinians – they've been quite consistent in advocating for a return to '67 borders.
And Israel has been very consistent in rejecting any form of Palestinian nationalism.
Professor Chomsky – despite his refusal to acknowledge the role of the Lobby – has probably done the best work at identifying that, in this particular case(and most others), Israel is the problem. His analysis of the Oslo accords with Clinton, Barak and Arafat in particular – demolishes the endlessly parroted 'Arafat never missing an opportunity to miss and opportunity" propaganda party piece.
But we don t really need Chomsky to see what is right in our faces, one would hope….
Actually the Palestinians have been consistent in advocating the destruction of Israel. But I digress. Please explain to me the upside for the average Jew in Israel in disbanding the army and haveing those happy go lucky lads from Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah move in next door, rape his daughters and kill his sons. What's the selling point there.
Actually, no. But you do digress. Most certainly you do.
It isn't really an issue what the average jew thinks either. What matters is that Israel illegally and immorally occupies Palestinian land.
So go peddle your limp wristed, pathetic bullshit somewhere else.
The fact is pre-Hamas a return to '67 borders is what they've called for(even Hamas has agreed to ANY agreement with which the Palestinian people find acceptable).
And then, as now, successive Israel governments and there backers find issue with a PLO charter calling for Israel's destruction. But we don't find Israel changing their rejectionism of any form of Palestinian nationalism – or various little 'charters' of there own calling for an Israeli state from Jordon to the Euphrates.
As usual this type of discussion is a diversion. But it's not working anymore Gideon. This isn't the 80's.
You can listen to Chomsky and Pearle discuss the same issues and at the same time hear Pearle being systematically destroyed in this debate.
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=8409
The selling point is that everyone has read too much Algerian history for Israel's good, and they think that pulling US support will result in a helpless pied-noir style Diaspora that will vanish and assimilate within a generation. No one has ever attempted to hand a mechanized-army equipped nuclear-armed state's population over to the hands of an explicitly genocidal terrorist organization in history, as the ANC was already accepting of a continued "English" & Afrikaner presence in both word and deed by 1992 in a way that Hamas is not and cannot be without obviating its strategic goals. Those who remember from their reading the threat of deportation that hung over the entire YIshuv in 1917 know full well what "back to 1917" means. And that might be Ottoman-style "deportation" à la the Armenians.
Hamas's Charter explicitly details an apocalyptic solution. Thing is, the last Nakba didn't go quite as planned by the forces of Palestinian Islamism.
It is apparent that the Zionists failed in 1948. They only ethnically cleansed 77% of Palestine of 90% of its native population. In order to ensure a permanent and safe Jewish State they would have had to have reached close to 100% and made sure that the survivors forgot about their right of return. This is a tall order.
Sure it has happened in the past. The Native Americans and Australian Aborigines are not in any position to challenge the loss of their lands. The Sudeten Germans expelled from Czechslovakia in 1945 and 1946 likewise have been permanently excised from former homeland. But, the Palestinians are in a much better demographic position than any of these groups. The Israelis more closely resemble the French colonists in Algeria or the Afrikaaners than they do the Anglo population of the US or Australia.
Comments on this entry are closed.