Ralph Seliger and Saif Ammous have been arguing over Ammous's assertion that Americans wouldn't respond well if a rich Christian came over here and started to turn us into a Christian country with different sets of rights based on religion… Seliger criticized Ammous a few days ago; now Ammous is responding:
I will concentrate on one single question to make it harder for Seliger to continue avoiding answering me: If a Christian political party in America does to non-Christians exactly what Zionists did to Palestinians, would Seliger support it? After the non-Christian Americans are driven to their refugee camps in Canada, would Seliger support their right to return to America and reclaim their stolen property, or will he oppose it as he opposes the right of Palestinians to return to their homes?
Let's put this in more practical terms: My family is from the West Bank, near the green line, but we have land (a couple of miles outside our house) that was stolen by Israel in 1948. Does Seliger support my right to reclaim that land? No. Because I'm not Jewish and if all of us Palestinians return he won't have the racist theocracy of his trans-Atlantic dreams. But Seliger, of course, supports the right of someone who does NOT own that land and who has never lived in Palestine to travel there and be given that land by the state of Israel because they believe in the right god.
How very progressive of him.
Seliger can keep obfuscating all he likes, but he simply cannot deny the reality: It is racist and hypocritical to demand tolerance, freedom, equality, democracy and secularism in the place where he is in the minority, but support ethnic cleansing, discrimination and oppression where his group has the military upper-hand. It is that depraved. Seliger is no different from the Afghani American who fights for secularism and minority rights in America, but supports the Taliban's oppression and racism in Afghanistan.
Related posts:
- ‘Compensation Cannot Extinguish the Right of Return’
- How’d You Like Christian-Only Roads in the U.S.?
- ‘Geneva Accord Is the Answer on Refugees: Compensation, and a Return to Palestine’
- Now That the Religious Right Is History, Let’s Talk About the Religious Left (Which Claims to be Secular)
- ‘Bi-Nationalist Zionist Vision Might Have Prevailed But for Arab Pogroms’
{ 26 comments }
Its a false combination.
My sense of what would be a fair recourse, would be to allow your family your day in court to argue for your relative rights.
That right was not afforded your family in the later 40's and early 50's.
Legally it should have, however I fully understand the reasoning behind not permitting the prospective return of large populations of very violent, accross a border between states that remained at war (until Jordan recognized Israel, and now Palestine has tentatively).
Now, that period of danger is likely past or could be with a skillful reconciliation between Israel and Palestine and Israelis and Palestinians, not certainly by any imagination.
So, your family should receive your day in court.
And, to the extent that you peacefully assemble (rather than violently or even threateningly), you should be allowed to travel in Israel.
I am not permitted to travel freely in the West Bank, peacefully or otherwise, even as I did in 1986 while the West Bank was considered annexed. My expectation is that Palestine will similarly distinguish between those that seek to travel peaceably (even if angry) and those that seek to disrupt or act violently.
(I know it is Israel that makes that prohibition.)
There is either ONE or indifferent to the idea of God. There is no "different God". There are different social codes, and story.
I doubt that the way that Saif characterizes Seliger as "because he is Arab" is accurate at all.
No Jew is "given" land in Israel. That is a fallacy. Jews making aliyah are given training in speaking Hebrew, some funding to survive temporarily mostly privately funded. Beyond that they are on their own.
If, if, if…. The grandpa had wheels…. Palestinian Arabs are not the "Indians" of the land of Israel but the Palestinian Jews. Although a long process of Jewish exile from Palestine (even before it had Roman Palestine) there had been always Jews in Palestine through all written history. The fact that in times of the crusaders they almost vanished from the land (the same occurred with the Muslims) doesn't change the historical motto that Palestine was, is and will the land of the Jewish people. Even the Greek, Roman, Mongols, Saudi Arabs, Kurds (Salah al-Din), Egyptian, Turks and British invasions can't change won't change the Arabs to "Indians" and the Jews to invaders. Since 1840th there was Jewish majority in Jerusalem and in cost plateau. Through the last hundreds years, the numbers of Arabs declined dramatically because of starvation and thirst, lack of work and small communities to back the misery. Arab tribes fought the others in order to get hold on assets. Arab Beduin nomadic families came in and out the land looking for resort to their sheep and camels. The Jewish community felt unsafe and tries to keep distance from the Arabs and from the Turk ruthless occupier. Jews always poured into Palestine and joined local communities. Well known communities were at Jerusalem, Hebron, Tzfat, Akko, Jafa and Gaza from the 13th century. The great change in Arab numbers occurred in late 19th-beginning of 20th centuries, as a reaction of more extensive Jewish Zionist immigration to Israel land. The Arabs/Muslims came from Croatia, Bosnia, Sudan, Morocco, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and even India and more, some as refugees and some looking for jobs and food. Arabs haven't any former historical relations with Palestine, nor did they have some Arab Palestinian people. Just imagine that now days Muslims sitting in Britain will soon demand a portion of land for their own "national inspiration" they want to develop. How the Brits will react?
Nice to see that Witty and Bird download talking points from racists and then peddle them as rationales to deny the injustice Palestinian refugees face.
Witty's approach – legalistic. You had your day in court in the 40s. This is absolutely untrue. In fact the Israeli legalistic approach was to first limit by large proportions the numbers of people they recognised as having any legal claim at all through the 'absentee law'. With this sham legislation, if you were a non-Jew who was away from your property on certain dates, you arbitrarily lost any claim to the property. Pure theft. The few people who managed to somehow be heard in courts were basically shunted aside. Since then Israel has refused to give any legal forum to refugees, none at all.
Bird's approach – fantasy. Thanks for summarising the old "land without a people" myth. But I'm sorry to this has been so thoroughly debunked that it makes you look like an idiot to even recite it. By the way, a recent article in Le Monde might better situate the "historical" claims involved:
http://mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel
You see, the entire attempt to say "we were here first" on either side is ridiculous. What we need to deal with is present, actual reality, not tribal myths. The reality is that millions of people have been dispossessed of their property and lands for no reason other than the fact that they are of the wrong ethno-religious group. That's racism. Pure and simple.
Abe Bird, someone has been reading "From time immemorial"……
Richard,
Palestinians had their day in court: on virtually all the issues but issue of refugees, international court of justice spelt out international law – and it was ignored by Israel.
So using "day in court" as a resolution to Mr. Weiss's conundrum is not really worth paper the judgement will be written on.
And I think the whole point of the question was to appeal to reader's sense of fairness and justice, and not to ignorable legal process.
You claim that you are not allowed to travel into West Bank: judging the amount of settlers in Hebron Hills, anarchists, activists, and Naturei Karta Jews in peacefull demonstrations in Nilin and Bilin, there is no restriction for Jews to travel to West Bank.
I think you need to re-read the argument. And if necessary, re-read it again.
Meanwhile, I am not happy that you brand the population of refugees with "very violent" brush. It is racist and totally unacceptable to imput the characteristics to the entire race: Are Jews greedy?
And, finally, if no Jew is given land in Israel, and if the property rights are relative, then just how are Israeli claiming the right to sovereignty of the land of Israel?
Face 48 misquoted me 180 degrees. I stated that Said did not have his day in court.
Its "funny" how people read what they want to read.
Eva, the accurate term for my perspective is "legal", NOT "legalistic".
The status of ownership of land is a title question. Not a political one.
The status of who governs where, by what law is a question of sovereignty.
They are two different questions. Putting them together constructs a fascist formula. The land is NOT Palestinian, nor Israeli. The people are.
Yes Eva Jews are Greedy. We have a monstrous Id. Thats probably why we were chosen.
Greed + God = Progress. Greed – God = Death.
"The status of ownership of land is a title question. Not a political one."
That is so silly, Richard. As Face48 mentioned, Palestinian refugees were declared "absent" after 1948 and their property deemed (by political decision) to be abandoned. The Israeli state invoked its sovereign power to award title to others. Now Palestianians' "day in court," if they could even get there to lodge a claim, would be unavailing. The seizure of their "abandoned" property was "legal" according to Israeli law: end of story, as far as Israeli courts are concerned.
The Lakota Nation claims parts of five U.S. states, under treaty terms which the U.S. repeatedly violated. For them to go to court with a title claim would similarly be a complete waste of time. Land titles in the area were awarded "legally" once the political decision was made to dispossess the Lakotas and award title to white settlers and homesteaders. Courts are bound by that precedent.
As for the Palestinians, so for the Lakotas: a political settlement is the ONLY remedy, as the courts are constrained by the political decisions underlying long-ago seizures and re-awards of land title. Courts, being conservative, will stick to those precedents unless directed otherwise by the political sovereign.
Richard Witty is the past master of obfuscation: when you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t. Palestianians moved on from the pie-in-the-sky "day in court" fantasy about 60 years ago.
Paul,
My catholic upbringing was different:
God + Altruism = Progress
God + Greed = go back and re-read the New Testament.
LOL
The claim that the "land is Palestinian", or "the land is Israel", or "the land is Lakota", is a medieval concept.
For one, the Lakota for example moved over a relatively short period of time. They also were not always there, meaning in one specific locale.
And, they in particular also forced other tribes to migrate.
The migration of American tribes from the first appearance of white settlers in any number to cause disruption (1600's) created a domino effect of migration of eastern tribes west, mid-western tribes further west, etc.
It would be an interesting assertion to declare that we live on stolen land (very analagous in only a slightly longer timeframe), and renounce your right to your personal home.
I doubt that you would be willing. I imagine that you would declare "I have good title to this land. I paid for it."
Same as most Israelis now. Grandchildren of original pioneers.
Even in Europe, there was no people that "were always there".
20,000 years the majority of Europe was covered by a mile of ice.
"We were there for a while" is more accurate. If the seas rose a few feet (which has occurred in the Mediterranean as evidenced by ruins in Israel that are now under water), the "permanent residents" would have to move.
If there were people living there, one of them would win and one would lose a fight, same as the hundred thousand territorial conflicts the world over.
Richard,
There is a consensus between the countries, who represent the majority of humans on this planet, as to what to do and how to do it. This cuts neatly through the nebulous arguments that you employ.
It is called International Law.
In case of Occupied Palestinian Territories it states that settlers are colonizing the West Bank illegally with illegal and ongoing help from the Israel. It also states the right of refugees to return.
The boarders are Green Line.
This is legal position, which you claim to be your position.
I must have missed all the progressivism of Catholic Poland.
Its history is more that of a cowering nation, running in fear from Germany and Russia, and taking out the guilt of its cowardice on a defenseless Jewish population?
Quite a nation you've got there–no wonder the word "Polish" is synonymous with progressive altruism.
Well Eva maybe Catholic genes are different.
Jew – Greed = Catholic?
Jew Freud said: Greed + Sublimation = Altruism
Then Jew + Sublimation = Progress
QED
Eva,
What specific international law are you referring?
For example, there are only a few general assembly resolutions that apply to Israel that have passed the security council and been enacted into international law.
The green line is a cease-fire agreement. As Israel was not recognized, they are not exactly borders.
The chicken comes first.
As a guideline for the formation of borders, they are good ones. But, please be clearer about using exagerated allusions to "international law".
I understand your confusion though. The term "international law" is used often and carelessly, and is easy to repeat naively.
If there were people living there, one of them would win and one would lose a fight, same as the hundred thousand territorial conflicts the world over.
The more things change the more they stay the same. Might makes right.
Or, successful negotiation makes peace.
Or, it takes two to tango.
Or, it takes more than two to more than tango.
Or, "we were always there" is both innaccurate and not a progressive basis of justice in an ever-changing world.
Saif,
Are you saying that you want to live in Israel, anywhere in Israel?
Or that you want to move the individuals that were born there, that are living in the new house built where your grandparents' house used to be?
Saif, simply says his father's land was stolen. You should tell him the stronger doesn't steal, he is only executing the right of the universe.
By Darwin's assertion, then all this negotiating is for naught so long as a stronger party is making history for us all. Why, that land is not because the strong doesn't "steal"; that gives great credence for more violence by any faction or group on both sides. Escalate the violence and maybe both can lay claim to a greater Israel/Palestine.
I understand where Richard is coming from: we highlight the grievous crime of the Nakba, of Palestinian dispossession, and he parallels this with a potential dispossession of Israelis who had/have no ideology or no personal politics. There are generations who have lived there and generations who made life on the "stolen" land.
The question he posited to Saif is one that I would be very interested in seeing the answer to. It remains very unclear as to what we can do with the "right of return" of Palestinians in the Diaspora, as there are many indications that most would want to return to their former homes. But that's the logistics of it: Saif is clearly lambasting the irony of advocating immigration for a person based on one's belief against the other. Israel's immigration is unlike any with regard to the Western standard. A Palestinian is forever prevented from becoming a citizen but that is not a problem for a Hungarian, Romanian, Russian, American, etc. besides the fact that most have chosen NOT to make aliyah today.
I cannot speak for Saif but an insurge of non-Jews, wherever they are allocated to in the state of Israel, has been met with great opposition. What if there were more developments made to accomodate potential Palestinian residents in Eretz Israel, possibility in the vicinity of their former villages? I'm sure there can be dialogue here to save us from more expulsions, Israeli or Palestinian. But the main hurdle is that because of the structure of Israel itself, we cannot even have this dialogue since it refuses to countenance an influx of Palestinians within the Green Line. Maybe the instant that that is understood, then we can talk about what happens to the villages and Israeli residents who are living on former Palestinian soil.
I wish Saif was simply presenting an irony. That I could understand and derive insight from.
He combines that with "Zionism is racism", and a stated strategy of single-state with unlimited right of return to all descendants of Palestinians regardless of where they lived (Jordan, Syria, etc.), and one-person one-vote ONLY after Palestinians are a majority.
And pursued through punitive measures: boycott, divestment, political pressure +.
A punitive effort is DIFFERENT than an assertive one.
Richard,
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
139 pages written by the highest judicial body in the world.
Eva
Eva,
Did you read that document at all.
It was an OPINION.
That is DIFFERENT from law, where I live.
Let us consider the factors needed to make the analogy work. The non-Christians would have had to have for centuries have anti-Christian laws and anti-Christian culture. They would have had to have recently worked with others to exterminate the Christians. They would have had to have lost their land as part of war intended by the non-Christians to remove all of the Christians from the land and pushed them into the sea.
Comments on this entry are closed.