Comments on: If Non-Christians Were Driven to Canada, Would You Support the Right of Return? http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html The War of Ideas in the Middle East Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:42:12 +0000 hourly 1 By: Richard Witty http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html/comment-page-1#comment-51163 Richard Witty Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/09/19/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html#comment-51163 <p>Its a false combination.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>That right was not afforded your family in the later 40's and early 50's.</p> <p>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).</p> <p>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.</p> <p>So, your family should receive your day in court.</p> <p>And, to the extent that you peacefully assemble (rather than violently or even threateningly), you should be allowed to travel in Israel.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>(I know it is Israel that makes that prohibition.)</p> <p><br /> There is either ONE or indifferent to the idea of God. There is no "different God". There are different social codes, and story.</p> <p><br /> I doubt that the way that Saif characterizes Seliger as "because he is Arab" is accurate at all.</p> <p><br /> 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.</p> 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.

]]> By: Abe Bird http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html/comment-page-1#comment-51164 Abe Bird Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/09/19/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html#comment-51164 <p>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? </p> 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?

]]> By: Face48 http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html/comment-page-1#comment-51165 Face48 Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/09/19/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html#comment-51165 <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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: <br /> http://mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel</p> <p>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.</p> 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://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/09/19/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html#comment-51166 <p>Abe Bird, someone has been reading "From time immemorial"......</p> <p>Richard,</p> <p>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.</p> <p>So using "day in court" as a resolution to Mr. Weiss's conundrum is not really worth paper the judgement will be written on.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>I think you need to re-read the argument. And if necessary, re-read it again.</p> <p>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?</p> <p>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?</p> 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?

]]> By: Richard Witty http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html/comment-page-1#comment-51167 Richard Witty Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/09/19/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html#comment-51167 <p>Face 48 misquoted me 180 degrees. I stated that Said did not have his day in court.</p> <p>Its "funny" how people read what they want to read.</p> <p>Eva, the accurate term for my perspective is "legal", NOT "legalistic".</p> <p><br /> The status of ownership of land is a title question. Not a political one.</p> <p>The status of who governs where, by what law is a question of sovereignty.</p> <p>They are two different questions. Putting them together constructs a fascist formula. The land is NOT Palestinian, nor Israeli. The people are.</p> 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.

]]> By: Paul Easton, Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, Belly Of The Beast http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html/comment-page-1#comment-51168 Paul Easton, Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, Belly Of The Beast Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/09/19/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html#comment-51168 <p>Yes Eva Jews are Greedy. We have a monstrous Id. Thats probably why we were chosen.</p> <p>Greed + God = Progress. Greed - God = Death.</p> Yes Eva Jews are Greedy. We have a monstrous Id. Thats probably why we were chosen.

Greed + God = Progress. Greed – God = Death.

]]> By: Jim Haygood http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html/comment-page-1#comment-51169 Jim Haygood Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/09/19/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html#comment-51169 <p>"The status of ownership of land is a title question. Not a political one."</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> "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.

]]> By: Eva Smagacz http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html/comment-page-1#comment-51170 Eva Smagacz Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/09/19/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html#comment-51170 <p>Paul, </p> <p>My catholic upbringing was different:</p> <p>God + Altruism = Progress</p> <p>God + Greed = go back and re-read the New Testament.</p> <p>LOL</p> Paul,

My catholic upbringing was different:

God + Altruism = Progress

God + Greed = go back and re-read the New Testament.

LOL

]]> By: Richard Witty http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html/comment-page-1#comment-51171 Richard Witty Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/09/19/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html#comment-51171 <p>The claim that the "land is Palestinian", or "the land is Israel", or "the land is Lakota", is a medieval concept.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>And, they in particular also forced other tribes to migrate.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>I doubt that you would be willing. I imagine that you would declare "I have good title to this land. I paid for it."</p> <p>Same as most Israelis now. Grandchildren of original pioneers.</p> 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.

]]> By: Richard Witty http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html/comment-page-1#comment-51172 Richard Witty Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/09/19/if-non-christians-were-driven-to-canada-would-you-support-the-right-of-return.html#comment-51172 <p>Even in Europe, there was no people that "were always there".</p> <p>20,000 years the majority of Europe was covered by a mile of ice.</p> <p>"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.</p> <p>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.</p> 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.

]]>