Thanks to Ahmed Moor for his thoughtful comments on my previous post outlining a possible framework for a one-state solution in Israel-Palestine. Certainly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved – whether through the creation of one state, two states or what have you – without addressing the issue of the Palestinian right of return. Before turning to that tough problem, though, I'll deal with two other issues raised by Mr. Moor and other commentators.
First, my previous post gave some readers the impression that I advocated unilateral annexation of the Golan by Israel. That was not my intent. My concern was ensuring that the continuing Israel-Syria deadlock would not delay or complicate the creation and constitution of an Israeli-Palestinian state, which would incorporate and administer the Golan pending an agreement with Syria.
Having inadvertently raised the issue, I'll add that I'm not convinced that the return of the entire Golan to Syria would be the best or only way to reach a stable and secure peace agreement between Israel and Syria. However, that's a topic for another day. For now, it's sufficient to say that resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should not be blocked by lack of progress on the Golan. That was my original point, which in retrospect I should have made more clearly.
The second, more relevant issue raised by a number of commentators was, How do we get to a one-state solution? At the end of my previous post, I briefly proposed a civil-rights-based vision and strategy, and Mr. Moor, in his comments, quite rightly emphasized the enormous power of the idea of human equality. How might that power be brought to bear?
Let's assume that international pressure is necessary to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that the major third parties whose assistance is required are the democratic nations of Europe and the Anglosphere. Let's further assume that the Palestinian claim for justice is stated as follows: For forty-three years we residents of the Occupied Territories have been ruled and controlled by Israel, without, however, having ever been given a voice in choosing our rulers or in regulating their conduct. Furthermore, Israel clearly intends to perpetuate that unconscionable state of affairs. We therefore demand full citizenship and equal rights, including the right to vote in Israel's upcoming national elections.
I don't see how the world could remain indifferent to that demand. More particularly, how could Americans, especially the first African-American U.S. President, fail to support such a compelling claim for freedom, equality and civil rights? I hope I'm not being naïve, but it seems to me obvious that a Palestinian voting rights campaign would break the back of the Occupation and set the stage for serious discussion of one-state solutions.
Now for the issue of the Palestinian right of return. In my previous post I proposed putting both the Jewish and Palestinian rights of return on hold for a generation while Israelis and Palestinians struggle to learn to live together in a single state. However, if that proves infeasible, then the Palestinian right of return will have to be addressed contemporaneously with the implementation of a one-state or two-state solution.
I'll preface this discussion by stating that my years in Israel have made me thoroughly sick of tribal thinking. In my perfect world, a person's religious or ethnic background would be regarded by himself and by others as being of no more importance than his preference for strawberry ice cream over pistachio or vice versa. Tribal thinking pollutes everything. I don't even enjoy the Jewish high holidays anymore, since they are always accompanied by the imposition of curfews and movement restrictions on Palestinians, and one feels sick and embarrassed watching the authorities dropping boulders on access roads to Palestinian neighborhoods. The irony is particularly acute on Yom Kippur, when we Jews are supposed to be atoning for our sins.
Because the assertion of group rights generally only exacerbates inter-group conflicts, I prefer to keep the focus on individual rights, as I did in my previous proposal for a one-state solution. Thus I would say the same thing to a Jew born in America and to a Palestinian born in Lebanon, to wit: You can't return to where you've never been. If you want to immigrate to Israel-Palestine, then let's establish criteria for immigration. That's how I would define the issue.
However, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind – opinions upon which I rely for a solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – also requires me to respect assertions of collective rights such as the Jewish and Palestinian rights of return. So I'll proceed to discuss the issue on those terms.
The current issue of Oxford's Refugee Survey Quarterly is entirely devoted to articles on UNRWA and the Palestinian refugees. In one article, entitled "Future Prospects for the Palestinian Refugees," the author begins by quoting Alexander Pope, who famously wrote that "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." I agree with his sentiment entirely. Only a fool, holy or otherwise, would attempt to offer insights or solutions on an issue that has been so widely yet fruitlessly debated for so many years. I reluctantly embark on this fool's errand only because it can't be avoided. If I can't promise the reader breathtaking revelations, I'll try at least to follow George Orwell's exhortation to remind people, myself included, of the obvious.
The Palestinian right of return is so difficult to address, not just because of its historical, factual, legal and moral complexity, but also because most Israelis and Palestinians are unable to discuss it dispassionately. Mere mention of the topic immediately arouses such great fear and anger that I'm reminded of the old joke that foreign countries shouldn't be sending diplomats to the Middle East, they should be sending teams of psychiatrists. If ever there was an issue where impartial foreign intermediaries are needed to propose a fair solution or even impose one on the parties involved, this is it.
Recently, Haaretz published a piece by Alexander Yakobson entitled "A bi-delusional state," in which the author took a hammer to the dream of a secular, liberal, bi-national state in Israel-Palestine. While I don't agree with all his conclusions (and the Magnes Zionist certainly doesn't), I think Yakobson is probably correct in asserting that the one-state dream is incompatible with large-scale, near-term implementation of the Palestinian right of return. To show why, I'll first address the right of return within the framework of a two-state solution, which in any case is the framework still generally endorsed by the international community. I'll further assume that a two-state solution would not necessarily adopt the Ayalon-Nusseibeh approach whereby Jews have a right of return only to Israel and Palestinians have a right of return only to Palestine. Instead, a two-state solution might incorporate some measure of Palestinian return to Israel.
The international community unanimously condemns the Occupation and settlements but expresses no such unanimity regarding the Palestinian right of return to Israel. The concrete implementation of the latter right would necessitate weighing numerous competing considerations, a series of "on the other hand"s that would make Tevye the milkman's head spin.
On the one hand, in 1948, Israeli forces intentionally expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and villages, partly because of security concerns, but also partly to expand the borders of the new Jewish state while greatly reducing the number of Palestinians living within those borders. That was a grave wrong, and Israel bears primary responsibility for creating the Palestinian refugee problem.
On the other hand, the conflict did not begin in 1948. From the beginning, there was room enough for Jews and Arabs to live together in harmony, but most Jews and Arabs failed to recognize the humanity of the Other: his history, his culture, his tragic circumstances and deepest aspirations. Jewish-Arab conflict and violence escalated steadily in the 1920's and '30s, so that in 1948 no one was surprised when war broke out and was waged ruthlessly. For almost a century each side has succeeded in inflicting great misery on the other, and if Israelis have inflicted much more suffering on Palestinians than vice versa, it's because they've had the upper hand, not because either side is composed of angels or devils.
I make the preceding point not to paper over important distinctions with facile moral equivalence, but rather in an attempt to get past sanctimonious breast-beating. Each side still wants to cast itself as the sole and eternal victim and on that basis make impossible demands. However, if it is true that without justice there can be no peace, it is also true that there can be no peace if anyone insists on perfect justice.
Furthermore, the traditional remedy for refugees is resettlement, not repatriation, primarily because repatriation of refugees can re-ignite the conflict that created the refugee problem in the first place. The danger of that happening in the Israeli-Palestinian context should be obvious, because it's only natural that many Palestinians, particularly those effectively imprisoned in Gaza or in Lebanese refugee camps, would prefer revenge over co-existence. There is no shortage of news reports and opinion surveys showing that many Palestinians want to return to Israel but do not want Israeli citizenship and are not prepared to live in peace with Israeli Jews.
On the other (third) hand, more recent trends have favored repatriation of refugees over resettlement, most notably in Kosovo. The advantage of repatriation over resettlement is that the former does not ratify acts of expulsion or ethnic cleansing.
On the other (fourth) hand, Kosovo and other recent instances of repatriation involved refugees who themselves had recently been driven from their homes. The right to repatriation is more tenuous when asserted on behalf of refugees' descendants who were born and raised in other countries. The world is full of people who live in one country because their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents fled another, but most of those people make their lives where they are and don't dream about returning to ancestral communities that, for the most part, no longer exist.
On the other (fifth) hand, resettlement has been a far from perfect remedy for most Palestinians living outside of Israel and the Occupied Territories. Most of them were born and raised in neighboring Arab states where, however, they have not been granted citizenship, and they suffer burdensome legal restrictions on employment, education, health care, social benefits, property ownership, travel and family reunification. The legal landscape varies from country to country, with Jordan providing the most favorable environment for Palestinians, and Lebanon the worst.
(A good historico-legal introduction to the subject is Abbas Shiblak's 1996 article "Residency Status and Civil Rights of Palestinian Refugees in Arab Countries," published in the Journal of Palestine Studies. There are also more up-to-date reports on the legal status of Palestinian refugees in Arab states atwww.forcedmigration.org, in the Refugee Survey Quarterly and elsewhere on the Internet.)
On the other (sixth) hand, Israelis don't want to be thrown out of their homes. They're also understandably concerned that if they become a minority subject to a Palestinian majority, their language and culture may be de-legitimized and their democratic forms of government may be overturned. Therefore, the Palestinian right of return to Israel must be balanced against competing rights and, ultimately, quantified.
I am sure there are additional important considerations that I haven't addressed. In any case, there are at least three essential preconditions to the implementation of a Palestinian right of return to Israel.
The first precondition is an official Israeli admission of guilt and apology for the Nakba. A real, unqualified apology is required. Expressions of regret won't do.
The second precondition is a concrete proposal specifying the numbers and characteristics of Palestinians who would return to Israel.
Poll data regarding the number of Palestinians who would actually want to move to Israel, Palestine or Israel-Palestine are sparse, scattered and inconclusive. The details remain difficult to pin down, despite decades of discussion and debate, because the subject is radioactive. Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al-Quds University, reportedly received death threats after questioning the feasibility of the right of return and suggesting compromise or waiver. Political scientist Khalil Shikaki was attacked by a mob in Ramallah after publicizing poll results indicating that most Palestinians would not choose to live in Israel, even if they could.
It's not completely clear why many Palestinians are adamant in their insistence on their right of return but at the same time strongly resistant to spelling out the details of its possible implementation. Some commentators contend that Palestinians view the right of return primarily in terms of abstract, even divine justice, which by its nature is incompatible with limitation. Others claim that lack of specificity is a stratagem to win agreement in principle to the right of return by concealing the actual, concrete, expected results of such agreement.
In any case, Palestinian leaders and intellectuals must understand that vagueness and obfuscation regarding the right of return are interpreted by many outsiders as a possible indication of bad faith, or at the very least as an impassable obstacle to resolving the issue. The obvious cure is to create an international Palestinian advisory council empowered to conduct thorough research regarding the implementation of the right of return, report its findings, and propose a solution.
Once an initial proposal is made, the world will have a better idea of what Palestinians really want. The initial proposal may be so modest that third party intermediaries breathe a sigh of relief, or it may be so extreme that they shake their heads and despair of reaching agreement. Or the proposal may be somewhere in the middle, in which case all parties must sit down and negotiate criteria for implementation.
Specific proposals would also enable experts to devise concrete resettlement plans. The guiding principle should be that Palestinians would be resettled side-by-side with Israelis, not in place of them. In other words, resettlement would not restore previous title or leasehold at the expense of current ownership, since no peaceful agreement could result from attempting to remedy Palestinian dispossession by dispossessing Israelis. Nor would it be realistic for arriving Palestinians to expect to receive the kind of large family landholdings that were common in 1948, when the population of the entire Mandate was less than two million and most worked in agriculture, but which are unheard of in modern times when the same territory holds almost twelve million. However, within the preceding parameters, Israel ought to subsidize housing, job training and employment for arriving Palestinians.
The third precondition for implementation of the Palestinian right of return is that the Arab states must offer citizenship and legal equality to Palestinians who were born and reside in those states. The right of return is not an obligation to return. A Palestinian born in an Arab state and desiring to remain there should be able to do so without suffering legal handicaps.
If the Arab states wanted to grant citizenship and equal rights to Palestinians because it's the right thing to do, they would have done so already. Nothing will change unless the Western democracies hammer on Israel and on the Arab states alike to grant Palestinians their rights. That would give Palestinians real, positive choices. Moreover, Israeli and world opinion would be more favorably inclined to the exercise of the Palestinian right of return if it wasn't perceived as the result of Arab states making Palestinians' lives so miserable that they want to leave. In any event, regularization of the legal status of Palestinians in all countries where they live is the only way to reach a comprehensive solution of the Palestinian refugee problem.
(I have not addressed the issue of financial assistance and compensation for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. Perhaps Mr. Moor, who judging from his writings possesses economic acumen that I lack, will outline possible solutions. More generally, I would be happy to read about economic frameworks and arrangements that might underpin freedom, equality, peace and prosperity in the region.)
The previous considerations show how difficult it would be to reconcile a secular, democratic one-state solution with broad implementation of the Palestinian right of return. Establishment of one state would necessarily open the door to near-term, large-scale Palestinian immigration, which would be further encouraged by the nascent Palestinian majority in the new state and by Arab states as well. The new state would soon have a decisive Palestinian supermajority and, more importantly, an even larger supermajority of people, both Arabs and Jews, who are primarily motivated by ethnic and religious affiliations and loyalties. There is no reason to expect that the small minorities of true liberals and secular humanists in the region, who presently have so little influence in Israel, the Occupied Territories and the Arab states, would somehow rule the roost in Israel-Palestine. More likely, the Jewish minority in Israel-Palestine would suffer, at a minimum, similar disabilities to those suffered by other disfavored minorities in the Middle East, and in all probability their situation would be greatly complicated by the enormous residual hostility built up over the years between Israelis and Palestinians. Even constitutional guarantees could easily prove worthless, and no one would be surprised if civil war broke out, as it did in Lebanon under similar circumstances.
I arrived at the preceding conclusion with a feeling of great disappointment and sorrow. I've spent years reading and thinking about the possibility of a one-state solution, until I finally felt compelled to offer the proposal outlined in my previous post, because the prospect of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and creating a unitary state based on universal values, in one bold stroke, offers the kind of positive vision that is so lacking in the region. Perhaps some additional information, idea, or change in circumstances can still make that dream a reality. In the meantime, though, it's best to remain mindful of history's harsh lessons regarding the harm that can result from beautiful but unrealistic political ideologies. For now I remain focused on the goals of ending the Occupation and creating two states for two peoples.
One final note: Mr. Moor raised the prospect of Israel becoming a failed state. Recent developments and current trends in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza are indeed appalling. I hope that like-minded Jews and Arabs here and abroad will work together to create a new political alignment, a new Israeli-Palestinian Left that rejects all forms of religious fundamentalism and ethnic discrimination. Otherwise, conditions in Israel and the Occupied Territories may continue to deteriorate, degenerating into a frightening mess to which no Jew or Palestinian in his right mind would wish to return.
An extremely well thought out and comprehensive post.
I find myself agreeing with a lot that you have to say, despite not liking what’s being said. I do think that many refugees would be happy with just precondition one – sixty years without so much as an apology is bound to hurt.
Your post has a lot on Palestinian viewpoints, but I wonder how feasible it would be to get mainstream Israel on board? Recognising the Nakba itself would be a big step.
The late 1940′s was a time of global re-alignment; populations all over the world moved, got pushed, and escaped. Nations rose and fell. All the ex-refugees from that time have built new lives in new lands, with the help of the world and their new neighbors. Except the Arabs from Palestine. They have nurtured and expanded their pain until the moaning drowns out the hum of global progress. Arab leaders gleefully imprison these Arabs in poverty and war so their magnified suffering will annoy the entire planet. Worse, these leaders throw these fools as cannon fodder onto the guns of the Israelis, so that their bleeding and crying will arouse sympathy. The more blood — the more sympathy.
Currently, the criminals running Hamas and Hezbollah are carefully arranging their weapons and headquarters so that the maximum number of Arab families will be hit by the next Israeli counter-attack. When the Arabs say they love death, they include yours and mine. And especially the children, who make great video when they die.
What a thoroughly bigoted two paragraphs – devoid of any knowledge of history. Populations all over the world have escaped violence but have been able to return (and have returned) once violence has ended. There are a couple of exceptions to this: the Palestinians being one, people from the Indian sub-continent as a result of partition being the second example, and ethnic German refugees from Eastern Europe being the third. Whereas the latter two have had countries they could call home to move to, the Palestinians haven’t.
xcept the Arabs from Palestine. They have nurtured and expanded their pain until the moaning drowns out the hum of global progress.
The same could be said for Jews. But whereas the Jewry has had 3000 years to get over being stateless, the Palestinians have had 60.
Arab leaders gleefully imprison these Arabs in poverty and war so their magnified suffering will annoy the entire planet. Worse, these leaders throw these fools as cannon fodder onto the guns of the Israelis, so that their bleeding and crying will arouse sympathy. The more blood — the more sympathy.
The irony of the above paragraph is that you could replace the first Arab with Israel, the second with Jews and the Israelis with Arabs and it would make a lot more sense.
Currently, the criminals running Hamas and Hezbollah are carefully arranging their weapons and headquarters so that the maximum number of Arab families will be hit by the next Israeli counter-attack. When the Arabs say they love death, they include yours and mine. And especially the children, who make great video when they die.
You’d think that after being refuted a couple of hundred times, people would understand that there is no factual basis for the accusation that Hamas hides amongst civilians and hides weapons in buildings such as hospitals.
“Bigoted” — maybe I just have a different view of the facts, rather than a prejudice against a people?
“Refuted” — I must have missed this. Can you show me a couple of refutations?
I think the charges against Hamas on this issue are that they shoot from civilian positions and then run, that they fight out of uniform, and put civilians on the roofs of aerial targets. I don’t think they’re much accused of hiding in family living rooms; but perhaps they were.
The hospital charge I remember was that the leaders hid in a hospital basement. And that earlier they had transported weapons in ambulances.
The very fact that you feel the Palestinians do not have a right to live in the homeland they were expelled from, shows that you harbour at least some prejudice towards them.
The ‘they love death’ and ‘they hide behind civilians’ canards make it blindingly obvious.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/5721253/Amnesty-accuses-Israeli-forces-of-war-crimes.html
There was also no evidence given for the hospital and ambulance claims and the hospital itself denied the accusations.
This is not a refutation. The article goes on to mention that there were Israeli charges that AI could not verify. AI wasn’t in Gaza during the war.
The “Hospital itself” is under Hamas control. Hamas is not a democracy, they have no affection for any concept of “Free Speech” and are opposed, in principle, to peace conferences. Most notably, Hamas repeatedly asserts that it is not subject to any international law whatsoever.
If the hospital administration admitted the accusations they would be severely punished by Hamas.
AM, goldstone could not find one verification of any of israels claims hamas used civilians as human shields however israel did and recent charges against low level idf people taking the fall confirm this. i was in gaza myself and visited numerous hospitals and health facilities. there is simply no evidence available either from israel or palestinians to confirm any of israels hospital allegations. making some claim israel is telling the truth and palestinians are lying because hamas would punish them is a worthless allegation. the whole pretext of keeping out reporters and relying on idf spokespeoples is to own the narrative, it doesn’t mean it is the truth.
don’t take us for fools, israel has never offered one iota of evidence to back of this lie.
““Bigoted” — maybe I just have a different view of the facts, rather than a prejudice against a people?”‘
No, you’re definitely biggoted. You’ve not cited any facts.
“AI wasn’t in Gaza during the war.”
And why is that? Because Israel banned them and foreign reporteres from entering.
We know Israel lies about human shields. They gave the same lies in Lebanon, and they were indeed refuted, so Israel has no ceredibility.
“. Hamas is not a democracy, they have no affection for any concept of “Free Speech” and are opposed, in principle, to peace conferences.”
False on all counts.
Hamas were democratically elected, support a 2 state solution and said they woudl accept the Arab Peace proposal. They also said they woudl reconize al treaties signed by the PA with Israel.
Israel rejects all of the above. Israel is the non demoncratic state.
“Most notably, Hamas repeatedly asserts that it is not subject to any international law whatsoever.”
False, but Israel has stated the same thing.
“If the hospital administration admitted the accusations they would be severely punished by Hamas.”
That’s not fact, that’s a bigus assumption.
“I must have missed this. Can you show me a couple of refutations?”
Amnesty and HRW Claims Discredited in Detailed Report
link to ngo-monitor.org
Human Rights Watch: Troubling Report
link to nysun.com
Israeli ‘human shield’ claim is full of holes
link to thenational.ae
AreaMan,
Shingo, who is kind and patient has provided you with plenty proof you asked for. This means: STFU and go to your room – you’ve lost the argument fair and square!
AreaMan,
Were you born a racist bastard?
“AreaMan, Were you born a racist bastard?
Rhetorical question, I presume..
Thanks for keeping it civil and staying on topic.
“Thanks for keeping it civil and staying on topic.”
I view foul thoughts as far worse than foul language. In other words you may not use coarse language but your thinking stinks all the same.
Moving millions of Arabs into Israel is politically impossible. It is at best a plan to frustrate peace talks, and at worst a plan to erase the Jewish State. The primary military strategies of Hamas and Hezbollah are to lose on television, and to have as many Arabs as possible die as publicly and shockingly as possible.
What about these simple recitations of fact “Stinks”? Is it a truth you dislike, or do you disagree on the facts?
“Thanks for keeping it civil and staying on topic.”
Idiot, if you want to spew your crap here with wide-eyed ingenuousness, at least change your handle.
Oh, sorry! Forgot about ziocaine amnesia. I’ve got to learn more compassion for the ill.
“Moving millions of Arabs into Israel is politically impossible.”‘
It wouldn’t be moving, but allowing them to return. There is no peace process and the Jewish state is living on borrowed time anyway.
“The primary military strategies of Hamas and Hezbollah are to lose on television, and to have as many Arabs as possible die as publicly and shockingly as possible.”
Why would Hezbollah have to lose on television when they kicked Israel ass twice already?
“Were you born a racist bastard?”
He’s a Zionist, so it’s the same thing.
“Currently, the criminals running Hamas and Hezbollah are carefully arranging their weapons and headquarters so that the maximum number of Arab families will be hit by the next Israeli counter-attack.”
Typical Ziofsacist propaganda. this garbage has been debunked repeatedly.
“When the Arabs say they love death, they include yours and mine. ”
Go to hell you racist filth.
Area Man, probably banned from Greenwald’s, so he came over here to give us the benefit of his whizzdom.
This article is a pastiche (a re-jumbled recipe) of stereotypes and factoids, mixed and spiced differently in the hope of being more balanced. Or maybe in the hope of appearing more balanced.
This statement manages to be deeply prejudiced against Muslims and Jews at the same time:
.
Mr. Zakkai obviously belongs to the tribe of intellectualizing one-worlders, and probably follows the “Kashrut” of organic vegetables, at least at dinner parties, and he may even hope to join the upper caste who drives electric cars. Stalin called these people “Useful idiots”. I myself think they are not so useful.
In any case, the reality is more difficult: The one-state plan is a way to erase the Jewish State, and the two-state plan is a way to create a bigger and bloodier war, with the same goal.
The proposal to move millions of Arab Muslims a into Israel is another plan to erase the Jewish State, and, as a result, has the effect of totally sabotaging negotiations. Given that the Arabs are currently boycotting face-to-face negotiations, this is probably the purpose of the proposal.
Judaism has existed for thousands of years, and has outlasted the Romans, the Czars, the Nazis, and the Stalinists. Mr. Zakkai wants to reduce it to a historical irrelevancy with a motley collection of intellectuals and poseurs (“a new political alignment, a new Israeli-Palestinian Left”) who couldn’t find their way out of a paper bag if you gave them a map and a torch.
“The proposal to move millions of Arab Muslims a into Israel is another plan to erase the Jewish State, and, as a result, has the effect of totally sabotaging negotiations.”
In other words, you admit that the Jewish state was created by driving a nearly a million Arabs from their homes.
“Judaism has existed for thousands of years, and has outlasted the Romans, the Czars, the Nazis, and the Stalinists.”
Umm, Judaism is a religion. The Romans, the Czars, the Nazis, and the Stalinists there populations you imbecile and FYI, if you’re referrign to the mythical Israelil Kigdom, that barely lasted a few hundred years.
I guess you never had a map and a torch.
Shingo, I too immediately thought it was Judiasm, the religion, that outlasted all those historical secular regimes. And then I thought, the same could be said for Christianity. So I don’t know what point AreaMan seeks to make. If it’s a cultural point, I notice both religious communities
have absorbed from each other, and both contain many sects. This quality
is not absent from the History of Islam among former and current nations, is it?
I don’t think AreaMan knows what point he seeks to make either, because even if he’s confusing Judains with the acient Judeans, well, their little fiefdom ended with the Roman conquest.
Those who are attacking the Jewish State do so because it is the home of the Jewish Religion. It is the religion that is the real target. Mr. Zakkai’s description of a new attack based on some kind of new Left seems pathetic to me. It was phrased as an attack on religious Judaism and on the Jewish State. Both.
I see you’ve all read it differently.
>> Those who are attacking the Jewish State do so because it is the home of the Jewish Religion.
“Jewish State”? Nonsense. Israel, by all accounts, is “the only democracy in the Middle East” and democracies are not religion-supremacist. Anyway, those who disapprove of Israel’s behaviour do so because Israel has stolen, destroyed, oppressed, killed and ethnically cleansed…and it continues to do so with impunity. That’s no way for a democracy to behave.
Was it an attack on the Christian religion when church and state were separated in virtually all — if not all — countries of the West.
Are there any countries left in the world that still call themselves Christian states? All I can think of is the Vatican.
“Those who are attacking the Jewish State do so because it is the home of the Jewish Religion.”
I don’t think Israel has ever claimed that. But you just keep butt-fucking the Jewish religion Area Man, it must be a real thrill.
The monarchies of northern Europe are still ‘Christian countries’ in a significant sense. I’m a member of a ‘church by law established’. I hope we’re not supremacist.
At the risk of turning the masses away from Ben Zakkai’s observations, I applaud them.
Respectful, common sense.
There are points that I differ with as well, but hopefully it addresses needs if not demands.
“Respectful, common sense.”
Ziocaine Amnesia! Remember, WItty, it was just Saturday you frankly confessed you didn’t give a shit about the Arabs.
At the risk of turning the masses away from Ben Zakkai’s observations
the masses on Ziocaine? i seriously doubt that’s possible.
of course you’d applaud them. they ask the palestinians to wait longer to get their right and give the Israelis more time to ensure they will never get them
“The one-state plan is a way to erase the Jewish State,”
And this is one of the good points of the plan. Jewish States should not exist.
What Jewish right of return?
“What Jewish right of return?”
Didn’t you know? They were kicked out 3000 years ago.
Alan Hart says in the recently released third volume of his Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews that Arafat was willing to accept, as part of a final two-state settlement, a very limited indeed version of a Palestinian right of return to Israel proper: a few thousand people a year amounting in the end to one or two hundred thousand over a generation, a statement about the Nakba, and compensation for the others, but that he couldn’t make this willingness public before the agreement was finalized.
“Thus I would say the same thing to a Jew born in America and to a Palestinian born in Lebanon, to wit: You can’t return to where you’ve never been. If you want to immigrate to Israel-Palestine, then let’s establish criteria for immigration. That’s how I would define the issue. ”
It’s here where I stopped reading..and I really feel sorry for myself that I’ve made it this far…
thankgodimatheist,
Psuedo-intellectual racists are so dishonest, aren’t they?! Ben’s ‘Golan’ bullshit bit was as every bit despicably colonialist/supremist as your average kahanist garden variety.
It’s that pompous sanctimonious horn that psuedo-intellectuals keep blowing that makes me wanna snatch it out of their hand and break it over their heads:
… a karang-bang followed by the very pleasant echo of silent truth.
I’d listen to anyone who sees a symmetrical situation between a Jew born in the US and a Palestinian born in Lebanon as I’d listen to a Nigerian telling me over the phone that I won a million dollar in a lottery.
I know what you mean… so many faultlines in Ben’s argument – and actually pointless to waste time addressing as the ‘premise’ of his thinking is still fundamentally bias: still favoring Israeli muscle over regional justice.
So many fucking ‘middle-east solotion’ cranks out there – it’s like a victorian freak-show sometimes!
TGIA, you didn’t miss much by stopping there. Later on he goes to balance the entire conflict as being on symmetrical grounds:
From the beginning, there was room enough for Jews and Arabs to live together in harmony, but most Jews and Arabs failed to recognize the humanity of the Other: his history, his culture, his tragic circumstances and deepest aspirations. Jewish-Arab conflict and violence escalated steadily in the 1920′s and ’30s, so that in 1948 no one was surprised when war broke out and was waged ruthlessly. For almost a century each side has succeeded in inflicting great misery on the other, and if Israelis have inflicted much more suffering on Palestinians than vice versa, it’s because they’ve had the upper hand, not because either side is composed of angels or devils.
The rest of the article is filled the standard platitudes and ignorance that have dominated the debate (one state is impractical, no international consensus on ROR) dressed up in more articulate language.
By the way, Mr. Zakkai, if you are going to talk about room, you should stop all discussion on the ROR and advocate its implementation right now. According to your guidelines, there should be no impediment to the ROR as there is plenty of room in Israel for the Palestinian refugees, and not to mention the huge gap of moral bankruptcy and humanity in Zionism to recognize the Other.
Is it largely the difference between duress and ambition?
“Is it largely the difference between duress and ambition?”
I’m not sure if this question is addressed to me but just in case. What I meant is that the comparison (US Jew/Lebanese-born Palestinian) was as dishonest as a Nigerian scheme…
“Nigerian scheme”
Or scam..Whatever..
your missing something though. the Jewish family had the choice to return the palestinian one didn’t.
I gagged on that part and was going to complain, but you beat me to it. However, most of the post is worth reading.
“However, most of the post is worth reading.”
You mean I really could have won that million dollar?
Ok, I’ll give it another look but I donno, something is still telling me that I’m about to be embezzled.
BTW, if Ben had compared the 2 situations, of a Jew born in the US and a Palestinian born also in the US, I could understand. I know for a fact that many Palestinians who were born and are living abroad, in Australia for example, do not wish to return. But born in Lebanon?!! I’ve seen the buggers with my own eyes. I grew up with them. I went to primary school with them. I played soccer with and versus them. No ONE who would tell them that they should not or could not (for the sake of a solution) be allowed to return would not leave the camp in one piece!
TGIA,
The point you make is a legitimate one, but the rest of the post is pretty well thought-out and worth reading. You may not agree with all of it (or even most of it).
I think the specific sentence comparing American Jews and Lebanese Palestinians was more of a slip of the wrist rather than an attempt at making symmetry between the two situations.
There are a couple of areas where I disagree with Mr. Zakkai – his pre-1948 history of the area has a distinct Israeli-tint to it. It’s clear the Palestinian resentment against the newcomers had a lot to do with their ambitions for creating their own state. Also, I think the Palestinian RoR is more important and more urgent than the Jewish RoR and thus should be favoured.
Thanks Shafiq. As I said I’ll have another look.
Area Man, east bloc I presume, of Bolshevik descent?
Brilliant move, to collectively forget the slaughter of the kulaks, the terror, the famine and mass starvation, it had no relation to the coming of the third Reich whatsoever.
Let’s dream away the Romans, a non entity that does not exist, who needs to be enlightened?
To contain the spread of this disease all that is needed is to encircle it, it will succumb to its own starvation, after all the example has been given, it has shown its only way,
Let us start building a wall.
phil, did you actually read this crap before you posted it? there’s enough red flags in this thing to derail the running of the bulls.
On the one hand, in 1948, Israeli forces intentionally expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and villages, partly because of security concerns, but also partly to expand the borders of the new Jewish state while greatly reducing the number of Palestinians living within those borders. That was a grave wrong, and Israel bears primary responsibility for creating the Palestinian refugee problem.
The one thing I like more than Nakba denial is Nakba justification.
What is exactly meant by the last sentence? Who bears the secondary problem for the refugee problem? And what security concerns perpetuated the planned ethnic cleansing (and their immediate and subsequent rejection of return)? When the US had “security concerns” with its Japanese population, it interned them. Yet Zakkai finds it reasonable and significant to justify that Israel had any valid reason for carrying out the premeditated dispossession of the Palestinian people.
Phil, you should know better than to let these kinds of Nakba apologists through.
how helpful the first step is ‘an official Israeli admission of guilt and apology for the Nakba’. i’ve prepared a edited/condensed version of the original text in five paragraphs for those challenged w/comprehension issues..feel free to skip the first paragraph. the meat is in the last 4. my own words are in parenthesise w/few exceptions.
the Arab states must offer citizenship and legal equality to Palestinians who were born and reside in those states. I arrived at the preceding conclusion with a feeling of great disappointment and sorrow.
How unfortunate for Mr. Zakkai. A lot of Israelis seem to arrive at the same conclusion without the meandering twists and turns of Zionist apologism and faux-concern displayed here.
maybe mr zakkai didn’t think we’d notice the insertion of all that rightwing ziospeak interspersed w/
totally dude i so get that.
now i’m really convinced he’s sincere.
because we all need to be reminded of what’s obvious!!!! and just in case we haven’t been slathered w/enough lubricant there’s this brilliant paragraph:
pass the smelling salts! i’m still not quite clear what he means by historical, factual, legal and moral complexity wrt ROR. it seems pretty straight forward to me.
I don’t know what “secondary responsibility” could mean. I suppose he could argue there were atrocities on both sides and each atrocity gives an excuse for the other side to commit one. That’s true in general and one can say this even if you think that one side is clearly the aggressor. He does say the primary responsibility is Israel’s, which for me is the important point. And I don’t doubt that if the Arabs had won there would have been some large scale atrocities against the losers.
As for security concerns, some Israeli historians say that the initial expulsions were part of a military plan and it only became deliberate ethnic cleansing later in the process. I find this hard to believe in general, but it isn’t out of the question that it could have happened from time to time. That is, a Palestinian village might harbor local fighters and not knowing which ones were guerillas, during the conflict the Zionist forces might have just evacuated the village. It would be ethnic cleansing if they intended to keep them out permanently, but not if they intended to let them back home when the war was over.
Of course the Israelis chose to make it permanent, so whether a given village was cleansed deliberately or just out of supposed military considerations ultimately didn’t matter–it all became ethnic cleansing.
I think the post is flawed in some ways and my teeth gritted at certain spots (especially the moral equivalence of American Jews going to Israel to live and Palestinian descendants one generation later). But he raises a lot of details that need to be discussed, even if one doesn’t agree with the conclusions.
It seems clear that a two state solution will require the agreement of both sides, whereas the one state solution is more or less a vision of one side forcing its vision on the other side. Since Israel has had the power of coercion for most of the last 62 years, those who envision a one state solution see no problem with the theoretical coercion that will be exerted by the Palestinians at some point in the future. Mister Ben Zakai seems to be trying to figure out a one state solution that will require the agreement of the Israeli side of the struggle. As such his proposal that the right of return should be limited to a specific number or modality makes sense, for an open ended right of return does not seem like something that any foreseeable Israeli negotiating team would agree to.
The reaction of some of the commenters is based upon their belief that the solution to the conflict will be achieved without the agreement of the Israeli side.
Whichever solution is going to be, 2 states or one state, no matter how fair and just, in the end there will be only one winner, Israel, and one looser, the Palestinians. The only question is to what degree the win /loss is going to differ
I thought Ben Zakkai acknowledged that the prospect for a single state was passed, that there is none.
You thought wrong. He didn’t.
I thought Ben Zakkai acknowledged that the prospect for a single state was passed, that there is none.
by osmosis i presume, since you don’t actually read the texts of these posts.
“For now I remain focused on the goals of ending the Occupation and creating two states for two peoples. ”
Perhaps you didn’t read this.
We’ve read it Witty. We just happen to know you don’t mean it any more than Netenyahu.
“I thought Ben Zakkai acknowledged that the prospect for a single state was passed, that there is none.”
That would be because you imagined it, as is so often the case. You certainly didn’t read it.
Which equates to saying the time for a one-state solution has passed, how exactly?
Don’t waste your time Shafiq ,
The reaspon Witty is focused on the goals of ending the Occupation and creating two states for two peoples, it because he knows there is no chance of either outcome, so his real agenda is to maintain a process that is going nowhere while Israel assimilate all of the land.
>> Which equates to saying the time for a one-state solution has passed, how exactly?
Evidently you’ve missed the “nuances”. ;-)
whereas the one state solution is more or less a vision of one side forcing its vision on the other side.
that’s right it is. it is israel forcing those settlements on palestinians. all experts agree this is what’s forcing a one state solution. so go pressure israel.
One problem I have seen with all the ROR discussions is that no one seems ready to deal with the issue of adequate compensation, with emphasis on “adequate”. Yet, without flushing out this aspect there is really very little point to any possible proposed solution. So, to begin with, I feel that the compensation given by Israel to the settlers removed from Gaza is, by and large, adequate (their eternal whining notwithstanding). I like the idea of something like $25 K for each person or $100 K per family of, say, 5. Now that would come, by gross estimate, to at least $150 -250 B (I include Gazans and west bankers in the total # refugees). If we throw into the pot additional compensation in the form of housing/employment guarantees, etc. it comes to almost $1T. Now that would begin to look “adequate”.
Should such levels of compensation be on the table, it would allow us to start talking about what form solutions might look like for real. One of my ideas would be to throw in the possibility of each country in the world – but especially the US – be obliged to open their doors to a certain number of refugees should they want to go there, kind of like what was offered to the boat people. each one carrying their aloted compensation package, of course.That actually would be fair since many countries around the world and especially US and britain, share in the creation of the refugee problem in the first place – actively or tacitly. Israel would be committed to take in the larger number – say, 1M, which perhaps would not look all that scary, once we assume that this number is accompanied by an influx of almost $100B. Try this on Israelis and see what range of opinions you get, when money – not all theirs – is thrown into the mix.
I know the palestinians would say that one can’t buy justice. But coupled with the apology for nakba and a chance for decent life anywhere they choose (including the US! and canada! and Bermuda/Cuba!), maybe we shouldn’t be assuming things about what the present refugees might or might not find acceptable. So though I may not presume to speak on behalf of others whose lives and aspirations I have no first hand experience with, I do know that israelisand Americans – at least have not so much trouble with the concept of “price tag”.
Now, imagine that the refugee/peace problems can be packaged with the “adequate” compensation thrown in. Now let’s go back and start imagining what could and could not be done – in whatever context one chooses. I think that, at the very least, it’s an interesting exercise in opening the mind’s doors to possibilities not hetherto perceived.
Oh yes, before I forget – so who pays the “adequate” compensation – which, after all is at least two orders of magnitude larger than anyone has ever mentioned? Why,that’s easy – we all do! because we 9as in the species) all have a stake in the solution, as solving the ROR problem would allow our erstwhile race to move on – finally – to tackle global warming and financial solvency issues. The US, for example, would be expected to be at least as generous to the Palestinians as it was to the jews of Israel – so, what’s $100 B between friends? in return for peace and quiet – and, naturally – that many more potential consumers? we could even have another bubble! get the economic engine going again – see an uptick in home prices, and – most importantly – not have to call it a stimulus!!!
Israel should be able – on its own – shell out a few Billion – which can be then proportionately reduced for every refugee they agree to absorb (with the UN overseeing that they do better on the absorption this time than they have with the original Mizrahis). A formula can be devised to compensate descendants of those Israelis who were forced to leave Arab countries – they too shall have the option of right of return to their original homeland and/or adequate compensation (which is where my concept of “adequate” takes some real twisted turns reduced by returns – but such good work for Witty to do – maybe he gets even an accounting contract!). And naturally the countries of the ME get to do some major fund raising as well – again coupled by efforts to settle and absorb refugees within their own countries plus fill up some of those vacant spaces in Dubai….).
There are some really interesting scenarios I’ll be happy to throw into the mix. Such as coupling sovereign debt reduction with refugee absorption, with the IMF now appointed to define what “adequate” is in this context and how much less austerity measures a country is forced to undertake in return for a little absorption effort.
Anyways, the point of this exercise is that, for some reason, all approaches I have seen to the ROR issue decouple it from the monetary value of the compensation. So I just wanted to in my two cents worth (more like $2?) into the mix. Wonder whether that would have any effect on Ben’s proposal and whether he’d care to modify his 1 state/2 state models in any way. Comm’on Ben – let’s play with some numbers!
gee danaa, if palestinians could be bought out don’t you think they would have done it by now?
I know the palestinians would say that one can’t buy justice. But coupled with the apology for nakba and a chance for decent life anywhere they choose (including the US! and canada! and Bermuda/Cuba!), maybe we shouldn’t be assuming things about what the present refugees might or might not find acceptable.
you’re right about that, they would say you can’t buy justice. aside from your inviting exclamation points how can one pretend to offer palestinians a chance to move anywhere they choose by ignoring the one place they want to be? home? and why should all these other countries be convinced to take in palestinians when israel won’t. that doesn’t make sense.
annie – things are not as black and white a you portray. I do not profess to speak for palestinians who, in the end, should be the final arbiters of any solution or system of “solutions” devised for them and/or offered to them (note how the refugees themselves are relegated to a passive role in this context). By the same token, you – or Ben, or Phil, or anyone else here (including sometimes other Palestinians living in comfort elsewhere) cannot speak for the refugees either, as none of us have to live in a refugee camp day in, day out.
All I am suggesting is that justice is, in the end, ONE parameter in any future settlement. There are other parameters such as practicality and viability – which are some of what Ben was trying to address here (in an way idealized fashion – from his viewpoint). I wanted to introduce another dimension to the discussion and that is the financial aspect, which is clearly part and parcel of any resolution, and is often neglected a if it’s not a problem. I was suggesting is that this dimension be opened up for debate, right along with all the other parameters. Which did not imply (how could it?) that I know what would influence people to accept one thing over another, or that there’s even some acceptable trade-off between them (yes, I happen to think there may be, but that’s because it is so in my world, where money can indeed buy time, which is the one true gateway to happiness).
All that being said, let’ not forget that so far, no one offered the palestinian refugees – or the palestinians in palestine anything worth having, or for that matter, a dime, much less Billions and trillions of them. So it’s all an academic exercise at this point. Much as justice, of which you speak, is moot, as it is not at hand either.
Another point I wanted to make is that israelis can be absolutely pig-headed about concepts such as “justice” and “fairness ( (ie, they may profess to believe in them – but if you dig deep enough you’ll find it’ only if they are the injured/to-be-compensated party in question). But for some strange reason they (as in the many I bounced such ideas of) go truly ballistic when the size of any potential compensation is raised (ie, pennies on the dollar is fine, but full dollars?? for someone else??). May be because they conflate size of compensation with admission of injustice? you should try to raise the issue sometime with israelis you know and you’ll quickly see what I mean. Try my numbers first, BTW – see what you get. It’s fun, really….
PS no, I did not try any of these numbers/arguments (is that what this is?) on an actual, living and breathing Palestinian refugee. I kind of doubt they’ll have much patience or respect with our academic exercises or rage-by-proxy proclamations. Wouldn’t be surprised though though if some were tempted to say “show me the money and I’ll think about it”. But then I am kind of cavalier about the entire concept of “home”, having had so many of them. So I am not volunteering for any polls.
I wanted to introduce another dimension to the discussion and that is the financial aspect, which is clearly part and parcel of any resolution, and is often neglected a if it’s not a problem.
huh? you want to introduce the notion of a financial aspect, which you think has been neglected as if it’s not a problem? i’m telling you the idea of palestinians giving up their ROR for money is certainly not novel. it’s been around since day one which is what all the ‘trade’ wrt arab jews reparations has been about.
i’m telling you i’ve spoken to enough palestinians to know that money won’t be solving this issue anymore than bribing israelis to leave israel would work. what planet do people reside on where they think palestinians have less attachment to that land than israeli jews or american jews. maybe if i put an exclamation point behind the offer it will float your boat:
i have a brilliant idea..israelis could move to anywhere they choose russia! the US! europe!
whoops, didn’t helen just get fired for that???
this is all a bunch of hogwash and you should know that. their international right of return is the most valuable thing the palestinians own and they ain’t bargaining it away any time soon. if israel is interested in making any deals they should start w/some decent boundaries for a palestinian state which we all know they will not ever do. so go work on israel. they would be in a supremely better position wrt dealing w/the ror issue AFTER they’ve shown their cards wrt a independent continuous palestinian state in control of their resoueces. then palestinians might beging to take them seriously and entertain even the IDEA of options other than ROR.
you are putting the cart before the horse as is this diary. it’s just another attempt to get palestinians to back down or show their cards or wheel and deal on the most coveted aspect of this entire fiasco while IGNORING the elephant in the room which is the fact of israeli intransigence.
when you’re ready to talk about buying out jews in israel get back to me, otherwise your just going to sound hypocritical to me. israel is paying people to come to israel, how sick is that.
danaa, you said this:
without flushing out this aspect there is really very little point to any possible proposed solution.
again NO, let’s get israel to flush out the land deal first because they keep building those settlements. THAT is the fastest trajectory to a one state solution available. so get bibs to spit out the borders FIRST. palestinians have ONE card and you want to see it while israelis have a 52 card deck. get a fucking grip.
annie – ever tried to offer Israeli real money to get OUT of Israel and go to some nice place in, say Europe or the U or canada? guess what – it will take less than the $25 K/person I threw in above and many, if not most would probably be rushing at the gates. As a Million Israelis have already done – for nothing! just for a chance to get out….And the last few times I was there, the main question IO heard is whether I know how they could get a job – somewhere else.
While we are at it, you could also probably BUY a serious apology to the Palestinians from israel – if the price is right.
So since you don’t like the idea of palestinians accepting worldly goods – of any amount – how about we turn this around and offer israelis some decent amount for them to leave? let’s see – at 20K/person (lower price, see?) and 5 M Israelis that would be only $100B!! practically a bargain, I say. OK, only the crazy american immigrants and a few orthodox will stay behind, and that should not be a problem, even if there are 100,000 of them.
That’s it – I really like this solution best….wonder why no one thought of it yet.
At least a million Israelis would stay.
WJ – let’s split the difference – I say at most 500-600 K stay, and that’ my last word! have my reasons too. Many of stayers will be the older folks BTW, which means the Phillipino caretakers get to stay a well which I’m sure they wouldn’t mind. Besides, I already factored them into the total cost. Now, where’ our resident accountant Witty when we need one (to check on my numbers, I mean, not my reasoning)?
Danaa and annie ~ I agree that there’s many hurdles before any reparations/compensation could be negotiated. Still, the discussion you’ve had is interesting.
Danaa I just about spat coffee all over the computer when you compared the settlers’ evacuation from Gaza and the situation of the Palestinian refugees, then named a financial figure of 25k per person.
Really, what planet are you on? Planet Israel I guess. You have multiple generations of refugees whose lives have been WRECKED by Israel refusing to observe their right of return, and you want to offer them a measly 25K!!!!! That’s less than half a years [average] salary in many countries. Why not just a few loaves of bread ground into *crumbs*? 25K is token, and barely.
Obviously financial compensation must be paid for all stolen property and land. Then there is the issue of repatriation to Israel, or a future Palestinian state. The right of return is not-negotiable, but settling the matter is. So Israel needs to make a financial offer to Palestinians and they must decide whether they accept the offer, or give up the offer and return to Israel instead. Obviously if the offer is $5 each, all refugees will return to Israel. And if the offer is $10,000,000 a much higher number of refugees, if not all, will take the money. Somewhere in the middle is a number of returnees that Israel may feel comfortable with. They need to set a figure accordingly. If I were being offered $500K (a figure that seems more reasonable to me) or citizenship in Israel then I’d seriously consider taking the money. It would be enough to buy a house, spend good money on my children education (if I had them), and start to live again after being held in stasis for decades and decades. And that of my parents, and maybe theirs too.
A return limited to a certain number is grotesque and divisive – how do you decide who gets the privilege? An offer and individual decision is the only fair way.
Underlying all of this is the fact that Israel wants to remain a “Jewish State”, which is I think an ugly, time-limited concept. Even if Israel/Palestine manages to come to a peaceful settlement there simply can be no guarantees about a permanent jewish majority. For that reason this whole right of return issue – and Israel trying to think of ways it can limit the number of returnees – seems almost pointless. There are no guarantees about demographics. I know this though, If I were an Israeli arab and being treated like merde by Israeli jews I’d be having 10 kids, minimum.
Sumud, part of the reason I even suggested engaging in monetary figures is so that people (especially those not living in camps who engage in academic exercises about the ROR, maybe like Ben?) will start wrapping their heads around the enormity of the issue. I happen to think that numbers have a way of sharpening the focus (OK, sometimes; numbers can defocus, divert and mislead too; I should know). The reason I made the comparison with the Gaza settlers is not, heaven forbid, to compare the relative suffering or moral standing (there’s no comparison) but as a starting point to come up with some figures – since we know what they were offered by Israel. Remembering all the time that no way would israelis ever consider any palestinian life the equal of a “Jewish” life (even a whiny one, like those ex-Gaza settlers). Also, I’d add that $25K (some in cash) is the sort of [average] financial assistance Israel offers to tempt jewish people from western countries to open up shop in Israel.
But do take a good look at the numbers: with my admittedly-measly $25K/person, you already get $150B (assuming, just for starters 6M palestinian refugees). I consider that the absolute bottom number, since on top of it, there’ll have to be relocation assistance, employment, education support, houing etc. to make a ‘complete” relocation “package” (which is how the numbers edge towards the $1T mark). Now, have you seen anyone advocating refugee “resettlement” mention anything even near such numbers? the most you’ll ever hear from any corner is a few 10′s of Billions – an miserable drop in the bucket. Somehow, behind all argument about “resettlement” there’ the assumption – ussually hidden – that we are talking about something on the order of $50B tops.
And that’s the real reason I bring this up – I’ll bet Ben, who thinks ROR can somehow be handled without bringing up any costs (whether financial or moral) wouldn’t touch my numbers with a 10 foot pole – much less yours. Because they know very well, that the will is not there to shell real dough, even IF (emphasis on hypothetical) the refugees could somehow – miraculouley – be enticed to go somewhere other than Israel. That, BTW, is also the reason I bring up the possibility of resettling the refugees in places other than Arab countries – preferably according to some numerical quota (numbers again!). That’s usually when the it really hits the fan – to even suggest that somehow Vietnamese boat people (the good refugees) are in any way comparable with palestinians (the bad refugees)!
I’ll admit that this is a bit of an exercise in pilpul,maybe like all numerical/algebraic exercises. But sometimes pilpul can tease out a truth that’s otherwise lurking in the shadows. Such as the total reluctance – even on the part of the so called ‘enlightened” jews – to truly look at the Palestinian refugees in their full human dimension. I try this only with jewish people, especially the israeli version. Trust me – they can take 5 minutes of it at the most – especially the mathematical geniuses who can add. The more numerate they are, the faster they’ll head for the exit, any exit. A few though, with better stamina, may even concede that actually exercising the ROR – as a practical, real approach, is, in fact, A solution. Alas, they immediately proclaim it to be an imaginary one (not that they get to escape with that one, having gotten this far).
It sounds to me like you’ve proved that moving millions of Arabs into Israel isn’t practical.
Not quite Areaman. What I proved is that there’ not enough compensation available that can get them to go anywhere else (proof with help from annie and sumud, that is). The real point to be made is that returning the refugee to Israel can be done far more cheaply than sending them anywhere else.
But, there’s more! as annie inspired me to look into an alternative – the cheapest solution would be to PAY Israelis to get out of the country so many of them don’t like to live in all that much anyways. Ever noticed how much happier and calmer Israelis are when not surrounded by other Israelis?
Combine that with having to pay a lot less for the refugees to have a chance to return to Israel and you got a winner!
I’d suggest that we should distinguish the right to a share in sovereignty and the right to private property. I could legitimately take money in return for property but I couldn’t, by most moral standards, sell my right to be a British citizen.
It’s the sovereignty right that is really important. People talk of delegitimating Israel – but the real task is to legitimate Palestine, ie to emphasise the point that the only proper form of sovereignty is one not based on racial discrimination.
When the legitimate sovereign power comes to exist it will have the job of sorting out property rights in the best interests of all its people.
Good reminders, MHughes, as per usual.
Jewish sovereignty, by international treaty, covers Palestine. The Arabs get individual civil and religious rights. The Arabs also got sovereignty over Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and so on.
The same international treaties (acts?) that created Iraq as an Arab state created Palestine as a homeland for the Jews. The are the “San Remo Conference of 1920″ and the “Palestine Mandate”. I suggest you read them cover to cover, word by word. Both were adopted by the League of Nations, and thereby absorbed into the UN at it’s founding. These are the only binding international law on the topic.
The Jews would not have established a state if there was another, existing state on the land, it would have been impossible, illegal, et cetera.
Many honest people (on both sides) have been confused by the General Assembly Partition Plan of November 1947. Since it is from the GA, it is not binding international law. Since it was only a recommendation and a plan, it is not binding international law. Since the Arabs rejected it totally, it is not a deal agreed upon by both sides, so it is legally binding on neither.
The Arabs and Muslims have about 20 states. The Jews have one small state. Apparently this one state is one too many for some. The only thing about Israel that causes objection is its Jewishness.
The Arab attacks of 1948 would not have occurred if a Muslim dictatorship had been created in its place. If the Arabs had not attacked, the “Nakba” would not be a catastrophe, but a tiny footnote to history.
Technical note: Iraq was created by the San Remo Conference alone, not by the Palestine Mandate.
“Jewish sovereignty, by international treaty, covers Palestine.”
There was no such thing as Jewish sovereignty.
“The Arabs get individual civil and religious rights. The Arabs also got sovereignty over Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and so on.”
Rubbish. The only legal agreement was the UN Partition, which divided Palestine into roughly half for the Palestinians and half for the Zionists.
“The same international treaties (acts?) that created Iraq as an Arab state created Palestine as a homeland for the Jews.”
False. The san Remo Conference agreement was not only superceeded by the UN partition but like the Balfour Agreement, stopulated that all Aplestinians were to be given equal rights and that refugees be allowed to return.
“I suggest you read them cover to cover, word by word. Both were adopted by the League of Nations, and thereby absorbed into the UN at it’s founding.”
if that were true, then the UN would not have produced a UN Partition plan for Palestine. After all, you Zionists often argue that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs did not..
“These are the only binding international law on the topic.”
“Many honest people (on both sides) have been confused by the General Assembly Partition Plan of November 1947. Since it is from the GA, it is not binding international law.”
It is absolutely binding, becasyue the Israelis accepted it as a condition of their entry into the UN. Furthermore, the Israelis accepted it.
“Since the Arabs rejected it totally, it is not a deal agreed upon by both sides, so it is legally binding on neither.”
Irrelevant. Israel accepted it upon condition of it’s membership to the UN, thus it is a treaty between Israel and the UN.
“The Arabs and Muslims have about 20 states. The Jews have one small state.”
So what? Warren Buffet has 80 billion and I don’t. That doesn’t give me the right to take 1 billion out fo his pocket.
“The Arab attacks of 1948 would not have occurred if a Muslim dictatorship had been created in its place.”
False. The war was in response to teh ethnic cleasing of Palestine that had already commenced by the time the war began.
“ If the Arabs had not attacked, the “Nakba” would not be a catastrophe, but a tiny footnote to history.”
Bullshit,. The Zionists were publicly declaring their p,lans to remove the Palestinians since Hertzl.
Take your bullshit revisionism elsehere you fascist asshwhipe. We know this game and we play it beter than you.
Get new material moron. Your boring us.
The San Remo conference[49] assigned the mandate for Palestine to the United Kingdom under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Allies also decided to make the UK responsible for putting into effect its own Balfour Declaration of 1917. In June 1922, the League of Nations approved the terms of the mandate, with the stipulation that they would not come into effect until a dispute between France and Italy over the Syria Mandate was settled. That issue was resolved in September 1923. The Council of the League of Nations determined that the two mandates had come into effect at its meeting of 29 September 1923.
So in other words, the Balfour Declaration became the new law.
In 1937 a British Royal Commission headed by Lord Peel proposed solving the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning Palestine into two states. The Jewish leadership rejected the plan and developed an alternate proposal.[55]
A collection of private correspondence published by David Ben Gurion contained a leter written in 1937 which explained that he was in favour of partition because he didn’t envision a partial Jewish state as the end of the process. Ben Gurion wrote “What we want is not that the country be united and whole, but that the united and whole country be Jewish.” He explained that a first-class Jewish army would permit Zionists to settle in the rest of the country with or without the consent of the Arabs.[57] Benny Morris said that both Chaim Weizmann and David Ben Gurion saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine.[58] Former Israeli Foreign Minister and historian Schlomo Ben Ami writes that 1937 was the same year that the “Field Battalions” under Yitzhak Sadeh wrote the “Avner Plan”, which anticipated and laid the groundwork for what would become in 1948, Plan D. It envisioned going far beyond any boundaries contained in the existing partition proposals and planned the conquest of the Galilee, the West Bank, and Jerusalem.[59]
So it is clear that the blueprint for the 1948 war was in place at least a decade earlier.
Shingo- To imply that the Peel commission report was rejected by the Zionists because of a plan to conquer all of Western Palestine is misleading. The Zionists knew that the Palestinian representatives were going to reject the report, so they felt no need to accept the proposal and instead suggested further talks.
That’s called a distinction witbhout a difference WJ.
As Ben Gurion said, the acceptance of the partition would not limit the Zionist to claim the rest of Transjordan. The plant to conquer all of Western Palestine was already in place.
What a crock. The League of Nations passed Resolutions that involved the Mandatory Powers. The San Remo language:
“in favour of the establishment IN Palestine,” not OF Palestine. Jews were given territory within Palestine; they were not given Palestine. And it was not “international law” or all that hoopla you claim.
The existing non-Jewish communities were given civil and religious rights. The Jews were given national rights. The existing population had the right to remain in their homes and function as per law in the new Jewish administration. Nothing the League of Nations did partitioned the administration of Palestine into Jewish and non-Jewish areas. Later, Jordon was carved out of Mandate Palestine, but there was no authorization for this under international law.
The documents that MRW is quoting are binding international law.
Israel and the Jews have been willing to settle for part of Palestine, for “territory within Palestine”, provided peace and recognition are granted. Which part, exactly, is a point for negotiation. MRW’s last few sentences approximately summarize the Zionist Israeli position on partition.
” Since it is from the GA, it is not binding international law. ”
And yet it is UNGA181 that Israel refers to in it’s Declaration of Independence, as a source of legitimacy.
“The Arabs and Muslims have about 20 states. The Jews have one small state. ”
Here we go again with the Abba Eban history lessons. Faulty, racist, immoral at the time and faulty, racist, immoral now.
link to video.yahoo.com
The Israeli Declaration of Independence is a political document, not a binding treaty. In that sense, it is like the US Declaration of Independence. The US and the USSR, supported the GA resolution, so it seems to me it was just good politics to butter up the countries that supported it. Israel did not need the GA resolution at that time, it needed recognition from powerful UN member states, which it got soon afterward.
>> The Arabs and Muslims have about 20 states. The Jews have one small state.
The latest, dishonest twist on RW’s “tiny blue dot in a sea of green”. Judaism is practised throughout the world by people of different nationalities. Those people are not “long-term exile” Israelites; they are not Israelis; they are not automatically entitled to land in the Middle East.
>> The only thing about Israel that causes objection is its Jewishness.
No, what causes objection is that Israel, while touting itself as “the only democracy in the Middle East”, engages in oppression, inequality, colonialism, theft and destruction.
“The Arabs and Muslims have about 20 states. The Jews have one small state.”
What a stupid thing to say..Does a Syrian have more than one state, Syria? Does a Lebanese? An Egyptian? Can a Libyan come and leave Qatar or Jordan as he pleases or does he need a visa and a residency permit like every other non national? It really takes a comprehensively unscrupulous zionist to lump all Arabs and Muslim under one generic logo and claim they “own” 22 states.
This is what I don’t understand. Why is the Palestinian right of return considered so “complex” and “difficult”, when a parallel Jewish right of return has been granted quite straightforwardly in Israel’s Law of Return? What is so wrong about applying the same model for Palestinian ROR? Is that not the obvious starting point?
And it seems to me that for Palestinians, issues of compensation for property and facilitation of repatriation are quite secondary to the simple right to live in their country. In other words, most of the problem is solved simply by dropping the legal prohibition of Palestinian return. I am not Palestinian so my words to this effect are in no way definitive. But it seems to me that they want to know first of all that, if they care enough to return to their land of origin or that of their parents, they won’t be denied entry or thrown out. (And by armed people who are themselves the products of recent immigration.)
(Of course, fairness dictates that Palestinians be compensated for property seized from them or from ancestors, and that their choice to repatriate be supported by public services. And I don’t think many people would demand the dispossession of Jewish families residing on property seized in the Nakba. That seizure of property is primarily the state’s responsibility, and therefore so would be the duty to compensate victims.)
Palestine was created, carved out of the dead Ottoman Empire, to be a Jewish state. The Arabs were assigned sovereignty over other areas. There was no Palestinian Nation nor an idea of a Palestinian People at that time. The only people in the first third of the 2oth century to call themselves “Palestinians” were the Zionists.
The Zionists founded the Palestine Electric Company in the 1920′s, in Tel Aviv. It is now the Israel Electric Company. There was a Zionist newspaper called the Palestine Post that is now the Jerusalem Post. And so on.
The concept of the Arabs of Palestine being a nation called Palestine was invented in the 1960′s as a response to Zionism. Before that, they were “Arabs” or “Syrians” or “Jerusalemites”… You will not find a notion of an Arab Palestinian Nation before the 1960′s.
“Palestine was created, carved out of the dead Ottoman Empire, to be a Jewish state. ”
False. Palestine was a territory that pre-dated the Ottoman Empire. The Jewish state was supposed to be 56 % of Palestine.
“The Arabs were assigned sovereignty over other areas.”
False again. The Arabs were not assigned sovereignty. They were promised independence but the British renegged on the agreement.
“There was no Palestinian Nation nor an idea of a Palestinian People at that time.”
False again. Prior to the creation fo Israel, everyone in Palestine was known as a Palestinian.
“The only people in the first third of the 2oth century to call themselves “Palestinians” were the Zionists.”
False again. See above.
“The Zionists founded the Palestine Electric Company in the 1920′s, in Tel Aviv. It is now the Israel Electric Company.”
False again. The Palestine Electric Company was not a Zionist enterprise.
“There was a Zionist newspaper called the Palestine Post that is now the Jerusalem Post. And so on.”
Irrelevant. Most Jews in Palestine were both opposed to a Jewish state and were not Zionists.
“The concept of the Arabs of Palestine being a nation called Palestine was invented in the 1960′s as a response to Zionism.”
False again. The Palestinians were promised independence by the British. Whether they referred to that state as Palestine or otherwise is irrelevant. Palestinians owned more than 60% of the land, with Jews only owning 7%.
“Before that, they were “Arabs” or “Syrians” or “Jerusalemites”…”
False again. They were Palestinians.
“You will not find a notion of an Arab Palestinian Nation before the 1960′s.”
Yes you will. See above.
Thanks for playing. Anytime you need a history lesson, feel free to ask.
The British made all sorts of promises in the early 20th century. Many of these were not kept. As for the rest of your claims, I don’t think you can document any of them. Let’s start with the two companies that had the same name: The “Palestine Electric Company”, and, in 1999, the Arabs started a new company with that name, as it was no longer in use.
The Zionist PEC is also mentioned in this pdf on legal history.
Also, you misunderstood what I wrote. There was no notion of a Palestinian Arab nationality in the 1920′s, when Palestine was carved out of the Ottoman Empire. That’s what I meant by “…nor an idea of a Palestinian People at that time”. I thought I was pretty clear. You are referring to “pre-1948″, a wider expanse of time. I still don’t think you can document any Palestinian Arab State, or any expression of that idea, before Zionism became an issue in the 1930′s. Probably not before 1948. First, try to find one before 1960, when the PLO was founded, then work back.
MRW: I cannot find any evidence, on the web anyway, of a Palestine Census in 1850.
You may be mis-remembering this article “The Demographic Development of Palestine, 1850-1882″, which was written in 1985. Until you come up with documentation, I will believe that it is you who are dead wrong.
And please remember the context, I was answering robin’s question ‘Why is the Palestinian right of return considered so “complex” and “difficult”?’.
Those links again:
link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org
link to investing.businessweek.com
link to works.bepress.com
link to jstor.org
Palestine was created, carved out of the dead Ottoman Empire, to be a Jewish state.
No, it was not. You’re wrong.
The concept of the Arabs of Palestine being a nation called Palestine was invented in the 1960’s as a response to Zionism
You’re dead wrong. The census for Palestine in 1850 showed 800,000 Palestinians and 6,000 Jews, as someone pointed out here a short while ago. Everyone carried a Palestinian passport until the 1930s and their currency said Palestine on it, which is, as any good historian will tell you, how you determine what the hell the place was called.
Palestine has maps going back 2,000 years.
Thanks for that MRW.
It gets so tedious debunking this crap everytime one of these jokers decides to drop by.
Balfour (the British government) called it Palestine, the League of nations called it Palestine and the UN called it Palestine (referring to Jews and Arabs because, as inhabitants of Palestine, BOTH groups were considered Palestinian – although the majority of Palestinian Jews were not indigenous). They called it Palestine because that was its bloody name, and that’s what the whole bloody world called it.
In 1948, a majority of Palestinian Jews decided to call themselves and all future citizens of the country “Israelis” (an invention). The indigenous Palestinian population (whether ethnically- cleansed or not) simply retained its ethnic-cultural-national identity.
The only change that occurred in the 1960s (founding of the PLO, etc.) was perhaps a sort of “delocalisation” of Palestinian identity, shifting of emphasis away from one’s specific place in Palestine (town, village, extended family) to a broader sense of national identity and political aspirations. It would be ridiculous however, to claim that no Palestinian national identity existed prior to the 1960s. The cultural, linguistic, religious and family ties that existed between Jenin, Haifa, Jaffa, Hebron, Jerusalem, Acre etc. as well as their respective hinterlands are undeniable and cannot honestly be compared to ties with Cairo or Beirut or Constantinople.
MRW- Did you make up this 1850 census? Or did it indeed take place?
Tom Segev (Yemei ha-kalaniyyot, Keter, 1999, p.26 n.) cites the figures 700,000 Arabs and 85,000 Jews, on the eve of WWI. If we presume that about 75,000 Jews immigrated to Palestine in the First and Second Aliyot (1882-1914), a Jewish population of 6,000 in 1850 is perfectly reasonable.
They identified politically and emotionally with Syria and Beirut. The nation of Lebanon was a new creation, formerly part of Syria. Parts of what we call Palestine/Israel were administered, under the Turks, from Damascus. Other parts from points further south.
The question under discussion about the census was whether there was something like a Palestinian nation in 1850. There was a population that could have been counted and later be estimated. There was no polity named Palestine or anything like it to organize a census in 1850, as was claimed.
AM,
You are confusing administrative decisions taken in Constantinople with the “emotional and political” identities of the actual residents of Nablus and Jaffa and Jerusalem.
In any event, those kicked out of their homes in 1948 certainly identified as Palestinians, regardless of when or how you may believe they came upon that realisation. In any event, their direct connection (and that of their descendants) is certainly far more direct and concrete than any history, mythology or religious sentiment used to justify the Israeli Law of Return. Robin’s point was well taken.
Shmuel- Although the number of Jews cited by MRW for the year 1850 might be reasonable, the number of Arabs cited by MRW for the year 1850 is not reasonable. Those who have given serious attention to the censuses of the Ottomans have commented that the numbers included populations not included in the Palestine mandate, since the borders for that mandate came into existence after WWI. But whether the numbers are realistic or not, I have found no evidence of the existence of a census in the year 1850. Do you have any evidence that such a census took place?
“…those kicked out of their homes in 1948 certainly identified as Palestinians…”
This is an interesting question. It seems only reasonable that at least a few of them did. Do you have any documentation the extent or intensity of this identification? The Arabs were largely anti-Zionist, in one way or another, so far as we know. We are sure the Arab leaders were anti-Zionist. But that’s not the same as saying the masses identified themselves as part of an existing Arab Palestinian nation. Many called themselves Syrians.
Where are your sources for these claims, AM?
Moreover, why does this even matter? The Palestinians were still the demographic majority. They still owned more land and property.
Who cares how they identify?
Are you going to ask Jews all over the world to either identify as ‘Zionist’ or ‘Israeli’ or ‘Jew’ or whatever nationality they happen to be – and if you don’t like the answer, tell them they have no right to the land they presently live on?
Self-determination requires territory.
Jews have no inherent right to self-determination. Neither do Muslims or Christians.
Self-determination belongs to the people of a land.
And the majority of the land of Israel/Palestine was Palestinian Arab.
The property was owned by mostly Palestinian Arabs.
The end.
WJ,
I am not familiar with a such a census, but I did remember that Tom Segev addressed the numbers issue, and whipped out my copy of Yemei Hakalaniyot to check. I don’t know what source MRW used, or how the data was interpreted and by whom, but I trust Segev, and it is clear that the number of Jews in Palestine in 1850 was very small (probably between 5 and 10 thousand). The number 800,000 (Arabs) may be inflated, but considering the fact that there is no evidence of mass Arab immigration to Palestine between 1850 and 1914, I think it is safe to say that the ratio of Arabs to Jews in Palestine, in 1850, was at least 100:1 – which became about 10:1 in 1914, due to Jewish immigration.
If the numbers do make sense (even if reduced to 500-600,000 for Arabs), why bother arguing about the 1850 census?
Do you have any documentation the extent or intensity of this identification?
I think a certain amount of documentation has already been offered to that effect in the course of this discussion. Do you have any documentation that “many called themselves Syrian”, particularly in an identity (as opposed to administrative) context?
Indeed Cliff,
One of the fundamental foundations o any democracy is respect for private property. The theft of Palestinian property and land remains an act of theft regardless of nationalist aspirations. After all, who would suggest that Jews in the US should accept their homes being confiscated and being evicted on the pretext that they can all migrate to Israel?
I suspect that Areaman, like Witty, refuses to move to Israel. Should their rights be denied on the basis that gentiles might want to live in their homes?
“The concept of the Arabs of Palestine being a nation called Palestine was invented in the 1960’s as a response to Zionism. Before that, they were “Arabs” or “Syrians” or “Jerusalemites”… You will not find a notion of an Arab Palestinian Nation before the 1960’s.”
Moron..Let me ask you this question: If the Arabs of Syria were called Syrians and the Arabs of Iraq were called Iraqis and the Arabs of Lebanon were called Lebanese and the Arabs of Egypt were called Egyptians, etc. why would you make an exception for the Palestinians and call them just Arabs?
But I know why. Because stripping them of their national identity make it easier for you SOBs to claim that those who inhabited the land you coveted, are just “invaders” who came from other Arab lands and have no connection to Palestinie. After all doesn’t the name Arab mean from Arabia, or so you tell?
Scum!
I don’t think the question of the timing of Palestinian national identity is relevant to what a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should look like. But the fact is that the body representing the “Palestinians” in 1948 was not known as the Palestinian Higher Committee but the Arab Higher Committee.
WJ,
I agree that it is not relevant, but a. there is no contradiction between Arab and Palestinian, b. the term Arab was often used prior to 1948 to specify Arab-Palestinian (as opposed to Jewish-Palestinian), and c. many Arab-Palestinian movements in Mandate Palestine (eg. the Palestine Arab Party and the National Liberation League in Palestine) had the word “Palestine” in their official names.
WJ,
Why is it important to you to demonstrate the relative recency of Palestinian national identity (while denying its practical relevance)?
“But the fact is that the body representing the “Palestinians” in 1948 was not known as the Palestinian Higher Committee but the Arab Higher Committee.”
Is this supposed to be a proof that there was no Palestinians?
But curiously enough there was a Palestinian National Council!
“A Palestinian National Council was convened in Gaza on 30 September 1948, under the chairmanship of Amin al-Husayni. The council passed a series of resolutions culminating on 1 October 1948 with a declaration of independence over the whole of Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital.[8] Although the new government claimed jurisdiction over the whole of Palestine, it had no administration, no civil service, no money, and no real army of its own. It formally adopted the Flag of the Arab Revolt that had been used by Arab nationalists since 1917, and revived the Holy War Army, with the declared aim of liberating Palestine.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Another important point
If Palestinians were generally called Arabs that was not because they had no distinctive identity but to avoid making a confusion with the other non-Arab communities such as the Jews in Palestine.
Shmuel
I see now that you too made the same point about the distinction to be made between non-Arab communities and the Arab one, hence the term Arab.
thankgodimatheist,
Waste of time to argue with despicable mothereffing deniers of Palestinianhood.
These assholes should get together with holocaust deniers and have themselves a nice pissy tea party!
TGIA,
This is particularly evident in UN documents pertaining to Palestine. The country is called Palestine, and the respective communities are referred to as Jews and Arabs. It would have been extremely silly, not to mention confusing to call one group Palestinians. “Palestine” and “Palestinians” did not have the same connotations then as they have now. Jews called themselves Palestinians and referred to the country as Palestine. As I have mentioned before, my great-grandfather’s surname was Palestine, and he was extremely proud of it – and he was not an Arab ;-) If we look at the writings of American Jewish thinkers of the first half of the 20th century (e,g. Mordecai Kaplan) the country is almost always referred to as Palestine. The forerunner of Bank Leumi was called the Anglo-Palestine Bank. Ben-Gurion headed the Jewish Agency for Palestine. And the first Zionist lobby in Washington was called the American Palestine Committee.
This is not to say that the existence of an indigenous Palestinian people is a recent invention, but that the use of the term Palestinian to refer exclusively to the non-Jewish (mostly Muslim/Christian) population of Palestine and their descendants is necessarily post-48, because that is when Jews stopped calling themselves Palestinians, not because that is when Arabs started using the name.
Shmuel
I meant you and I made the same point. I too, posted a comment along the same line before I saw yours.. Here:
“If Palestinians were generally called Arabs that was not because they had no distinctive identity but to avoid making a confusion with the other non-Arab communities such as the Jews in Palestine.”
Sorry for the confusion.
I meant you and I made the same point.
I got that TGIA. I was just taking advantage of your comment to blather on a little more. Thanks, man ;-)
The Arabs of Lebanon were only called Lebanese after it’s founding in the 1940′s.
The Arabs of Iraq were only called Iraqis after it’s founding in the 1920′s.
Egypt is indeed quite old.
Syria was founded in 1946, but before that the whole area was called the Levant, and many of the people were referred to as Levantine.
The whole area was ruled from Turkey for 400 years until the 1920′s. The Turks, not being Arab, did not emphasize the Arab nationality as much as the Muslim nature of the area and its rule.
Do you find that the futile attempts to be insulting actually help you?
Shmuel- When Zionists refer to the Palestinians as Arabs we are called racists for using this term. We may or may not be racists, but the use of the term “Arabs” is not racist, but merely a continuation of how the Palestinians referred to themselves until 1948.
Between 1900 and 1965 African Americans referred themselves as ‘negroes’. I noticed sometime in the 1970s the only people who insisted using that term were the racists.
The insistence of the Israeli Jews to call her Palestinian neighbors ‘Arabs’ is a conscious political decision to deny them their nationality and to brand them as a foreign implant. Smells like racism to me.
Do Arabs today refer to themselves as Arabs? I think the answer is yes.
Do Jews today refer to themselves as citizens of a world they were blest with without even having to ask? I think the answer is not enough.
My statement was not quite correct. You’ll rarely find a notion of Arab Palestinian nationhood before the 1960′s, and there is none that I know of before the establishment of the Palestine Mandate.
The idea of the nation of (Arab) Palestine was created, over some years, as a response to Zionism. The idea grew greatly in the 1960′s as the Arab States stopped trying to defeat Israel directly.
That is not the view of Rashid Khalidi, Wikipedia: Palestinian nationalism:
Here’s another couple of paragraphs from that Wikipedia article:
So, whether or not Zionism was decisive in causing Palestinian nationalism, it would seem to have emerged before the establishment of the Palestine Mandate.
“The idea of the nation of (Arab) Palestine was created, over some years, as a response to Zionism. The idea grew greatly in the 1960’s as the Arab States stopped trying to defeat Israel directly.”
False on both counts.
1. The Palestinians were promised independence by the British in return for helping to drive out the Ottoman empire from Palestine.
2. As early as 1914, Ben-Gurion secretly admitted the existence of Palestinian nationalism, at least among the working masses. He explained that Palestinians hatred to Zionism was based of their fear of being dispossessed.
Here are some quotes which debunk your Hasbara thesis:
“We are not xenophobes; we welcome all strangers. We are not anti-Semites; we value the economic superiority of the Jews. But no nation, no government could open its arms to groups. . . . aiming to take Palestine from us.” (Righteous Victims, p. 62)
[The governor of Jerusalem, Azmi Bey, March 1911]
“”It is pointless to consider this [referring to the Palestinian national movement] a question only of effendis [land owners]. . . This may be fine as a tactic, but, between ourselves, we should realize that we have to reckon with an [Palestinian] Arab national movement. We ourselves—our own [movement]—are speeding the development of the [Palestinian] Arab movement.” (Righteous Victims, p. 104)”
[Palestinian. Kalvaryski, a Zionist Official, put it in May 1921 1920]
WJ,
Palestinian Arabs referred to themselves as both Palestinians and Arabs prior to 1948, and they continue to do so to this day. The racism starts when Zionists refer to them as Arabs only, in order to erase a part of their identity and deny their connection to the land.
Thanks Lysias..Khalidi is exactly what’s warranted to rebut this hasbarist bullshitter. One can find hundreds of articles and studies in regards to this subject here:
link to palestineremembered.com
Syria was founded in 1946, but before that the whole area was called the Levant, and many of the people were referred to as Levantine.
So Syria wasn’t called Syria before 1946, but Palestinians identified as Syrians?
Levant means east (where the sun rises) and was hence a foreign name used by those who lived to the west of the region or borrowed from them (like Middle East). The regional name does not preclude the existence of additional, internal divisions, any more than the Middle East or the Balkans or Latin America.
Eight Stages of Genocide
3. DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases [or invisibility]. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group.
“Do Arabs today refer to themselves as Arabs? I think the answer is yes.”
No they refer to themselves as Guatemaltec if I’m not mistaken..
BTW, do Jews today refer to themselves as Jews? I think the answer is yes.
Ok, I’m out of here. I’m not even sure I want to engage in such an infantile exercise this is turning out to be..
“You will not find a notion of an Arab Palestinian Nation before the 1960’s.”
Why is this important? The native people of Palestine were denied any self-determination. Many of them were driven out of their homes. Their property, farms, and orchards were seized by foreign invaders. They are denied the right to go back home. All these are grave wrongs committed by the Zionists. How is that affected by the question of nationhood?
“You will not find a notion of an Arab Palestinian Nation before the 1960’s.”
Bullshit!
In 1948 The All-Palestine Government (Arabic: حكومة عموم فلسطين Hukumat ‘umum Filastin) was established by the Arab League on 22 September 1948, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Shortly thereafter, an Arab-Palestinian Congress named King Abdullah I of Transjordan, “King of Arab Palestine”.[1] The Congress called for the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan and Abdullah announced his intention to annex the West Bank. The other Arab League member states opposed Abdullah’s plan. The All-Palestine Government is regarded as the first attempt to establish an independent Palestinian state. Though jurisdiction of the Government was declared to cover the whole of the former British Mandate of Palestine, its effective jurisdiction was limited to the Gaza Strip.
link to en.wikipedia.org
The above is addressed to the bullshitters Area man and WJ..
These institutions did exist in 1948. As your article states, “The All-Palestine Government is regarded as the first attempt to establish an independent Palestinian state”. A few people did have this idea in the 1940′s.
My point still stands, that the idea of an Arab Palestinian national identity was only created as a response to Zionism, and is not something that existed before.
You have not found a Palestinian nation before 1960, you have found a committee.
Robin’s question, as to why the ROR for “Palestinians” is so hard, is, I think answered.
“Robin’s question, as to why the ROR for “Palestinians” is so hard, is, I think answered.”
The ROR for Palestinians is based on the fact that 700,000 people were driven from their homes–they and their immediate descendants have a right to go back. It’s illogical (except from a racist viewpoint) to argue the way you do–supposing that Palestinian nationalism was invented last month, it still wouldn’t mean they didn’t have a right of return, whatever they were called before.
“Why is this important?”
Many claim that Israel destroyed or evicted a Palestine nation, in violation of some imaginary “International Law” that gave the local Arabs legal control over the government. These claims are not true. What happens when the errors in this approach are pointed out, is that the conversation is shifted from law to justice. This is what you have done.
The emigration, eviction, and departure of the local Arabs from the new Israeli state happened over time, from before the declaration of statehood, during the War of Independence against the Arab States, and afterward. Truly terrible things happen in war, legally and illegally. After Israel won, it realized that if the departed Arabs were let back in, they would fight violently against the new government. Israel had a job to finish the immigration of European, North African, and Middle Eastern Jews, and had few weapons. Facing military threats from without, a complete lack of recognition by its neighbors, and the Nazified anti-Semitism of the Mufti-influenced Arabs, Israel closed its borders to its enemies.
In any case, very few of those people who left 1948 are still alive. The Arab position is that their millions of descendants should be allowed to move into Israel, as they are “Refugees”. This is a definition of refugee that is followed nowhere else in the world. The normal situation is that if children of refugees are born, in say, Chad, they are citizens of Chad. Chad may not like this, but that’s usually how it works out, after a few years.
Why are different rules proposed by the UN for Israel, than for any other situation? Is it antisemitism or just the influence of Arab oil money? I do not know.
Justice is not really available to the Arabs who say they are refugees. Their definition of justice requires the destruction of the Jewish state, which does not seem like justice. Justice for only one side is not Justice. A compromise that provides them with sovereignty, prosperity, freedom and security is possible, but not in Israel.
“Facing military threats from without, a complete lack of recognition by its neighbors, and the Nazified anti-Semitism of the Mufti-influenced Arabs, Israel closed its borders to its enemies”
More Zionist bullshit.
1. The Arabs rejected Husseini and his call for Jihad against the British
2. It wad the Stern Gang that sought out an alliance with the Nazis
3. The Arab attack of 1948 was inspired by the murder and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians
“Their definition of justice requires the destruction of the Jewish state, which does not seem like justice. Justice for only one side is not Justice”
The Jewish state is founded on kind theft, ethnic cleansing and terrorism. Clearly Israel’s existence today is not based on justice
Justice for only one side is not Justice. A compromise that provides them with sovereignty, prosperity, freedom and security is possible, but not in Israel.
When a proposal is made that actually offers Palestinians full sovereignty (including airspace, borders, international relations), freedom (including viable contiguous territory and free access to Jerusalem) and security (including the right to arm and protect themselves against any aggression, Israeli or otherwise), you might have a point. Until then, “justice” (if one can call taking what you want by force, justice) will always be one-sided.
I have got the date wrong here. The idea of a Palestinian Arab nation was widely pushed in the 1960′s, as a response to the successes of Israel. But there are a few who had the idea of an Arab Palestine earlier in the 20th century.
The very idea of an Arab Palestine was hated by the other Arab states in the middle of the 20th century, and was not accepted by Egypt and Syria, for example, until the 1960′s, when Egypt founded the PLO.
My important point stands; the very concept of an Arab Palestinian nation was created as a response to the successes of Zionism, and is not “Organic” in the sense of there being a nation to destroy or push out to found Israel.
There was plenty of land for the Arabs and Jews to live side by side in peace, but the Arabs refused all notions of compromise, partition, and of a bi-national state under Jewish administration. Under Islamic law, Jews must be Dhimmis, which is a kind of non-citizen, and acknowledge inferiority before Muslims. This was not tolerable, so we have had a conflict ever since.
If the Arab states had not started a war in 1948, the situation would be very different now, but I don’t think we can know what those differences would be.
“I have got the date wrong here. ”
Oh but of course you did! And not only that part..And it’s not just an innocent mistake mind you. You were merely parroting a propaganda/hasbara line that has been floating and drifting in cyberspace lately. You had absolutely no idea what you were talking about as you always do with the other bullshit about the Arabs that I can see above. You mention that Syria was not known as Syria until it’s “creation”…Idiot! Do you have access to Google? Let me just remind you very quickly from the top of my head of Gibran Khalil Gibran’s beautiful text that he wrote in the early twenties, “Spring in Syria”. Another thing the denomination Syria predates the term “Levant” not the other way around.
“Name of Syria
The name Syria derives from ancient Greek name for Syrians, Σύριοι Syrioi, which the Greeks applied without distinction to the Assyrians.[7][8] A number of modern scholars argue that the Greek word is traced back to the cognate Ἀσσυρία, Assyria, ultimately derived from the Akkadian ������ Aššur.[9] While others believe that it was derived from Siryon, the name that the Sidonians gave to Mount Hermon.[10]
The area designated by the word has changed over time. Classically, Syria lies at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, between Egypt and Arabia to the south and Cilicia to the north, stretching inland to include Mesopotamia, and having an uncertain border to the northeast that Pliny the Elder describes as including, from west to east, Commagene, Sophene, and Adiabene.[11]
By Pliny’s time, however, this larger Syria had been divided into a number of provinces under the Roman Empire (but politically independent from each other): Judaea, later renamed Palaestina in AD 135 (the region corresponding to modern day Israel and Jordan) in the extreme southwest, Phoenicia corresponding to Lebanon, with Damascena to the inland side of Phoenicia, Coele-Syria (or “Hollow Syria”) south of the Eleutheris river, and Mesopotamia.
link to en.wikipedia.org
“My important point stands; the very concept of an Arab Palestinian nation was created as a response to the successes of Zionism, and is not “Organic” in the sense of there being a nation to destroy or push out to found Israel.”
Actually it doesn’t stand because it’s been debunked. Ben Gurion observed that Palestinian natioalism was alive and well 20 years before the successes of Zionism. secondly, enthnic cleasing is a viation of the Geneva Conventions on human rights and a violation of the Balfour delcaration.
“Under Islamic law, Jews must be Dhimmis, which is a kind of non-citizen, and acknowledge inferiority before Muslims.”
What Islamic law might that be? Care to cite a source?
“If the Arab states had not started a war in 1948, the situation would be very different now, but I don’t think we can know what those differences would be.”
This has been long debunked. I demonstrated already that the Zionists had planned to drive out the Palestinians from before the turn of the century and had ethjunically cleansed 200,000 Palestinians before the 1948 war even begubn.
Go peddle your bullshit somewhere esle.
Shingo
Area man must be one the most vulgar hasbarists we’ve seen since Shamir/Seden. The only difference is his awareness of the reply button. The other idiot couldn’t figure it out.
BTW
Anyone who’s interested in an exhaustive source about the Palestinian question and Palestine, Issa Nakhleh’s Encyclopedia is a must:
link to palestine-encyclopedia.com
Unlike Wikipedia which has been extensively edited and fiddled with by unscrupulous zionist history white washers, this source is one of a scholar, and a historian in addition to being a barrister and a man of law.:
ISSA NAKHLEH was a Palestinian Christian, born in the Shepherd’s Field in Palestine. He was a graduate of the London University (LL.B. ) and a Barrister at Law of the on our able Society of Lincoln’s Inn, London. He was a member of the Palestine Bar and a member of many Bar associations in the Arab World.
He represented the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine in New York City 1947-1948. He was a Representative of The League of Arab States in Latiin America, with an office in Buenos Aires, Argentina 1956-1957, with the rank of Minister Plenipotentiary.
For the last 40 years Issa Nakhleh was representing the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine in New York City. He attended more than forty sessions of the United Nations General Assembly and made more than fifty speeches in the Special Political Committee of the United Nations on the Problem of Palestine.
Issa Nakhleh is the author of the Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem in two volumes which is the subject of this website. It has 41 Chapters and 1091 pages, with voluminous footnotes and 60 pages of photos. It deals with the ancient and modern history of Palestine, the political and religious questions and all United Nations Resolutions and the Principles of International Law and Justice relating to the Palestine Question.
He was a member of ASIL (American Society of International Law) and the International Law Association of London. He was a Panelist about Self -Determination in the Case of Palestine i n
the 82nd Annual Meeting of ASIL, April 30-23, 1988. He took part in a panel about the Israeli – Palestinian Dispute in the Annual Conference of the American Bar Association held i n Chicago
in August, 1990.
Issa Nakhleh was a Legal Advisor to a number of Arab Delegations to the United Nations.
He might be vulgar but he’s no more sophisticated.
These Hasbarists haven’t figured out that they need new material.
>> This is what I don’t understand. Why is the Palestinian right of return considered so “complex” and “difficult”, when a parallel Jewish right of return has been granted quite straightforwardly in Israel’s Law of Return? What is so wrong about applying the same model for Palestinian ROR? Is that not the obvious starting point?
The Jewish RoR is not based in law – it’s a purely religious thing sanctioned by gawd hisself. The Palestinian RoR, on the other hand, while based on law, would dilute the “pureness” of the “Jewish state” and, anyway, gawd didn’t promise the Palestinians a damned thing.
The League of Nations created binding international law that required the administrator of Palestine, Great Britain, to encourage Jewish Immigration to all of Palestine, which it defined. When the State of Israel was founded, it took over these obligations by passing the “Law of Return”, which is Israeli domestic law.
There is no “Pureness” of the Jewish State, there are many people of other religions living in Israel. The idea of a Palestinian Arab ROR is to destroy either the Jewish State or the Democracy, by overwhelming the population numbers, and is so obvious that it essentially stops negotiations in its tracks.
There is no Arab impulse to provide land, democracy, or rights to Palestinian Arabs, as you can see by looking at how they are treated by the Arab states. They are merely a tool to destroy Jewish administration of a small piece of territory; an idea that offends Muslims even thousands of miles away, who nevertheless care nothing for the Arabs of Palestine and the region around it.
Loss of moral footing, A “cul the sac”? eerily familiar, is there a way out of here, avoiding that stampede?
The dispensations of God are a little hard to understand by us inferior creatures but some things seem to go the way of the Palestinians. Amos ix/7 puts the Philistine/Palestinian move from Crete to Palestine on a par with the Israelite move from Egypt as examples of divinely decreed relocation. At the end of Gen.xxi Abraham promises that the Philistines, whom he has treated rather badly, will receive better treatment in future: a promise still to be honoured, one might think.
Meanwhile, I think that an international fund, as envisaged by Danaa, to buy out some disputed property rights will probably be necessary, but I don’t think the right to sovereignty should be bought and sold.