The "right of return" sought by the Palestinians to the lands from which they were evicted during the war for Israel's independence is not part of a practical solution to the I/P problem, any more than giving the American West back to the Indians was realistic in 1920. Actually, it's even less practical, because in 1920 there weren't enough American Indians left to alter the balance of population power in the US, while if large numbers of stateless Palestinians refugees and their descendants were allowed to return to Israel the essential Jewish character of the State of Israel would be threatened, if not undermined completely.
Interesting paragraph. On the one hand, it recognizes the key problem from the Israeli perspective with the right of return, that being the loss of Israel as a Jewish state. On the other hand, the description of the right of return, which I italisized, is certainly weighted. It refers to Palestinians evicted in 1948. Now I am not sure if this is intentional or not. Is the diarist suggesting that the right of return only applies to Palestinians who can prove they were evicted, as opposed to left either voluntarily or on demand of Arab leadership? Any decent historian will recognize that all 3 happened. Some Palestinians were forced out of land by Israeli forces, some left voluntarily to avoid the conflict, and others were forced to leave by the Arab leadership. I suspect though, that the diarist intends to whitewash history and make it so that every Palestinian who left a home during the War for Independence did it because they were evicted by Israeli forces.
The bad-faith substitute offered by some Israeli sympathizers, allowing to "return" only persons who were themselves evicted in 1948, isn't even worth spitting on.
As a lawyer, I know this trick well. Any offer that isn't liked is offered in "bad faith." Key words to look out for here. "bad-faith," "Israeli sympathizers," "isn't even worth spitting on." This person is not a fan of the suggestion.
Only a withdrawal to pre-1967 boundaries (with rational adjustments) will move the problem toward a solution. Everyone knows this, but a some Israelis, and others, just don't want to give all that good land and copious water resources back to the rightful owners.
Another mixed message paragraph. I think most honest people recognize that a withdrawl to 1967 borders with some rational adjustments is going to be the very framework of a deal. But then the diarist goes on the attack against Israel alleging that "some Israelis" don't want to give back land or water. While I am sure that is true, some Israelis don't support that view, the Israeli government has previously accepted a peace deal that entailed this very suggestion. It was rejected by Yassir Arafat. I find it interesting that the diarist talks about "some Israelis" but ignores the Palestinian leadership who have never accepted the framework that he puts forward.
So, what's the newest propaganda wrinkle on the subject? The Right To Remain. In the past year or two, Israeli sympathizers who feel that the so-called "settlers" (an Orwellian word if ever one existed) should be allowed to remain in their condos on stolen West Bank land (and what better place for these pesky misfits, geographically as well as ideologically out of the mainstream of Israeli society?) have been floating this idea as a trial balloon.
Another paragraph with an alert going off when you get through 5 words. Calls the suggestion "propaganda." Then goes off again by talking about "stolen West Bank land" I cute out the part where he tries to justify his attacks by demonstrating it is supported by Republican pollster Frank Luntz.
Now in theory I'll bet that the Palestinians would not mind having Jews living in their midst-- Jews, that is, who properly bought the land they are living on from a rightful owner, who agree to live as law-abiding Jewish Palestinians in a Palestinian state, without all the benefits the so-called "settlers" enjoy today, such as special-access roads, water-supply preference, the right to roam heavily armed across Palestinian land, and a host of other privileges, petty and gross.
But what kind of idiot would believe that any of the current "settlers," who view themselves as redeeming the Land of Israel, would agree to live in the West Bank like this, and all the less so under explicit Palestinian rule? Maybe a few left-wing Jewish peaceniks would try this, but most of the settlers would flee immediately.
So, without a real prospect that Jews in any number would choose to live as Jewish Palestinians in a Palestinian state on the West Bank, what is all this talk about the settlers' Right to Remain? Just the latest iteration of Israeli expansionism.
More attacks on settlers with a conclusion that really misses the point. The "right to remain" as he puts it will likely not be very meaningful because, as Karma indicated yesterday, most Israelis in that situation will go back to Israel rather than stay in Palestine and many Palestinians in Israel will likely go to Palestine. Interesting that he concludes that this is "just the latest iteration of Israeli expansionism." Again, a singular focus on Israel without any mention of the Palestinians, and ascribing the worst possible motive for a suggestion at how to end a decades long impasse.
Most of this diary has been about the "Right To Remain" as applied to Israelis living in the West Bank. But don't assume that the proponents of this doctrine are being one-sided. They are not ignoring the plight of the Palestinians for one second, they have the same rights as the West Bank Jews-- identical rights, in fact.
The Palestinians also have the Right To Remain in place in their refugee camps or as second-class citizens, serfs really, oppressed and humiliated daily, and finally tossed off the good land, in their own country.
This is one face of Israel today-- a decades-long campaign of harassment, humiliation, intimidation, vandalism, environmental crimes, theft of water, murders, and attempted school bombings by the settlers and their partisans, conducted under the banner of expansionism and with the tacit support of the State of Israel.
And finally we have the talk of the Palestinians. Unlike the Jews who remain in Palestine (who apparently will be treated like royalty because the Palestinians are better than the Israelis), the Palestinians who remain in Israel will stay in refugee camps, and be "second class citizens," "serfs," "oppressed and humiliated daily."
And then to make sure that he is clear, his final paragraph accusing Israel of just about every crime imaginable.
And this is what makes it a facscinating piece. Somewhere past the hatred and hyperbole is an actual plan for peace. But the diarist is so worried about making sure that he fully demonizes Israel that he misses the opportunity to actually express the message.
Take a look at this piece and Karma's piece side by side and you see the same basic approach written by two different people. One committed to coming up with constructive ideas for peace, and the other to dismiss them out of pure unbridled hatred for Israel.
Regards,
DKW
Nicely done, DKW.
ReplyDeleteThat diarist, like many in dKos I-P, is utterly incapable of putting forth his views without ladening those views with toxic anti-Israel hyperbole and bullshit.
remember what Benny Morris himself says to those who say 700000 Arabs were "evicted" http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2008/02/benny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html : "Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war." Now that clearly indicates AT LEAST a majority, key word: "most" were definitely not evicted. So you have the remainder, who either left because Arab leaders told them, which DID happen, tho not the whole story, and you have some who were evicted, tho as Morris puts it http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/16/as_israelis_celebrate_independence_and_palestinians : "A small number were expelled."
ReplyDeleteSeriously, seeing as "historians" from their side like to use Morris a lot, simply throw these lines in the Israel hater's faces, and leave 'em.
And never forget: Indians and Pakistanis have no blanket right to return to the opposite countries, Greeks have no right to return to Turkey and Turks none to Greece (AND THIS WAS LEGALLY MANDATED!!!), and same with Germans from Eastern Europe.
Also, another point to use from Morris (the first link): "The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee)"
Seriously, idiots like Oblomov don't deserve even this light of day.
and another point from Morris himself http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/21/israel2 : "the problem was a direct consequence of the war that the Palestinians - and, in their wake, the surrounding Arab states - had launched."
ReplyDelete