The 'Right of Return' - An Historical Note

When discussing the so-called 'right of return' of Arabs from the area of the Mandate of Palestine, much emphasis is placed on whether  that "return" is in addition to the compensation element of UN 194, an alternative to compensation or neither as such a "right" does not exist.

Israel has always pointed out, on an across-the-board and all-inclusive political spectrum of left to right that any return would affect the Jewish character of the state and the refugees would pose not only an immediate security problem but also a long-term demographuic one.

One aspect, however, is overlooked.

It can be found in this UN document,

UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE, 

COMMITTEE ON JERUSALEM, THIRD PROGRESS REPORT 

TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE,

A/927, 21 June 1949, A/AC.25/Com

which reads

31. It has already been indicated (see paragraph 17 above) that, for their part, the Arab delegations made a proposal that the refugees coming from certain areas defined on the map annexed to the Protocol of 12 May, comprising those from Western Galilee, from the town of Jaffa, from the central area including Lydda, Ramle and Beersheba, from the southern coastal zone and from the Jerusalem area as defined on the above-mentioned map, should be enabled to return to their homes forthwith. In the course of discussion with the Commission, the Arab delegations have indicated that this proposal bears a territorial aspect, since it envisages the return of refugees to areas designated as Arab territory, and which are in principle to be recognized as Arab territory.

In other words, the return of Arabs could result in Israel's territory being removed from the state's sovereignty.  That was the operative intention.

The Arabs, including the Palestinian Authority, have always been nebulous about numbers and the framework of that 'right of return'.  They have been also quite clear in the past as to designs on pushing Israel back into the 1947 boundaries, those the Arabs rejected and then went to war on November 30, 1947.

The 'return' of refugees was not a humanitarian measure but a method for undoing Israel's existence then and could be so exploited in the future.

^

Tolkien and The Hobbit Key

The author of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, as pointed out, was sorry he wasn't Jewish, writing:

“If I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.”

Now, on the eve of the release of the filmed version of The Hobbit, we are being informed, has a scene that possibly could undergo literary deconstruction and then reconstruction and perhaps be interpreted as a symbol of "Palestinian resistance".

As in the first chapter of the book, during a party, the decision is taken to go to a mountain and regain the treasure stolen from the dwarves earlier.  The quest is defined in the movie as one to "reclaim our homeland."  The visual punch has a key being held up,

a key that's been kept for many years.

The book's text reads, in edited form for shortness here:

The dark filled all the room, and the fire died down, and the shadows were lost, and still they played on. And suddenly first one and then another began to sing as they played, deep-throated singing of the dwarves in the deep places of their ancient homes; and this is like a fragment of their song, if it can be like their song without their music.

Far over the misty mountains cold
To dungeons deep and caverns old
We must away ere break of day
To seek the pale enchanted gold...

..."We are met to discuss our plans, our ways, means, policy and devices. We shall soon before the break of day start on our long journey, a journey from which some of us, or perhaps all of us (except our friend and counsellor, the ingenious wizard Gandalf) may never return. It is a solemn moment. Our object is, I take it, well known to us all...

Many a time afterwards the Baggins part regretted what he did now, and he said to himself: "Bilbo, you were a fool; you walked right in and put your foot in it."
"Pardon me," he said.. Tell me what you want done, and I will try it, if I have to walk from here to the East of East and fight the wild Were-worms in the Last Desert...
...You can say Expert Treasure-hunter instead of Burglar if you like...
...On the table in the light of a big lamp with a red shad he spread a piece of parchment rather like a map.
"This was made by Thror, your grandfather, Thorin, he said in answer to the dwarves' excited questions. "It is a plan of the Mountain."
"I don't see that this will help us much," said Thorin disappointedly after a glance. "I remember the Mountain well enough and the lands about it. And I know where Mirkwood is, and the Withered Heath where the great dragons bred."..."In lots of ways," said Gandalf. "But in what way this one has been hidden we don't know without going to see. From what it says on the map I should guess there is a closed door which has been made to look exactly like the side of the Mountain. That is the usual dwarves' method- I think that is right, isn't it?" "Quite right," said Thorin.
"Also," went on Gandalf, "I forgot to mention that with the map went a key, a small and curious key. Here it is!" he said, and handed to Thorin a key with a long barrel and intricate wards, made of silver. "Keep it safe!"
"Indeed I will," said Thorin, and he fastened it upon a fine chain that hung about his neck and under his jacket...
..."That would be no good," said the wizard, "not without a mighty Warrior, even a Hero. I tried to find one; but warriors are busy fighting one another in distant lands, and in this neighbourhood heroes are scarce, or simply lot to be found. Swords in these parts are mostly blunt, and axes are used for trees, and shields as cradles or dish-covers; and dragons are comfortably far-off (and therefore legendary). That is why I settled on burglary-especially when I remembered the existence of a Side-door. And here is our little Bilbo Baggins, the burglar, the chosen and selected burglar. So now let's get on and make some plans."

..."O very well," said Thorin. "Long ago in my grandfather Thror's time our family was driven out of the far North, and came back with all their wealth and their tools to this Mountain on the map. It had been discovered by my far ancestor, Thrain the Old, but now they mined and they tunnelled and they made huger halls and greater workshops -and in addition I believe they found a good deal of gold and a great many jewels too. Anyway they grew immensely rich and famous...So my grandfather's halls became full of armour and jewels and carvings and cups, and the toy-market of Dale was the wonder of the North.

"Undoubtedly that was what brought the dragon. Dragons steal gold and jewels, you know, from men and elves and dwarves, wherever they can find them; and they guard their plunder as long as they live (which is practically forever, unless they are killed), and never enjoy a brass ring of it. Indeed they hardly know a good bit of work from a bad, though they usually have a good notion of the current market value; and they can't make a thing for themselves, not even mend a little loose scale of their armour...There was a most specially greedy, strong and wicked worm called Smaug. One day he flew up into the air and came south...Then he came down the slopes and when he reached the woods they all went up in fire. By that time all the bells were ringing in Dale and the warriors were arming. The dwarves rushed out of their great gate; but there was the dragon waiting for them. None escaped that way...But we have never forgotten our stolen treasure. And even now, when I will allow we have a good bit laid by and are not so badly off"-here Thorin stroked the gold chain round his neck-"we still mean to get it back, and to bring our curses home to Smaug-if we can...

..."Your grandfather," said the wizard slowly and grimly, "gave the map to his son for safety before he went to the mines of Moria. Your father went away to try his luck with the map after your grandfather was killed; and lots of adventures of a most unpleasant sort he had, but he never got near the Mountain. How he got there I don't know, but I found him a prisoner in the dungeons of the Necromancer.""Whatever were you doing there?" asked Thorin with a shudder, and all the dwarves shivered.

"Never you mind. I was finding things out, as usual; and a nasty dangerous business it was. Even I, Gandalf, only just escaped. I tried to save your father, but it was too late. He was witless and wandering, and had forgotten almost everything except the map and the key...The one thing your father wished was for his son to read the map and use the key.

...The Tookishness was wearing off, and he was not now quite so sure that he was going on any journey in the morning. As he lay in bed he could hear Thorin still humming to himself in the best bedroom next to him:

Far over the misty mountains cold
To dungeons deep and caverns old
We must away, ere break of day,
To find our long-forgotten gold.

So, if indeed an attempt is made to read into this scene a subtext of pro-Palestinian propaganda, remember:

a) it isn't a homeland they wish to reclaim;
b) they wish to regain treasure ("Far over the misty mountains cold/To dungeons deep and caverns old/We must away ere break of day/To seek the pale enchanted [ find our long-forgotten and To win our harps and gold from him!] gold.");
c) Baggins is the burglar, not the warrior-hero;
d) the direction is East;
e) despite the "We hates it, we hates it, we hates it forever!" directed at Baggins by the Gollum, we do not wish to curse our enemy although their impudent and despicable curses
f) and let's not forget Baggins' exclamation: "Victory after all, I suppose! Well, it seems a very gloomy business."

_____________

Been alerted to this:

Tolkien thought of Dwarves like Jews, in that they were both native and alien in their habitations, speaking the local language but with an accent since they had a private tongue.

Tolkien 1955

and from a 1966 interview:

D. Gueroult: Did you intend in Lord of the Rings that certain races should embody certain principles: the elves wisdom, the dwarves craftsmanship, men husbandry and battle and so forth?J.R.R. Tolkien: I didn't intend it. But when you've got these people on your hands, you've got to make them different haven't you? Well of course, as we all know, ultimately we've only got humanity to work with. It's only clay we've got. We should all … or at least a large part of the human race … would like to have greater power of mind, greater power of art by which I mean, that the gap between the conception and the power of execution should be shortened, and we should, like a longer time if not indefinite time in which to go on knowing more and making more.
Therefore we make the Elves immortal in a sense. I had to use immortal, I didn't mean that they were eternally immortal, merely that they are very longeval and their longevity probably lasts as long as the inhabitability of the Earth.
The dwarves of course are quite obviously, couldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic. Hobbits are just rustic English people, made small in size because it reflects (in general) the small reach of their imagination - not the small reach of their courage or latent power.

_________________

Update


See this.

^

Return to the Right of Return - To Where?

There's a new "Palestine, Present and Future" site up, 3Awda.

From the introduction:

The events of 15 May 2011, as thousands of Palestinians marched towards their sites of dispossession, re-asserted the possibility to envision al-3awda (‘the return’) as a concrete act in the present, and created a new space to imagine the future. At a time when a global Palestinian diaspora is rediscovering its many voices, and in the midst of a political awakening across the Arab world, this project seeks to harness a moment of possibility and to focus a new collective energy towards return.

In this space, we not only affirm the ‘right of return’, but also explore critically and proactively the ongoing spatial, political and demographic realities of today’s Palestine. How do we imagine return not only as a physical act in the present, but also as a political horizon of justice and dignity towards which to aspire? What would such a political space mean for those people who seek to build their future in this territory? And how might this in turn create a new relationship with the Arab world beyond?

“This project calls on activists, artists, creative professionals, community organisers and entrepreneurs to engage in initiatives and to share in the shaping of a new vision towards return. It is these fragments of return, or 3awda, which make it possible to envision paths towards the future founded in collective agency rather than global politics. This project begins with the hashtag #3awda, and is limited only by our collective capacity to imagine.

I left this comment there (awaiting moderation):

In the name and sake of dialogue, does "today's Palestine" mean the territory of the Palestinian Authority only, or does it include pre-1967 Israel or parts thereof or/and does it also include parts of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan?

Really -

Will it be approved?


(This section seems to indicate Israel is part of "Palestine". Which means that "Palestine" is part of Israel.).

And you know where that leads.

-----------------------

UPDATE

Approved:

3.  ahmad says:
09:27at 02.03.2012(#)

Thanks for your comment Yisrael.

As a group, we had long debates about terminology. Ultimately, this site is a platform to feature projects by Palestinians and those who support the realisation of their legal right (and choice) to return to whatever place they – or their family – were displaced fromNb. Israelis are welcome to join this dialogue, as the feature on the Badil-Zochrot seminars demonstrates.

^

On The Jewish 'Right of Return'

In an odd and even esoteric comment, a White House official seemed to have spoken in favor of assisting Jews to leave Israel and once again, go into exile (k/t = Jim Wald). Did one Ben Rhodes declare that the Israelis and Palestinians should negotiate on the Jewish right of return to Arab and Muslim countries? Here's the source:

White House: Jewish “refugees” right of return should be “on the table”

which informs us that

Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor for communications and President Barack Obama's chief speechwriter on foreign policy, talked about what's known as the "Jewish right of return" during an off-the-record conference call with Jewish community leaders on May 20...

In response to a question asking why there is a great deal of focus on the Palestinian refugee issue but almost no focus on the Jews who departed Arab lands, Rhodes declared that the Israelis and Palestinians should negotiate on the Jewish right of return to Arab and Muslim countries and that the United States could play in role in mediating that issue.

Here's the full exchange:

(the questioner was B'nai B'rith International Director of Legislative Affairs Eric Fusfield) "[C]an the U.S., as the peace process move forward, play a role in advancing the rights and concerns of these Jewish refugee groups and help ensure that as refugee issues are dealt with... that the focus will not just be on one refugee group but on all refugee groups emerging from the same conflict?"

Rhodes responded: "Certainly the U.S., in our role, is attuned to all the concerns on both sides to include interests among Israel and others in Jewish refugees, so it is something that would come up in the context of negotiations. And certainly, we believe that ultimately the parties themselves should negotiate this. We can introduce ideas, we can introduce parameters for potential negotiation."

"We believe those types of issues that you alluded to could certainly be a part of that discussion and put on the table and it's something that we would obviously be involved in."

Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, responded and said

the Jewish right of return is actually not an issue that's part of the peace negotiations, largely due to the fact that a) there are no Jewish refugees, and b) they don't have any desire to claim lands in Arab states.

I am astounded. For anyone, either a Bnai Brith official or a senior White House advisor, to fail to make clear that the issue of "Jewish refugees" is only a reference to their financial demands for compensation for having been kicked out of many Arab countries and that they are not seeking to "go home" as part of a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Isael conflict is to err to a high degree.

Sending Jews once more into Exile is ridiculous and that is what should be emphasized.

Reviewing the exchange, though, I am more inclined to think that the editor of that post was either sick, tired and just plain anti-Zionist and hyped what wasn't really there but was not strictly not there.

^

And The Overriding Obstacle Is...?

Peter Berkowitz:

...Thanks to “The Palestine Papers and the Right of Return,”...we know that what has been widely assumed is wrong. The study (available online as a PDF file) carefully analyzes the leaked Palestine Papers...[that]show that the biggest stumbling block is fundamental disagreement about refugees...the Palestine Papers do not reveal conciliatory Palestinians pitted against inflexible Israelis. For example, whereas Israel is prepared to welcome a small symbolic number of refugees, the PA seeks to preserve an unlimited flow that would, by sheer numbers and deliberate intention, end Israel by turning it into an Arab-majority state.

The refugee question is inseparable from a neglected aberration in international law. For all peoples but one, international law defines a refugee as a person forced to live outside the country of his origin. For Palestinians alone, international law treats refugee status as passed down from parents to children...for the last ten years Palestinian negotiators — led since 2004 by PA President Mahmoud Abbas and chief negotiator Saeb Erekat (who resigned after it was determined that the documents published by Al Jazeera were leaked from his office) — sought a formula that guarantees an individual right of return to the state of Israel inhering in each of the seven million Palestinians on whom international law confers refugee status...

...The commitment to an unlimited right of return compels Palestinians to reject recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people...President Abbas has refused to specify the number of refugees that he anticipates would choose to exercise a right to return to Israel.

...President Obama has been wrong: freezing construction beyond the 1967 borders, whatever one thinks of Israel’s settlement policy, is not the key to reinvigorating peace negotiations. The question of refugees, moreover, is much more than, as the president described it in his State Department speech, a “wrenching” issue. Palestinian dedication to a right, with no precedent under international law, inhering in seven million Palestinians to establish residence in the state of Israel has been and remains the overriding obstacle to a secure and lasting peace...

UPDATE

(Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was disappointed by President Barack Obama's comments on Israeli-Palestinian peace in his speech on the Middle East, a senior Israeli official said on Friday.

"There is a feeling that Washington does not understand the reality, doesn't understand what we face...The prime minister's tough response expresses the disappointment with the absence of central issues that Israel demanded, chiefly the refugee (issue)," he added.

^

IDF Preparing for the Incoming Hordes

Mining sensitive areas near border crossing on Golan Heights:

More pictures here.

^

A Left-Wing Appeal

Anyone want to wager whether the Arabs of the formare Palestine Mandate territory will heed his appeal to them?

This one:-

...they must make sure that their strategy will allow a future Israeli government that will replace Netanyahu’s current extreme-right coalition to engage with the Palestinian peace plan.

They must state explicitly that the establishment of Palestine along the 1967 borders would end the conflict. Most importantly: while they would want moral recognition of their tragedy of 1948 and some form of restitution to the refugees of 1948, they should accept something along the peace plan of Yuval Rabin, which states that the right of return will not be implemented except in a few symbolic instances.

Quite unfortunately, there are indications that the Palestinians may continue their unfortunate tendency never to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. In a recent article in the Guardian, Saeb Erekat wrote that the Palestinian right of return is a central issue, and went on to say that, “Israel's recognition of Palestinian refugee rights and its agreement to provide reparation and meaningful refugee choice in the exercise of these rights will not change the reality in the Middle East overnight, nor will it lead to an existential crisis for Israel.”

Akiva Eldar and I have written a rejoinder in which we express our disappointment at Erekat’s formulation...The option of millions of Palestinians settling in Israel would mean no less than the end of the Homeland of the Jews.

It needs to be clear that even liberals like Akiva Eldar and me, who have been for a Palestinian state since long before the PLO and Israel ever talked to each other, have red lines that we will not cross...

Through the demand to actually implement the Palestinian right of return, as Erekat seems to be implying, Palestinians condemn themselves, Israel and the whole region to further decades of violence, trauma and enormous suffering. Their theory that Jews in Israel will ultimately renounce the idea of a Jewish homeland is wrong...there are but two choices: the two-state solution, or descent of the region into chaos that will make earlier rounds of bloodletting look tame.

...If they now try to capitalize on their international advantage to push for the implementation of the right of return, they will repeat their historical mistake of 1947, and once again reject the partition of the area west of the Jordan River...

For further reference.

^

Take Note

Muhammad Shtayyeh, a member of the Palestinian negotiating team, in a telephone interview from Ramallah...said the Palestinian leadership believed that Mr. Netanyahu was only placing obstacles in the way of peace...Dismissing the Geneva Accord as an effort of private individuals, Mr. Shtayyeh and other Palestinians argue that recognition of Israel as the Jewish state will negate their demand for a right of return for Palestinian refugees of the 1948 war and their descendants, before any negotiation. They also say it undermines the status of the Palestinian-Arab citizens who make up 20 percent of Israel’s population, and who are afforded equal rights in Israel’s Declaration of Independence.

Source

What Claims?

I can't quite figure this out:-

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said he is willing to renounce all future claims on Israel after a Palestinian state is established, though he stopped short of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.

"Claims"?  What claims?  What future claims?

Didn't the PLO supposedly recognize the "two-state solution"?  If so, what claims could they possibly have?

Ah, the claims that Israel shouldn't exist at all and that, like Hamas, all of the land on which Israel exists is not only "occupied" but that Israel has no right to exist anywhere?

Are those the "claims"?

Is that what the future holds for Arab "peace negotiations"?

Or is he referring to the "right of return"?  Is that a "claim" now, or a "right"?

I am confused.

-  -   -

Forget Those Ten Months; Here Comes One Year

After 9 months into that ten-month construction suspension, we're now looking at a one-year time limit during which you can bet the demand will be a continuation of a building freeze:-

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is expected to announce Friday that Israel and the Palestinians will return to direct negotiations...The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, have agreed to place a one-year time limit on the talks, these officials said.

President Obama is expected to invite both leaders to Washington in early September to start the negotiations, which will cover thorny issues like the borders of a new Palestinian state, the political status of Jerusalem, security guarantees for Israel and right of return for Palestinian refugees.

A "state"?

A "right" of return?

Jerusalem's "status"?

And for all that we get "security guarantees"? Like after the disengagement?


- - -

Backwards Thinking

An excerpt from an American Muslim appeal:

“We must begin with a minimum program of principles we can all agree upon:…There is an oppressor (State of Israel) and oppressed population (the Palestinian people…The Palestinian resistance is, de facto, legitimate…Palestinians expelled from their lands have a natural right of return.”

Actually, it was, and is, just the oppositie way around.

They have it backwards. No offense intended.




P.S.

You can also read this there:

Palestinians expelled from their lands have a natural right of return

and you can ask, 'if they weren't expelled, they can't "come back"'?

If an Arab voluntarily left, say, in 1954 or 1968 or 1993, he's stuck out there? Only "victims" have rights.



(Kippah tip: AB)

"Return" Right? Wrong

Eli Hertz sheds some light on UN Resolution 194 and notes that it was

Paragraph 11, which alone addressed the issue of refugees and compensation for those whose property was lost or damaged. Contrary to Arab claims, it did not guarantee a Right of Return and certainly did not guarantee an unconditional Right of Return - that is the right of Palestinian Arab refugees to return to Israel. Nor did it specifically mention Arab refugees, thereby indicating that the resolution was aimed at all refugees, both Jewish and Arab. Instead, Resolution 194 recommended that refugees be allowed to return to their homeland if they met two important conditions:

1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors

2. That the return takes place "at the earliest practicable date"

The resolution also recommended that for those who did not wish to return, "Compensation should be paid for the property ... and for loss of or damage to property" by the "governments or authorities responsible."

Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used - "governments or authorities" - suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation.

One point I wish to add.

The Arabs get preferential treatment. Ever heard of UNHCR?
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

This is what it does:

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was established on December 14, 1950 by the United Nations General Assembly. The agency is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide. Its primary purpose is to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees. It strives to ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another State, with the option to return home voluntarily, integrate locally or to resettle in a third country.

If you go to their sub-site on "Occupied Palestinian Territory" you'll see that in the Statistical box, the number of refugees "Residing in Occupied Palestinian Territory" is...0. Yep. Zero. Naught. Efes.
And how many in the category of "Originating from Occupied Palestinian Territory"? 340,016.

Really?

Well, we'll solve that problem for you. Go here.

That's right (no pun intended), the Pals. have their own agency: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, Please pay attention, the term is "Palestine refugees", as in the original resolutions (here and here). Not "Palestinian".

Jews were also included in the assistance program until in the early 1950s, Israel told the UN that 'we can take care of our own, they are not refugees if living in Israel'. See my previous post on this.

But the Arabs, despite that they are living in the areas of the former Mandate of Palestine keep up their refugee status.

Why The Pals. Have No "Right of Return of Refugees"

The position that denies the right of return was also the position of international law in the era after World War II. This was an era when forced population transfers were perceived as the appropriate way to reduce ethnic frictions and build national identities. During the course of the 1990s it seemed as though a change had occurred in the position of international law in light of the ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia. The desire to prevent acts of slaughter and expulsion led to widespread recognition of the obligation to return the refugees to their homes. In the course of this, the distinction between the Bosnian refugees and the Palestinian refugees was blurred.This was the period during which the Palestinians adopted Resolution 194, and read into it the ostensible recognition of the right of return.

Since then, more than 10 years have gone by during which there has been a general sobering up from the solution of return. Former UN secretary general Kofi Annan's 2003 plan to settle the conflict in Cyprus recognizes that the Cypriot refugees do not have the right to return to their homes. Annan draws a distinction between the Bosnian and Cypriot refugees because of the circumstances of life that had changed during the 30 years that had elapsed since the conflict erupted there, and the legitimate needs of those who had settled into the refugees' homes.

It is hard to exaggerate the significance of the precedent in the UN position that recognizes the right of governments to negotiate on behalf of refugees. In the waning days of 2008 there are those who have doubts even as to the wisdom of the effort to return the Bosnian refugees to their homes, as their return has led to a crisis-prone situation that is liable to degenerate into renewed violence at any moment.

More here, by Eyal Benvenisti, professor at the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law

I Support the "Right of Return"

I Support the "Right of Return". Yes, I Do!

How could I do that? Have I turned my back on a basic ideological and legal position of all Israel's governments, both right and left? Have I lost my head?

Well, I declare: I am a humanitarian and, as such, I support the Arab demand for the “right of return” of Pal. refugees to their homes.

Yes, for sure. I’m all for the right of return of these Arabs


and these Arabs, too



to go right back to Gaza, all 188 of them.

We should facilitate their return to Gaza immediately (and charge them for medical fees and their hospital treatment also).

Of course, we could fool around a bit and claim that they arrived on the newest Nefesh B'Nefesh aliyah program but methinks that would be pulling your collective leg too hard.

Nope, No Basis

I have touched on Zochrot before.

In an invitation of theirs, they write:-

Right of Return is the moral and political basis for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Actually, it isn't.

The moral basis for peace was shattered by Arabs from, for convenience sake for those who don't like that many details and that long a period for the 'conflict', 1920. They rejected any political presence of Jews in the Land of Israel. Now, for the sake of you who don't agree with me, the Balfour Declaration, San Remo Conference, Versailles Conference and the League of Nations were anathema for the Arabs here. But to adopt a position that no Jew belongs anywhere in this country as a future sovereign and, after 1937, no compromise of partition was to be accepted, means - again, in a moral sense - that the Arabs were immoral.

And in rejecting the 1947 partition, they continued in their immorality.

This immorality was not only political and diplomatic but quite physical. Jews, only because they were Jews, no matter what age or sex, were killed. They were killed in initiated political violence in waves in 1920, 1929 and 1936-39 and very year in between. Jews who had been living in the country of families who arrived hundreds of years ago were slaughterd and raped as well as those who arrived just the other day.

The Arabs attempted ethnic cleansing, as I have pointed out at this blog. They rejected any recognition of Jews as bearing a nationalist character. The Mufti turned the dispute into a religious one over the false claim of the Temple Mount.

With these paramters, the decision to go to war in 1947, morally and politically, disallows any so-called "right of return". That 'basis' is gone, non-existent. It doesn't belong to the equation. Some 800,000 Jews were forced or encouraged out of Arab lands, losing much more in property and money than the Arabs. That the Arabs were kept in camps makes those Arab hosts part and parcel of their own internal immorality.

In sum, Zochrot and other similar groups like Al-Awda cannot argue from a moral or political position/basis that Israel has to permit any 'return' of those who in 1948 sought to destroy Israel, the international crime of politicide, those who were members of terrorist groups acting against international law during 1949-1967 in killing Israeli civilians, those in 1967 who sought again to destroy Israel and who have continued since then to operate illegally as terrorists.

That wasn't right and they get no rights.

Pal. "Refugees" (and Compensation)

For almost 60 years, Israel and its supporters have been asserting that there is no "right of retuin" for Pal. refugees. They started the war, they rejected the UN Partition resolution, they dtried to eradicate Israel and never stopped since then.

Neutral, alright, mostly neutral, observers say there's a right of return or a right of compensation.

Well, read on:-

The militant group Hamas demanded Saturday that Jordan clarify its stance on the Palestinian right of return after an Israeli daily reported that the Jordanian king spoke in favor of paying compensation to Palestinian refugees instead.

The report Friday in the Haaretz newspaper claimed King Abdullah II had told a visiting Israeli parliamentary delegation this week that he favored the payments over granting Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants the right to return to Israel, as Palestinians have long demanded. Israel objects to the right of return, saying such an influx would mean the end of Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

Hamas, whose leader Khaled Mashaal is based in Syria, demanded an explanation from Amman because of the ''seriousness'' of the comments the paper had attributed to Abdullah.

In a statement, faxed to the AP in Damascus, Hamas said the right of return is ''sacred'' and no one has the authority to give it up.

...Jordan, which hosts the largest number of Palestinian refugees in the Mideast -- many of whom have Jordanian citizenship -- ''has the right to defend the rights of its citizens who are refugees,'' Adayleh said in a statement. ''The compensation choice comes within the framework of solving the Palestinian refugee problem but won't be the only solution.''

However, Mousa Abu Marzouk, deputy chief of the Hamas political bureau, said the Jordanian reaction was not a ''clear stand acknowledging the Palestinians' right of return to their homeland along with compensation.''

(Here, too)

Well, that settles it for me. They want both.

I Am in This Reuters Story

Fate of refugees bedevils quest for Mideast peace
Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:57PM EDT
By Alistair Lyon, Special Correspondent

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Munir Jaber was seven years old when Jewish fighters assaulted the thinly defended village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem before dawn on April 9, 1948 and killed scores of men, women and children.

Now a dapper man of 66, met by chance in Shuafat refugee camp in Jerusalem, he fingers blue worry beads as he recalls an episode that terrified Palestinians at the time and created an enduring symbol of their exodus from their homeland.

"Thirty seven of my family were killed," Jaber said, telling how his brother's throat was slit and his cousin was shot.

Ali Mohammed, 69, said his family had fled the village of Beit Thul, west of Jerusalem, in panic soon afterwards.

"There was no attack on our village, but we saw soldiers blowing up houses in the nearby village of Saris. We were afraid after what happened in Deir Yassin," he remembered.

Deir Yassin fell five weeks before British Mandate rule ended and Israel was created. Some 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled into nearby Syria, Jordan or Lebanon in 1947-49 fighting, leaving 165,000 who became Arab Israeli citizens.

The 1948 refugees and their descendants make up the bulk of the 4.3 million refugees cared for by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, many in slum-like camps in Arab countries and in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. All claim a right to return.

No issue, with the possible exception of Jerusalem, is as emotive and troubling for Palestinians and Israelis as the fate of these people at the core of the Middle East conflict.

This week an Arab League summit in Riyadh is expected to renew an offer of full peace and normal relations with Israel if it withdraws from all the land it occupied in the 1967 Middle East war, accepts the creation of a Palestinian state and reaches an "agreed, just solution" for the refugees.

Israeli leaders have said the plan has positive aspects, but others, such as the proposal on refugees, are "problematic."

"RIGHT OF RETURN"

The Arab plan endorses a 1948 U.N. resolution which calls for refugees to be allowed to return or be compensated.

Neither Resolution 194 nor the Arab peace proposal contains the phrase "right of return," although this remains a longstanding Palestinian demand -- and anathema to Israel.

Mere talk of refugees sets off alarm bells for Israelis.

They fear that any mass return would threaten the Jewish character of the state carved out in 1948 on land partly assigned by a U.N. partition plan and partly gained in a war with Palestinians and Arab states which rejected that plan.

Israelis say the refugees should be resettled where they are or elsewhere in the Arab world.

Benny Morris, an Israeli historian who has chronicled what he calls the "partial ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians in 1948, says "morality would dictate that people have a right to return to their homes" when this concerns displaced individuals.

"But we aren't talking about individuals, but about a political problem involving millions of people and a vast demographic change if it (return) happens," he told Reuters.

"So on the political level, I would reject the right of return because it implies not just a moral return of people to their homes, but the disestablishment, destabilization and basically the destruction of the state of Israel."

Nobody knows how many refugees would actually want to go home to a country that many would find alien, with their villages long since demolished or settled by Jews.

Many enjoy citizenship in Jordan and full rights short of citizenship in Syria. Only Lebanon's estimated 400,000 refugees are confined to camps, barred from many jobs. The idea of accepting them permanently is taboo in Lebanon, which fears upsetting its own delicate sectarian balance.

UNDERMINING ZIONISM?

What Palestinians want above all is for Israel to accept that it is responsible for a historic injustice which, in their eyes, created the Jewish homeland at their expense.

"Israel has to agree to the principle of return," said Palestinian political scientist Ali Jarbawi.

"By acknowledging that, they are acknowledging the responsibility. Then you can go into the details of how many are going to return and how many compensated."

What Palestinians view as a matter of essential dignity, Israelis see as an admission that would threaten the legitimacy of the entire Zionist enterprise.

They have long argued that a population exchange took place in effect, with Palestinian refugees roughly balanced by the Jews who left Arab countries after 1948. Some were forced out, others migrated willingly with active Israeli encouragement.

Jarbawi denied that Israel risked being dismantled if it simply recognized its role in what Palestinians term the "Nakba," or catastrophe, of their 1948 dispossession.

"If you acknowledge you have done something wrong, there are many ways of rectifying it," he contended.

Yisrael Medad, a settler spokesman in the West Bank, denied any Israeli responsibility for Palestinian refugees, saying a fraction of Arab oil money could take care of them.

"You can't start a war against Zionism...and kill hundreds of Jews even before the state is created...and then go to war again, this time with Arab states, and expect to continue to live where you are," he said.

Under most readings of international law, refugees do not lose their individual rights because of the actions of their leaders, the uncertainties of war or the passage of time.

But in the Arab-Israeli conflict, international law has often collided with realpolitik and come off worst.

Israel and the Palestinians have had no formal peace talks since U.S. President Bill Clinton left office in January 2001. He had proposed that a future Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza be the "focal point" for refugees choosing to return "without ruling out that Israel will accept some of them."

Palestinian refugees will not disappear any time soon, to be absorbed in a wider Arab world unwilling to integrate them for reasons that combine principle with hard-nosed expediency.

They yearn for what they have lost.

"I would never accept compensation," said Jaber, the Deir Yassin survivor, wearing an embroidered black cap.

"It's my home, my land, my country. There can be no peace unless they let us return."

A Bit of A Beginning of Some Good News

The NYTimes is reporting:-

Mr. Abu Ghneim, like most Arabs, says there can be no peace with Israel until he and 700,000 other Palestinians are permitted back to the homes they left in the 1948 fighting that led to Israel’s creation.

But...there is another, albeit quieter, approach being voiced, especially by younger and wealthier Palestinians: it may be neither possible nor desirable to go back.

“Every time people talk peace, you hear discussion of this subject,” said Hanin Abu Rub, 33...people think, ‘Is it possible for us to go back?’ [but] deep inside they now know they are not going back.”

Almost no Palestinian questions the demand for Israel’s recognition of the right to return; many, however, now say returning is becoming less and less feasible.

The debate has been spurred again recently by plans to revive the so-called Arab Peace Initiative at the annual Arab League meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia,

Resolution 194 says, “Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,” and calls for them to be compensated if they choose not to return.

...Israel says that Palestinians should have the right to return to a new Palestine, not to their original homes, especially considering that their numbers have exploded since the original 711,000 people fled in 1948. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees says it has 4.3 million registered Palestinian refugees.

But the prevailing Palestinian view is that the right of return is at the core of the dispute.

“The issue of the refugees is the Palestinian problem,” said Talat Abu Othman, chairman of the Jordanian chapter of the Committee to Protect the Right of Return,

...“What right do I have to ask for awda when I am here and content?” Mr. Zalatimo said, using an Arabic word for return. “We’ve been accepting less and less every year. What are we holding out for?”

Nabbing at Annab

I found this sentence in a letter in the New York Times today:-

"Any variation of 'Free Palestine' is simply a plea for real justice and a
lasting peace, as is the reminder that the Palestinian refugees have always had
the inalienable, legal and sacred right to return to their original homes and
lands."

The letter was composed by Anne Selden Annab of Mechanicsburg, Pa. and I searched around an found her site (and there's another collection of her writings here).

Being who I am, I entered a comment although I am not sure it appears.

Here it is:-

"Congrats on getting published in the NYTimes. However, I really don't think the "sacred right" of which you write is the one that needs to be debated.

Arabs living in Palestine decided that Jews should not be able to immigrate to the country in great numbers, to buy land there and to attempt to establish a political framework to enable them to rule the land. While that is a position that can be understood and even considered admirable, it was morally, historical and legally misconstrued in that the land the Arabs were living on and in was the territory of the Jewish national homeland. That the Jews possessed a right to reconstitute their national existence there was recognized by the entire civilized world who conditioned the Zionist enterprise on assuring the personal and civil rights of the non-Jewish residents.

But the Arabs wanted to have it all and in the end, after 27 years of constant violence directed at Jews (newcomers, Orthodox with no discrimination), despite a compromise suggested by the United Nations which would award them 75% of the original Mandate area with 45% of the population of the new state to be of Arab demographics, they still wanted it all and launched a war.That war negated any suggested inalienable, legal and sacred right of return.

The recent violence (2000-2005) which saw the horrific acts of suicide bombers - a threat, by the way, not yet over - most certainly indicates a perverse attitude that needs to be corrected. How can someone hate another human being so much that they would kill themselves and specifically, in the process, seek out infants, children and non-combatants?"

Of course, I could have added that the current Pal. behavior is atrocious (and an update is here):-

Hamas gunmen stormed the home of a militant from the rival Fatah movement
on Friday, witnesses said, setting off a deadly gunfight and capping a day
of factional violence across the Gaza Strip that killed at least 13 people,
including a 2-year-old boy.

The fighting, among the deadliest in nearly two months, marred the
first anniversary of Hamas’s victory in Palestinian elections. After nightfall,
the fighting showed no signs of slowing, as the sound of gunfire echoed
throughout Gaza City.