Olmert: 'Not one refugee can return'

[bemildred]

---

Olmert said that not only would Israel refuse to accept any refugees, it would also not recognize a "right of return."

In this regard he was even firmer than the Barak government, which in 2000 accepted then-US president Bill Clinton's parameters for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement that dealt with the refugee issue. The thrust of the Clinton parameters was that Israel would recognize the right of return in principle, but would have the right to determine how many - if any - refugees would be allowed to exercise that right.

Olmert, asked specifically if he accepted the Clinton parameters, replied simply: "No."

"I will not agree to accept any kind of Israel responsibility for the refugees. Full stop," he said. "It's a moral issue of the highest level. I don't think that we should accept any kind of responsibility for the creation of this problem."

Jpost

Edit: the bits further down about what a nice fellow The King is are interesting too.

[mike_c]

1. two words....

War crime.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

52. Four words: Smart move by Olmert

[Tom Joad]

3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

[Shaktimaan]

5. And what country exactly

did the Palestinians leave that they now expect to return to? Do former Ottomans (for example) also have the right to return to Palestine, or Syria, even though those countries were not established states when they left their land? (Because it clearly says STATE, not LAND.)

Does #1 apply to people who are not nationals of the state in question?

Can you give me some other examples of refugees created by war or the birth of a new state who were later granted the right of return by the war's victors? When in the past has this doctrine been deemed wise, let alone obligatory or (laugh) actually implemented?

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Last time I checked the Declaration of Human Rights applies to Palestinians...

They are entitled to the same basic human rights as everyone else, though I think the legal document that specifically sets out the legal right of return is UN Resolution 194.

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

http://www.mideastweb.org/194.htm

[Shaktimaan]

7. So are you going to answer my question?

I'd also like to point out that the refugees in question exist on both sides of this debate. I have yet to hear of compensation being offered by a single Arab state to the hundreds of thousands Jewish refugees. However Israel has fulfilled at least some of these requirements by allowing at least some refugees to return and offers to compensate any landowners who lost land in '48. It also remains far from clear whether Palestinians are willing to live in peace with their neighbors. (It seems more clear that they do NOT wish to than the opposite.)

In any case, so far the only state to even partially fulfill these requirements is Israel. But then no Arab state is expected to follow any resolutions I guess. Agreements only pertain to Israel, right?

[Violet_Crumble]

8. You didn't ask me a question...

Pointing out that Arab states haven't offered compensation doesn't negate the fact that Israel must take responsibility for the Palestinian refugees...

Can you give some detail about where Israel has allowed some of the refugees to return to Israel (eg numbers and circumstances) and also where offers of compensation for lost land have been made...

If you think that Palestinians aren't willing to live in peace with their neighbours, then you'd also be thinking that goes both ways as Israel isn't making it very clear at all right now that it wants to live in peace with its neighbours...

[Shaktimaan]

51. I could...

Can you give some detail about where Israel has allowed some of the refugees to return to Israel (eg numbers and circumstances) and also where offers of compensation for lost land have been made...

But as you referred me to google earlier, I'll do the same now. Let me know if you can't find it, it does exist. I'll give you a hint. Israel let a number of refugees back in right after the armistice agreements. They have since had an open policy of restitution as I described.

[barb162]

54. The Arab states have never offered right of return to the Jews

or compensation. At least I never read of such offers. You are quite correct.

[Englander]

83. Ralph Bunche: UN Mediator in the Middle East, 1948-1949

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

In 1950 the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the first non-white person, the African-American and United Nations (UN) official Ralph Bunche. He received the Peace Prize for his efforts as mediator between Arabs and Jews in the Israeli-Arab war in 1948-1949. These efforts resulted in armistice agreements between the new state of Israel and four of its Arab neighbours: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

>snip

Assistant to Count Folke Bernadotte

>snip

The Security Council appointed the Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte as mediator to promote a peaceful adjustment of the situation in Palestine. As the head of the Swedish Red Cross, Count Bernadotte had successfully negotiated the release of Danish and Norwegian prisoners from the Nazi concentration camps during the last weeks of World War II in Europe. Trygve Lie asked Ralph Bunche to accompany Bernadotte to the Middle East as Chief Representative of the Secretary-General. Lie saw Bunche as the man who understood the conflict and who was able to draft compromise proposals which could bring the fighting to a halt.

Bernadotte and Bunche were shuttled between Jerusalem and the Arab capitals in the Count's white plane to put a stop to the war. In June the parties accepted a ceasefire agreement drawn up by Bunche.

Count Bernadotte moved his headquarters to the island of Rhodes to have peaceful and neutral surroundings. He believed that the partition plan needed revisions to ensure Arab acceptance. At Rhodes, Bernadotte and Bunche worked out a draft that was later known as the Bernadotte Plan. This plan proposed a union between Jordan and Palestine and the creation of an independent Israeli state. The proposal included Jerusalem in an Arab state with autonomy for the Jewish minority. In addition, Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return to their homes in Israeli-occupied territory or receive compensation for the losses of their homes.

>snip

An Agreement in Favour of Israel?

With the conclusion of the agreement between Israel and Syria on 20 July 1949, the Rhodes armistice negotiations were completed – Israel was recognized by the world community as an independent state within new borders, and was admitted as a member of the UN.

Personally, Bunche believed that the Palestinian Arabs were the big losers in the conflict, and, in fact, the agreements sealed the fate of the UN's plan for an independent Palestinian state. The Israelis kept almost all the land they had conquered. Israel had expanded from the UN-allocated 55% of British ruled Palestine to 79%. Jordan and Egypt took what was left for the Palestinian Arabs. The armistice agreements were intended as the basis for peace negotiations within a year, but these never took place. Although the UN and the United States called for the rights of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, this never happened. The fate of the Palestinian refugees remained an unsolved problem.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/bunche/index.html

[eyl]

36. Legally, it does not set such a right

UNGA resolutions are not instruments of international law.

[breakaleg]

37. Isn't that like saying that although something is fair or just, because of this technicality we

won't do it?

[eyl]

42. the post I was replying to

specifically addressed legalisms, and my reply was to that, so thats besides the point.

[barb162]

56. Will Arab states allow right of return of Jews? Why is that

not on the table?

[Tom Joad]

67. Do you think that all people have a right to return to their homeland?

I don't see Israel asking for allowing Jewish refugees to be allowed to return to Arab countries, I also see no movement of Jewish refugees clamoring to return to their homeland, but do you think it should be allowed ---like i do?

Do you think that Palestinians should also be able to exercise their right of return to their homeland?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

70. My question was predicated on the idea that both have

rights, that no ones has more, no one less. I think that is clear for anyone reading the post honestly.

Palestinians have individual and collective rights to return to their homeland if they wish. Nothing Egypt or Jordan or the US or Israel decides takes away from those rights.

[msmcghee]

71. Like pelsar says . .

. . concepts like rights and justice have nothing to do with it . . except as talking points for those who wish to see the conflict continue. The only way peace will ever be a possibility is a settlement in terms of what compromises each side is willing to accept.

Nothing Egypt or Jordan or the UN or the US or any other entity says can change that. This will be settled - if it is settled - between Israel and the Palestinian people making the compromises that they can.

Israel can not offer an unlimited "right of return" for obvious reasons.

Anyone who says that is the bottom line for the Palestinians is just saying that they wish to see the Palestinians remain in their terrible situation for the foreseeable future. You can talk about rights all you want - but I'd rather talk about reality and especially peace.

PS - Your comment "I think that is clear for anyone reading the post honestly." - was a shady way to say that I didn't read that post honestly. Did that add anything to the discussion? I said nothing in the previous post that was insulting in any way. I was hoping Lithos' thread on civility would have resulted in some improvements along these lines. Please try to stick to the ideas being expressed and drop the personal stuff. Once it starts it just grows on itself and soon we're in an insult fest.

[breakaleg]

72. According to Olmert, it's an issue of morality.

How far away are rights and justice from morality? Not very, I'd say.
--
"I will not agree to accept any kind of Israel responsibility for the refugees. Full stop," he said. "It's a moral issue of the highest level. I don't think that we should accept any kind of responsibility for the creation of this problem."
--

[msmcghee]

73. Olmert's a politician . .

. . my money's on pelsar.

[breakaleg]

74. I didn't realize Pelsar was in a position to hammer out a deal. nt

[msmcghee]

75. If Olmert hammers out a deal . . .

. . it will be according to the reality that pelsar describes.

Politicians will always say what they need to say.

[breakaleg]

76. I think that Olmert has no intention of hammering out a deal, based on his words in that the OP.

[msmcghee]

77. There are some good books about negotiation.

A head of state (any good salesman or politician really) spends their life negotiating. Almost every word they speak is part of some negotiation - often more than one at a time.

Israel has been negotiating for its continued existence since well before 1947 - just as Palestinian leadership has been negotiating for its end.

Often their negotiations break out into violence - which is just a more primitive form of negotiation - because the Palestinians are determined to win and also because their leaders believe that the only honorable way to negotiate with inferiors and infidels is to kill them. It's in their political charter, it's in the Quran, it's in their kids textbooks and it's on their favorite TV shows.

Israel is still there because it is even more determined and is willing to apply however much violence is required not to lose.

[msmcghee]

78. I want to add this to my above post.

I just watched the PBS News Hour and watched a captivating segment and interview of a Palestinian architect named Sue Awadni (I think). What a captivating person she is. She came across as decent, down-to-earth and intelligent.

I know there are very many Palestinians just like her. She said nothing about wanting Israel destroyed - and after listening to her for a while I am sure the thought would not occur to her.

The segment left me both saddened and angry that sensitive, talented, artistic, articulate persons like her are forced to live under the terrible and inhumane conditions imposed by the occupation. The plight of peaceful people like Sue Awadni and most Palestinians is unforgivable. Just as is the plight of Israelis who have to live under the constant threat of suicide bombers and Qassams.

The know the vast majority of Israelis only want to live peaceful lives with their friends and families. I am sure that a very large part of the Palestinian population wants the very same thing.

I absolutely do not blame average Palestinian for the occupation and its hardships. I want to it to stop and their lives to be better.

I blame the warlike religious / fundamentalist cultural values of their corrupt leaders that IMO make such conditions necessary. Those egomaniacs are responsible for the deaths of around 1000 Israelis and 4000 Palestinians since 2000. They are wasting and limiting all the good and happiness that people like Sue - and millions of Palestinians like her - could have been creating and experiencing all these years. And for what? The insane and completely unnecessary obsession of political and military domination over another people.

It's probably the oldest story known to man - but what a sad waste of good and decent lives.

[kaal]

9. the land in which they were born

and their fathers and forefathers....


It doesn't matter if they were part of a State or not!

[Tom Joad]

29. The official line is that they were sub-human, and have no rights.

I think most of us see that differently.

[eyl]

35. OK, prove it

Where has Israel claimed (officially, mind you, as a matter of policy - no pulling of some random MK's quote) that Palestinians are subhuman?

[Tom Joad]

38. Let's start with Olmert... who does not let one refugee return to his homeland

after 60 years.
Actions speak louder than words.

[eyl]

84. Which makes them "subhuman" how? n/t

[barb162]

57. Wrong, Tom. The Arab governments applied that to the Jews

The Arab governments said the Jews were sub-human and had no rights.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/06/INGM2BJH7U1.DTL

"snip Since 1949, the United Nations has passed more than 100 resolutions on Palestinian refugees. Yet, for Jewish refugees from Arab countries not a single U.N. resolution has been introduced recognizing our mistreatment or calling for justice for the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees forced out of our homes. This imbalance of the world's concern is itself an injustice.

Arab governments instituted policies that led to nearly 900,000 Middle Eastern Jews becoming stateless refugees. Those same governments forced about 750,000 Palestinian refugees and their descendants to remain in impoverished refugee camps, refusing them citizenship and denying them hope. snip"

[Shaktimaan]

48. We are discussing a specific law here, not ethics.

So if the rule Tom quoted is about land and not a state, show me why.

Additionally, by your reckoning, only most of the refugees should have right of return. Arafat, for instance, would have been excluded for being an Egyptian immigrant who moved to Palestine, correct?

The UNRWA counts Palestinian refugees as anyone who lived the for 2 years prior to 1948. Which includes many people who had lived there for less time than european zionist immigrants. You disagree with this? If so, where are you looking that supports your view? It seems like you just made it up based on your own thoughts, not by basing it on any agreements or laws.

[Tom Joad]

28. They were forced to leave their land of origin, they have rights.

I know that is offensive to some people, and is not officially accepted by the Israeli regime. So it goes.

[Shaktimaan]

49. Not the point.

Of course they have rights.

But do they have the rights you quoted, specifically. Because it seems like you are trying to apply rules that exclude the Palestinians situation to try and make it seem as though Israel is in violation of them. We aren't discussing the ethics of the situation. I am asking you to defend that one post which appears legally inapplicable.

[barb162]

59. Who is they? The Jews forced to leave their lands in the Mideast?

Is that offensive to some people that there were actually many refugees and not just from one group?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

44. They were surely forced to flee their villages and homes, though, didn't they?

that's the cheapest argument ever.

Forunately, semantic games such as these fool no one.

War crime indeed.

[Shaktimaan]

50. Not semantic games.

But LAW. We are talking about this one post of Tom's and whether it is in fact applicable to the Palestinian's situation, not the situation as a whole.
The language of law, the specific words used, semantics if you will, are critical to the meaning.

My post was a criticism of Tom trying to make it seem that Israel is in violation of the declaration he quoted from, NOT a statement on Palestinian refugee rights overall.

[barb162]

53. And the hundreds of thousands of Jews kicked out of Arab lands

will now be allowed to return and/ or be compensated for their property by the Arab governments?
"snip
This experience is shared by hundreds of thousands of other indigenous Jewish Middle Easterners who share a similar background to my own. However, unlike the Palestinian Arabs, our narrative is largely ignored by the world because our story -- that of some 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries dispossessed by Arab governments -- is an inconvenience for those who seek to blame Israel for all the problems in the Middle East. snip"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/06/INGM2BJH7U1.DTL&type=printable

[breakaleg]

55. I think they should be allowed to return to their homes, if they choose. But since when does

tit for tat become a valid excuse for Israel not to do what is required?

[msmcghee]

58. Whenever . .

. . one side only gets tat and the other gets all the tit.

[barb162]

60. We're not really discussing tit for tat. It seems the discussions

here mostly revolve only around the Palestinians, with NO recognition at all that Jews were being massacred, persecuted, thrown out of Arab countries, given no aid by the UN year after year after year, etc. It happens still today.
There were and are several groups of refugees in the Mideast, NOT just the Palestinians. Let's not forget the Jews, let's not forget the Christians, etal., kicked out of Mideast lands.

[breakaleg]

62. The subject of the OP is the Palestinian refugees. nt

[barb162]

63. The subject is refugees and there were many refugees

Palestinians AND Jews AND others

[breakaleg]

66. Wrong. read it again. nt

[Shaktimaan]

64. As it always is.

[Shaktimaan]

4. Well,

it's not so cut and dry as to what rights exist at this time for refugees of either state. Many states' creation have resulted in population exchanges, as is the case here. An identical number of Jewish refugees were expelled from the surrounding Arab states and then taken in by Israel or America as there were Palestinian refugees created during the '48 war. Yet I hear very little in the way of compensation or a right of return for Jewish refugees. There is an expectation that Israel be responsible for the whole of the refugee population, regardless of the circumstances.

Palestinian refugees' current situation is due to purposeful negligence on the part of their adoptive Arab states for political reasons. Israel can not be held responsible for a lack of Arab committment to help them, they are the only refugees who have not been relocated for such an amount of time.

I also question the rationality of seeking a state of their own with a plan of self-preservation only to also request that they not be responsible for the whole of their own people. The majority of Palestinian refugees were not created by Israel, but by Jordan, who many Palestinians had citizenship to. Why are refugees from one state expected to live in a newly created Palestine while others are expected to be repatriated to Israel? Why is it that Israel is the only state expected to bear the burden of every Palestinian refugee (and their children) who happened to have rented an apartment in pre-Israel Palestine for a scant two years, half a century ago? (An expectation made of no other nation who created refugees, ever.)

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

11. What an interesting statement.

You're actually claiming that Jewish refugees (yes, refugees) were culpable because of what Israel did? Hmm. Culpable of what exactly?

As for your claim that there were no Jewish refugees, that's no different than claiming that there was no Nakba- that all the Palestinians left of their own free will, encouraged by the Arab States to leave until there was an Arab victory.

It is estimated that there were approximately 700,000 Jewish refugees, many of them had been persecuted, deprived of citizenship and property. Yes, Israel took them in. That certainly doesn't mean they weren't refugees.

edited to add:

In Iraq, there was the Denaturalization Act of 1950, followed by the Property Freezing Act in 1951.

In Egypt there was a pogrom against Jews in 1945, in which Synagogues and Jewish homes were destroyed. This was three years prior to the creation of Israel. In 1948 Jews were expelled from their homes, and many Jewish owned businesses were taken over by the State. At the outbreak of hostilites, hundreds of Jews were rounded up and put into camps.

Also in 1948, in Cairo, there was a bombing campaign against Jews, killing 40 people. There were, as well, other killings of Jews and further persecution.

[pelsar]

12. does it ever end?

i am continually surprised again and again how history...known acknowledged history can be so twisted. (do you think the above poster will now disappear or stick around to be shown different?.....i bet on the disappearing act)

[cali]

13. Oh, I think the poster in question

will probably decline to respond to my post. I hope not. I'd like a response, and an answer as to what he thinks Jews from Arab countries were culpable of.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. While they were wrong, so was the post they were replying to...

The poster they were replying to claimed that Palestinian refugees were culpable because of what the Arab states did. As far as I'm concerned both posts are as bad as each other...

[cali]

15. I'm not adressing the post you're referring to.

But I didn't see where the claim was made, in that post, that Palestinian refugees were culpable of anything.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I'd already noticed you hadn't addressed it...

No, yr right. In that post they didn't say the refugees themselves were culpable. They merely said Israel had no responsibility at all and it was all the fault of the Arab states. That's much more acceptable and realistic a view, I guess...

[cali]

17. And I noticed that you didn't address

the post that I addressed- and on and on. I don't agree with the post that clearly troubles you more than the far more egregious post I addressed, but please point out where it says that Israel has no responsibility at all. You already mistakenly claimed that poster said Palestinians were culpable, perhabps you're mistaken again- or engaging in twisting the words of the poster.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Huh?

Here's where the post said that Israel held no responsibility....

'Palestinian refugees' current situation is due to purposeful negligence on the part of their adoptive Arab states for political reasons. Israel can not be held responsible for a lack of Arab committment to help them, they are the only refugees who have not been relocated for such an amount of time.

Again you are reading things into peoples posts that aren't there. That post doesn't trouble me more than the other one, and seeing I didn't ignore either, that's a rather strange accusation to make.

[cali]

20. That paragraph is open to interpretation

Because the poster is correct that Arab nations have treated Palestinian refugees in a disgraceful way and made use of them politically. And Israel is not responsible for that. Where I part company with the poster is that Israel has far more responsibility for the Palestinian refugees than the Arab states.

But sorry, I see the post I responded to as far more egregious than the one you're so disturbed by. And I can only conclude that you find it more disturbing than the other by your clear history hear of strong partisanship, and that except for one casual reference, you haven't said anything about the other post.

Accusing Jews who were citizens of Arab countries of being culpable of actions taken by Israel, and completely denying that there were any Jewish refugees, is, to my mind, significantly worse than the post you're focusing on.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Excuse me? I'm not so disturbed by any post...

Please stop repeating that after I've already told you that I'm not upset, disturbed, perturbed or anything of that nature.

Also, considering my views on the conflict are far closer to yrs than to anyone else's in this forum, how exactly are my views strongly partisan?

You really need to read this other thread, because the OP addresses the sort of behaviour yr indulging in right now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x171386

Again, I focused on both posts, and I found them both incorrect. I'm not the slightest bit interested in ignoring one over the other because you find one infinitely worse, which is why I commented on both of them....

[cali]

22. You do seem upset, and I don't

mean to upset you. It appeared to me that you were more disturbed over one post than the other. You say that's not so. Fine. I'll make no bones about it: I did find the post I responded to far more egregious than the one you brought into the conversation as equally bad. It's now been removed. Do you think the fact that it's been deleted and the one you see as just as bad, hasn't been, is a sign of a lack of evenhandedness on the part of the mods? Or an oversight?

Sorry you think I'm indulging in behavior that's over the line, and I'm sorry if I've offended you, but if you think I'm indulging in "bad" behavior, let me say that your snark about how you noticed that I hadn't addressed the post by Shatimaan, would seem to fall into the same category of behavior that you're accusing me of.

And essentially, we just differ on what we think about the comparative negative values of those two posts.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. No, I'm not upset...

I think I pointed that out a few posts ago. Maybe it seems I'm upset coz I tend to get slightly irritated when told repeatedly I'm upset when I'm not...

Sorry, but I'm not interested in doing an analysis on why the post was deleted....

I am interested however in finding out how my stance on the I/P conflict is strongly partisan when it's so very close to yr own stance...

[cali]

25. OK, I'll try and address that.

It's your history of posting articles that I think are extreme- such as anything by Finklestein. And defense of certain posters who are very close to the line, and sometimes over it.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Huh? I don't think I've ever posted even one article by Norman Finkelstein

No offense, but I don't tend to defend anyone but myself here....


Could you address my actual stance on the conflict? Y'know, the views I actually hold on the conflict itself?

on edit: I just checked the archives going all the way back to 2004 and I couldn't find where I'd posted any articles by Norman Finkelstein. Even if I had posted one or two that's a far cry from the claim that I post anything from Norman Finkelstein...

[msmcghee]

24. I don't mean to say you are wrong on this or . .

. . that you should change your opinion. It's just that after reading your comment . .

Where I part company with the poster is that Israel has far more responsibility for the Palestinian refugees than the Arab states.

. . I had one of those moments where I wondered how someone could say what they did.

When people discuss this issue (like we did in another thread recently) the posts can go on and on about which refugees were told by the IDF or Hagannah or whatever to get the hell out of Dodge . . and how many were told by the Arab commanders to vacate the area to make way for the Arab legions, etc.

It seems to me what is missing from that discussion is that prior to the war that created the refugees one side here agreed to abide by the UN Resolution establishing the two states of Israel and Palestine. And under that resolution no Arabs who found themselves in the new state of Israel were required to leave. The leaders of Israel overtly declared their intentions to treat the Arabs there fairly and as partners in the building of a new and prosperous state in which they would all share the benefits.

The other side amassed several armies and attacked Israel using armor and artillery with the intention of destroying that state - with the intention of killing as many Jews as necessary to get those remaining to leave. And they could well have succeeded if the fortunes of war had been otherwise.

Given that reality, I just have to wonder how, no matter what combination of inducements Arabs in Israel felt to become refugees as that war progressed, anyone could possibly conclude that " . . Israel has far more responsibility for the Palestinian refugees than the Arab states".

Again . . I am not trying to challenge your beliefs on this or say you are wrong. I only wanted to add my perspective.

And if you or anyone else is having one of those moments where you wonder how someone could say what I just did - by all means tell me what you see that is so different.

[cali]

27. Israel has been the occupying force for

40 years. As such, they are responsible. That doesn't exculpate the Arab states for their cynical use of the refugees, but it does put the primary responsibility to solve the problem on Israel. In addition, the creation of Israel, and Israeli policies largely created those refugees..

Yes, Israel accepted the UN partition, and the Arab states and Palestinians not only rejected it, but attacked Israel, but that doesn't abbrogate the responsibility that Israel has towards the refugees.

[bemildred]

30. Well said.

More to the point, it is in Israel's interest to solve the problem, to ameliorate it, to make it better, whether they are "responsible" or not. Responsibility is something one can assume as well as have thrust on one. If the problem is left up to the Arab states to solve, then it will not be solved, and that is bad for Israel, as one can easily see.

[cali]

31. Agreed, and you are right

self-interest is an even more compelling reason than that they are morally and legally responsible.

[pelsar]

32. i agree....if its up to the arab states.....

If the problem is left up to the Arab states to solve, then it will not be solved, and that is bad for Israel, as one can easily see

the problem is not just that they dont care, but some of them activily keep it going (iran and syria....maybe saudi arabia)

I dont believe its a matter of who is more responsable at this point, now its a matter of each doing their part to solve it.....it doesnt matter if its 60:40, 70:30 or even 90:10.....both parties (israelis and palestinians) cant make a move without a complimentary move from the other.


self interest is the only reason that works in intl affairs.......

[msmcghee]

33. Thanks for being patient.

In trying to understand your reply I think I get the essence of your view but I'm still confused.

You say first, "Israel has been the occupying force for 40 years. As such, they are responsible."

I could be missing something here but it seems to me that for 20 years prior to Israel occupying the WB and Gaza - those Arabs who had fled Israel were forced to live in refugee camps under Arab control in Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. I just don't see why Israel's occupation of the area that Jordan claimed as part of its state twenty years later, as a result of yet another attempt to destroy Israel in 1967 - and Jordan's withdrawal from that area in defeat leaving it without any government - makes Israel responsible for the refugees (mostly their descendants now) that still remain in camps in Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. I don't see any clear connection between the occupation and the refugees.

It seems that the occupied territories are the only place in the world other than Israel itself where Palestinian Arabs are allowed to live some place other than in refugee camps. (I agree that Palestinians living under occupation are living under very difficult conditions.)

Maybe you are saying that if Israel would let those refugees (mostly their descendants now) in the camps in Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon - all come back into Israel then they wouldn't be refugees any more. But as everyone knows, Israel wouldn't be Israel any more, either - so that's kind of a non-starter. (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here - something I am often accused of. I'm just trying to understand your pov.)

You then say, "In addition, the creation of Israel, and Israeli policies largely created those refugees.."

I can't understand how the UN's Partition Plan, which created two states, Palestine and Israel - created the refugees. I think the UN's plan was designed to prevent the creation of refugees. It seems to me it was the rejection of the UN plan that created the refugees. But, if the UN was the cause of the refugees as you say - wouldn't that make the refugees the UN's problem? Why would you make the refugees mostly the responsibility of the side that was attacked in a war - that the UN caused?

Then you also say that Israel's policies created the refugees - as if that was a fact. I have heard that repeated many times - and of course there's been a huge effort to create that reality on the part of Israel's enemies for obvious reasons - but I don't think most people believe that there is conclusive evidence that Israel has ever had a clear national policy of turning indigenous Arabs into refugees. And as I explained in my previous post - I'm sure Israel's policy was not to have the Arab Legions attack Israel.

Added on edit: I do agree that once the refugees were created Israel decided it was in Israel's interests to keep them out. Or, at least most of them. And that was - and is - Israel's policy.)

Finally you say, "Yes, Israel accepted the UN partition, and the Arab states and Palestinians not only rejected it, but attacked Israel, but that doesn't abbrogate the responsibility that Israel has towards the refugees."

I agree with that. And so does Israel. Even though the Arab states and the UN certainly own some portion of that responsibility (the Arab states for creating the refugees, the UN for not protecting and resettling them, IMO) - I think Israel is more than ready to take on much of the responsibility for those refugees if that could end the conflict. In every peace proposal that Israel has put forth - Israel has offered formulas for both return and compensation - and in most cases those were not the deal breaker.

Again, I am not saying you are wrong, just pointing out some things that seem so apparent to me but not to you and some others. If you or anyone would care to point out things I might be missing from the big picture please do so. And I'm sorry my posts get so long - but I'm really trying to address your several points as thoroughly as they deserve - and this issue is certainly at the core of the conflict.

[msmcghee]

34. I also agree with an idea being expressed above . .

. . in the posts by you pelsar and bemildred - that it's in Israel's interest to solve the problem - and in that regard assigning responsibility is secondary.

OTOH - peace talks have failed in the past mostly because the Arab side had an unrealistic view of this question - namely that everything that happened in the past was Israel's fault and that Israel had to give up everything in negotiations - and the Arabs had to give up nothing - or some variation of that.

For peace to come therefore, for the Palestinians to be willing to make even basic concessions, like giving up on an unlimited right of return, they also have to perceive that it's in their interest to solve the problem and that they and the Arab states are at least partially responsible for the situation as it exists.

And it is the opinions of others around the world - like us - of who bears responsibility for those refugees and in what proportions - that will be applied through our various political agencies to any future negotiations. This is even more true in our case now that Dems control both houses of congress - and several of those Dems are running for the presidency in '08.

In that spirit it is important that in places like DU's I/P forum we discuss these things with an open mind - to develop as realistic a view as possible for ourselves.

[Shaktimaan]

45. Your interpretation is incorrect

The meaning of that statement refers to Palestinian refugees' current situation of still being refugees, that they alone were purposefully never helped by their own people for political gain. While Jewsih refugees were given aid and relocated, as basically all refugees eventually are, the Arab states in a position to help their Palestinian charges did not and THIS choice which is the reason for the refugees continued plight, is what can not be laid at Israel's feet.

I was pretty clear as to exactly what Israel could not be held responsible for, as I named a specific facet of this problem and did not refer to the issue as a whole.

[breakaleg]

47. "population exchange" is a pretty interesting term. It absolves everyone of any responsibility

and implies no wrongdoing anywhere. It's a very benign term.

The actions of Israel's neighbors in dealing with the refugees has no impact on what Israel is required to do in their regard.

[bemildred]

19. This seems to be a dupe:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=171278&mesg_id=171278

My error. I was interested in the bits about the Saudis, and Olmert'statement about it's being a moral issue.

[IndianaGreen]

39. They have more of a right of return than the European Holocaust survivors

that were transplanted to Palestine at the end of WWII.

This issue will become irrelevant anyway. The US is on the brink of a major defeat in the Middle East that will culminate with a total US withdrawal from the region. Once stripped of the protection of her American lapdogs, Israel will have to decide whether to make a just peace, or to share the fate of all artificial states created by colonial powers.

[bemildred]

40. Hi IG.

Nice to see you around.
:hi:

[IndianaGreen]

41. Hi back at you, bemildred

The I/P forum reminds of US foreign policy in the Middle East: A hole of our own creation from which we can't dig ourselves out.

:hi:

[Englander]

43. Motto for i/p; "abandon hope all ye who enter here". ;)

[Shaktimaan]

46. ????

The US is on the brink of a major defeat in the Middle East that will culminate with a total US withdrawal from the region. Once stripped of the protection of her American lapdogs, Israel will have to decide whether to make a just peace, or to share the fate of all artificial states created by colonial powers.

What protection does America offer Israel directly? America gives arms and aid to Israel, but don't physically offer them protection.

Share the fate off all artificial states created by colonial powers? Like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, America, Australia, Austria, etc. What fate is that?

[Spinoza]

69. Interesting.

"Israel is an artificial state created by colonial powers".

1) Please clarify specifically who were the 'colonial powers' that created Israel? Please name the countries. The only colonial power in the area at the time the United Nations General Assembly voted to proclaim Israel and Palestine independent states was Britain. Surely, you know the Israeli Jews (Irgun and Haganah) fought the British colonial power. The fighters of Haganah and Irgun were anti-colonialists, fighting ACTUAL colonialists. (In the case of Irgun they also comitted terrorist acts against British and Arabs, but they certainly were not a 'colonialist' fighting force.) The (predominanly) Russian and refugee Jews who emigrated to Israel prior to 1948 did not come from, represent or act on behalf of ANY colonial state. If you think they did, name the mother country.

2) Of course Israel is an 'artificial' state. So is every other country in the world. Please clarify, for example, exactly in what way Israel is more 'artificial' than, say, the United States or Canada?

[Tom Joad]

80. Total retreat? That's what people thought after Vietnam.

Only in our dreams would the United States end its colonial/imperial program.
I do work for the dream, but don't expect it any time soon.

[barb162]

61. What Arab leaders are even discussing Jews returning

to lands or compensation for property or land from which they were dispossessed? Name one current Arab leader who has even entertained hundreds of thousands of Jews returning.

[Shaktimaan]

65. The only one is Libya.

And it is contingent on Israel making many concessions.

Why one thing has anything to do with the other escapes me. No one has been pointing out the racism inherent in Quaddaffi's policy though.

[Tom Joad]

79. Why should Palestinians not be allowed to return based on the decisions of Arab leaders?

Palestinians did not expel Jews out of any land.

There is no validity to the attempt to negate Palestinian human rights based on the migration of Jews brought into Palestine, whether from Arab countries or the Soviet Union, under the Zionist program to colonize Palestine. Their issues and their questions are legitimate areas of exploration (e.g. Jews have a right to be treated equally in their own countries, like any other religious group, and this must be defended and fought for). Their rights also follow international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (including their right to chose to return to their countries) but certainly nullify no other similar rights for other people, whether Russians or Palestinians.

Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed have inalienable right to repatriation. This must be their choice.

[Tom Joad]

81. Egypt and Iraq.

On December 11, 1975, the Iraqi government even took full-page
advertisements in newspapers around the world (New York Times, the Toronto
Star, Le Monde) asking the 140,000 Iraq-born Jews who were in Israel and
around the world to return. Egyptian President Sadat extended an invitation
for Egyptian Jews to return to Egypt in September 1977, just weeks before
his peace trip to Israel (See Chicago Daily News, September 10-11; also see
the Oregonian, Portland, July 18, 1977). Israel has never extended an
invitation to Palestinians to return to their homeland. In either case,
Israeli Jews with claims in Arab countries should take them up with those
countries, and Jews should be treated with respect, dignity and equality
wherever they live. Israel, however, was not interested in discussing this
issue when a peace agreement with Egypt was signed (Egypt had a sizable
Jewish presence).

[pelsar]

82. invited to be second class citizens...

some people actually bought into the propaganda.....

Nationality Law of 1929 egypt.....kept aprox 90% of the jews without citizenship in Egypt, great idea: return to a country and retain your second class status.

and that was very nice of iraq...asking them to return...after enacting all the anti jews laws, taking their property etc...(did they volunteer to return properties?, laws still on the books?)....