A Debate on BDS with Omar Barghouti and Rabbi Arthur Waskow

[Douglas Carpenter]

From Democracy NOW

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/4/bds

Boycott, Divest From, and Sanction Israel?: A Debate on BDS with Omar Barghouti and Rabbi Arthur Waskow

In 2005, a coalition of Palestinian civil society groups called for people all over the world to engage in a nonviolent campaign to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel until it complies with international law. The call was inspired by the international boycott and divestment initiatives applied to South Africa in the struggle to abolish apartheid. We host a debate between Omar Barghouti, a founding member of the BDS campaign and a Palestinian human rights activist and commentator, and Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a longtime antiwar and civil rights activist who is the founder and director of the Shalom Center.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Indirect negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders are expected to begin next week as US Middle East envoy George Mitchell returns to the region. The Arab League has agreed to back the US proposal for four months of indirect talks.

While many observers are skeptical of these so-called proximity talks succeeding, when years of direct negotiations have failed to produce an equitable and lasting peace, meanwhile Palestinian civil society and international solidarity activists are using very different tactics to push for a just resolution of the conflict.

In 2005, a coalition of Palestinian civil society groups called for people all over the world to engage in a nonviolent campaign to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel until it complies with international law. Inspired by the international boycott and divestment initiatives applied to South Africa in the struggle to abolish apartheid, the new movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS, for short, was born.

AMY GOODMAN: This week marks what many BDS campaigners call “Israeli Apartheid Week.” First launched at the University of Toronto in 2005, it now includes events at university campuses in more than forty cities around the world.

Several Israeli officials and diasporic Jewish organizations have criticized the events, and a recent report by an Israeli think tank highlights the BDS movement as part of a “deligitimization network” that Israel should treat as a “potentially existential threat.”

Well, today we’re going to host a debate on the BDS movement, the call to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel. Omar Barghouti is a founding member of the BDS campaign. He’s a Palestinian human rights activist and commentator. He’s joining us from Berkeley, California. And for an anti-BDS position, we’re joined from Philadelphia by Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a longtime antiwar and civil rights activist, founder and director of the Shalom Center, http://www.theshalomcenter.org/

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Omar Barghouti, why don’t you lay out why you established the BDS campaign, why you want people to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel?


snip: " JUAN GONZALEZ: Omar Barghouti, what about the issue, one, of whether the campaign demonizes an entire society? And also, if you can speak about the similarities that you see between the anti-apartheid boycott campaign and this one, especially in the situation where states, the existing states in the world, were unable to remedy either the South Africa situation or the current situation in the Middle East?

OMAR BARGHOUTI: This is not about demonizing Israel as in an abstract term. What BDS is delegitimizing is delegitimizing racism, apartheid and colonial rule, exactly what BDS in the South African case was delegitimizing. It was not delegitimizing white people or Christians; it was delegitimizing apartheid. So this is what we are against. We’ve never come out and said we’re against this or that group of people based on their identity. We’re against Israeli apartheid and colonialism. We couldn’t care less if Israel were a Jewish state, Catholic state or Muslim state. So long as it’s oppressing us, we will continue to resist it.

And BDS is a very nonviolent and effective form of resistance. It is growing tremendously. No one can speak on behalf of the Jews of the world, as if they’re are all in one basket. I think that’s completely inappropriate. There are many Jewish groups that do support the BDS movement, including inside Israel, including in this country. And increasingly in Western Europe, many Jewish groups are joining the BDS movement, because they see it as one that’s very morally consistent. It’s based on international law and universal human rights. It does not distinguish between people based on their identity, as the Israeli system does.

Second, the Israeli state is not standing alone in space. It is completely supported by the institutions of the state of Israel, including academic and cultural institutions. No amount of rebranding and dance groups and music and poetry can cover up Israel’s apartheid and colonial system. So this rebranding effort is exactly unethical, because it’s trying to whitewash this system of oppression.

snip: " AMY GOODMAN: —there is a point—Rabbi Waskow, is there a point that you would support—a point at which you would support BDS? What would—what do you think has to get worse?

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: No, it’s not a matter of what has to get worse. The question is how to end the worse. And I don’t think BDS is going to end it. And if BDS spreads in Western Europe, it isn’t going to matter. It’s the United States that has the actual power to make a difference. And BDS is not going to engage enough of the American population to matter. What is going to matter is the structure of American military aid and the structure of American diplomacy toward Israel, toward Egypt, toward the Arab world. That’s what matters. And BDS in Western Europe is not going to matter. So it’s not a matter of what gets worse; it’s a matter of how to end the worse.

And I say again, the—yes, there needs to be a social movement. There now is—in the Jewish community, there’s not only J Street having absorbed and empowered the folks of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, there is also movement inside the Reform Jewish movement. There is movement among Jews who, in theory, are unaffiliated, but care about this issue, and who feel unrepresented by most of the American Jewish established institutions. That’s where the change has to include, and along with that, it has to include the Protestant and Catholic churches, it has to include Islam in America. And the working together is what’s going to make the difference. Those are the only Americans, aside, I guess, from the big oil, who care about the Middle East.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have—we’re going to have to leave it there for now. We want to thank Rabbi Arthur Waskow, founder and director of the Shalom Center, and Omar Barghouti, who is one of the founding members of the BDS campaign, the boycott, divest from and sanction Israel campaign.

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: And I want to end by saying again, shalom and salaam and peace to all of us.

AMY GOODMAN: Thank you.



link to full interview - transcipt, audio and video:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/4/bds

[ConsAreLiars]

1. Before some mod locks this because over 4-5 paragraphs of copyright stuff might be risky, DN! is CC

licensed:

"The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to "democracynow.org". Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us."

As usual, a great source for news and analysis instead of the usual crap being stuffed down the gaping maws of the US population by the corporatist circus media.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. That's a really good interview...

This part in particular struck me as being very true: 'This is not about demonizing Israel as in an abstract term. What BDS is delegitimizing is delegitimizing racism, apartheid and colonial rule, exactly what BDS in the South African case was delegitimizing. It was not delegitimizing white people or Christians; it was delegitimizing apartheid. So this is what we are against. We’ve never come out and said we’re against this or that group of people based on their identity. We’re against Israeli apartheid and colonialism. We couldn’t care less if Israel were a Jewish state, Catholic state or Muslim state. So long as it’s oppressing us, we will continue to resist it.'

[aranthus]

3. It's interesting that the part you thought is true is total bullshit.

The lie is that BDS is about delegitimzing racism, apartheid and colonial rule. The lie is that Israel is any of those things. It isn't colonial because Israel is the Jewish homeland (hard to be a colonizer in your own country). It isn't apartheid like South Africa because Arab citizens of Israel have political and civil rights. It isn't racist because neither Jew nor Palestinian is a race. They are nationalities/ethnicities. Barghouti is very clear what he wants. All the occupied territories and the right of return--everything. He wants the end of Israel as a Jewish state. But that isn't demonizing Israel? You seriously believe that?

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. Ze'ev Jabotinsky stated way back in 1922 that Zionism was above all a colonizing movement

"My readers have a general idea of the history of colonization in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonization being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent." Ze'ev Jabotinsky - link: http://www.mideastweb.org/ironwall.htm


Of course the modern Zionist settlement movement into Palestine and the current settlement practice in the West Bank would make any definition of a colonizing movement. Because that is what they are doing. They were and are building colonies.

As far as Israel being the Jewish homeland, that may be a religious or ideological belief. It is be a historic fact that Jews did live in ancient Israel or Palestine in large numbers. But the claim of Israel in the modern world, over a thousand years later being, the Jewish homeland - that remains, a belief or an affirmation. As documented by Yakov M. Rabkin, Orthodox Rabbinical Scholar and Professor of Jewish History at the University of Montreal in his book -- "A Threat from Within: A History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism" link: http://www.amazon.com/Threat-Within-History-Opposition-Zionism/dp/1842776991?SubscriptionId=0TBPMRS0W3G0CB5F0902&tag=afncaie-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1842776991 -- until well into the 1920's the vast majority of Rabbis across the theological spectrum from Orthodox to Ultra-Orthodox to Reform rejected Zionism because in ran contrary to traditional Jewish religious teaching regarding the doctrine of Exile until the return of the Messiah. The prayer, "next year in Jerusalem" was traditionally regarded as prayer for the coming of the Messiah. Millions of religious Jews lived within the Ottoman Empire and and could have migrated to Palestine. But very, very few did. Yet they continually prayed, "next year in Jerusalem" because they were praying for the coming of the Messiah. Operating from that religious perspective they viewed the establishment of the modern Israeli secular state as contrary to the doctrine of Exile and the embrace of a false messiahism.

Now the numbers of that particular from of religious anti-Zionism is down to a few hundred thousand ultra-Orthodox believers. One might consider this religious belief to be outmoded, but it was embraced by the vast majority of pious Jews for centuries and during the early days of modern secular Zionism.

It probably would not be accurate to describe Israel inside the 1949-1967 border as apartheid. Discrimination and second class citizenship, but probably not apartheid. But, certainly inside the Occupied Palestinian Territories - several major South African anti-apartheid including Bishop Tuto and many others use exactly that word.

Whether or not racism is the correct word or not, perhaps bigotry or ethnic oppression or some other word would be more technically accurate. But even the mainstream Israeli media describes the proposed policies of Avigdor Lieberman and other ultra-nationalist as racist. Mexicans are not a race either. But if someone was deeply deeply hostile to Mexicans, and they were accused of being racist, I don't think anyone would be debating the point. Anti-Semitism is after all, considered by many to be a form of racism. Certainly extreme prejudice and hostile policies against Arab or Palestinians would meet most peoples reasonable definition - even if bigotry is a more linguistically accurate term.

When South African changed from being a state for white people and second class citizenship for coloreds and those of Indian ancestry and virtually no rights for blacks into being a state for all of its citizens - this did not bring the destruction of South Africa and the movement to make South Africa a state for all of its citizens was not seen as demonizing South Africa - nor is a movement that desires Israel to become a state for all of its citizens demonizing Israel.

[pelsar]

7. you ignore arab nationalism..

now add that to your explanation and what kind of country do you get?.....its foolish and niave to ignore one of the stronger aspects of the arab and Palestenians cultures.

furthermore....you probably should take in to account the opinions of the arab citizens of israel.....they too have something to say.

BDS is not attempting to make israel a "better place"......they want to replace its institutions, the structure of israel society..

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. most Palestinians of Israeli citizenship do want full equal rights

and I do think that would be in Israel's long term interest. That is also the position of he BDS movement. The BDS movement is not committed to the single-state solution even if some of their members are.

I do think the good Rabbi does make a very interesting case that Americans should organize a mass movement to address the issue of occupation by insisting that the American government changes its policy and truly exercises all of its diplomatic weight to bring this about. He further argues that the BDS movement simply has no chance of gaining real popular support in America although it may in Europe. Still the Rabbi makes the point that only America holds the diplomatic leverage to actually bring about an end to the occupation.

We all agree that violent solutions will not accomplish anything good for the Palestinians. I cannot help but feel support for any nonviolent approach that may contribute to the change.

[pelsar]

13. of course Israeli arabs want an improvement on the civil rights...but as israel defines it

not as per the definitions we see in gaza or in the westbank under the PA...or as the BDS appears to plan for it, with it "replacement policy"

whenever people bring up S.Africa today...i think of Zimbabwa/Rhodesia-to ignore the failed version of replacing Apartheid is not a good idea.....its a reality that millions are now suffering under. Replacing israel as per the BDS plan may bring gaza II as one scenario

and ignoring us israelis also is not "nice thing to do".

i always notice you always bring up zionism, but avoid arab nationalism........i know why, it makes zionism look good, but you shouldn't ignore the power and affect of arab nationalism, its not very honest and its very very real

[azurnoir]

36. Lot's of American Whites felt the same way in the 1960's

some still do, change is the only constant in any society

[pelsar]

38. no, the Palestinians nor israeli arabs are not like the KKK as you are insinuating

i realize that some like to demonize them, but i disagree with what your hinting at...Rhodesia/Zimbabwa didn't fail because of that.

[azurnoir]

44. Somehow I don't think your quite understanding

I certainly had neither the KKK or Israeli Arabs/Palestinians in mind when I made my comment

[aranthus]

8. You have to take the movement as a package,

not merely the parts that appear shiny and good. Re-read the "debate," and see what Barghouti says are the goals of the movement. They are: 1. withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza; 2. full equality within Israel; 3. right of return. That last bit, which I suggest is his major goal, is not about Israel becoming a state of all its citizens. It's about replacing Israel with an Arab state. If people support that, by all means they should support the BDS movement. If they don't, then they shouldn't.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. I support the right of return because I understand what it is...

Anyone with an understanding of Right of Return understands that it doesn't mean replacing Israel with an Arab state, and I recall only recently having this same discussion with you and correcting you on it when you did a bit of creative reading between the lines to jump to that same conclusion as you have now.

I support Israel being a state for all its citizens. I support two viable and independent states, even if both Israeli and Palestinian leaders don't, and I definately support the BDS movement...

[oberliner]

15. How to spell definitely

The correct spelling is definitely.

Not definately.

http://www.d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y.com/

[Violet_Crumble]

16. More spelling flames? Pretty lame, Obie...

It's a real shame that you think it's more important to try to annoy people about their spelling and grammar than add anything constructive to the discussion in this thread.

Seeing you have so much time on yr hands, here's a thread where you haven't had anything to say. I'm sure I might have made some typos in there so that'll give you a lot of really important stuff to focus on!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x303975

[ProgressiveMuslim]

66. Wow. How bizarre.

Especially considering this issue is key, and will continue to grow in importance in this conflict. Interesting priorities there!

[Violet_Crumble]

84. Clearly correct spelling is more important than key issues in the conflict to some

If Oberliner has something to say about the Right of Return and what I was discussing in my post, I'd welcome his opinion. But when it comes to picking up typos in posts, I thought I left all that sort of thing in the office when I clock off for the day...

[aranthus]

17. No, you pretend what it is.

That's all you did the last time. Anyone with an understanding of demographics and stated intent of the movement knows what right of return really means. Supporting two states is irrelevant if they are both Arab states with Jewish minorities. If you want to continue to drink the koolaid, that's your problem.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. No, yr the one who sat there and pretended something was said that wasn't...

That's all you did last time. You clearly don't have an understanding or any interest in knowing what Right of Return is, and I'm pretty sure I did point you to some reading material on the right of return that you appear not to have bothered with. Right of Return isn't the physical return of all refugees that 'supporters' of Israel drag out as some sort of horror scenario. I'm not the one drinking koolaid, btw. I'm finding yr denial and lack of interest in what Right of Return actually is to be strange...

[aranthus]

28. What's interesting is your response to shira's post

of Barghouti's own words as to what he means. Or do you have some evidence that he doesn't' really mean what he says?

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Barghouti doesn't get to define what right of return means...

He's got his own opinion, but that doesn't mean you can come along and make out that supporting BDS means supporting unrestricted return of refugees. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I objected to yr portrayal of the BDS movement, Shira popped up with something with Barghouti's personal opinion in it, and now yr acting as though his personal opinion is what the movement operates on. Is it my imagination, or did the conversation go off in a different direction as soon as Shira appeared?

[aranthus]

34. Just the opposite.

You don't get to define it. You're not Palestinian. He is. You're not a leader of Palestinian civil society. He is. You're not a leader of the BDS movement in Palestine. He is. Your opinion of what the BDS movement is about is irrelevant. His is defining. He says that the BDS movement is about right of return. That's what it's about.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. No, I'm not defining it and you clearly haven't bothered reading the OP properly...

BDS and Right of Return are two different things. When it comes to defining Right of Return, you don't get to sit there and pick and choose and select the most extreme application of it that you can find, anymore than someone can select the most extreme version of Zionism and say that's what Zionism is...

The article made it very clear that BDS is made up of three things:

'It’s calling upon people of conscience around the world to boycott Israel and institutions that are complicit with Israel, including companies and so on, because of its three-tiered system of oppression against the Palestinian people: its occupation, 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and that includes East Jerusalem; as well as its system of racial discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens, the Palestinian citizens of Israel; and the third and foremost is its denial of the right of return for the refugees, Palestinian refugees, in accordance with UN Resolution 194. So these three forms of injustices are exactly what we’re targeting. We’re targeting Israel because we want to end its impunity, and we want to end complicity of the world in this system of injustice.'

[aranthus]

52. Do you even read what you post?

Here is what Barghouti said, and what I have been arguing he said, from the beginning:

'It’s calling upon people of conscience around the world to boycott Israel and institutions that are complicit with Israel, including companies and so on, because of its three-tiered system of oppression against the Palestinian people: its occupation, 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and that includes East Jerusalem; as well as its system of racial discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens, the Palestinian citizens of Israel; and the third and foremost is its denial of the right of return for the refugees, Palestinian refugees, in accordance with UN Resolution 194.'

Of course BDS and RoR are two different things. I have never said otherwise. In fact, when you asked me to state what I thought you should admit, I led off by saying "Two things," one concerning the nature of the BDS, and the other about the nature of RoR. Of course Barghouti says that BDS is about three things, as I said in a prior post. Did you notice that the "foremost" of those things according to Barghouti is RoR? As far as picking and choosing what RoR is the official one, I'm not. I'm arguing that the extreme version of right of return is what most Palestinians believe it to be. In fact it is really the only RoR. You can't agree that someone has a right to something, and then, absent temporary exigent circumstances, deny them the right. You can't say that someone has a right to free speech, and then permanently deny them the right to speak simply because it's convenient. That's a lie of a right. Also, you can't give someone a right on the supposition that they won't use it. Once you grant the right, it's there to be used. So RoR for refugees and descendants means the right for any of those people to return whenever they want. That's all it can theoretically or logically mean. Otherwise, you aren't talking about a RoR. Finally, it's clearly what Barghouti means by RoR. Who am I supposed to believe, you or him?

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I most definately do...

You incorrectly claimed: 'He says that the BDS movement is about right of return. That's what it's about.'

No, it's one of the things it's about, and you most certaintly are taking the most extreme version of RofR that you can find and clinging to it. You were given a link to a publication that you claim to have read which put those ridiculous claims of yrs to rest. Right of return, despite yr attempts to make it into something incredibly simplistic, is something that has to be addressed if there's to be peace, and anyone who insists it shouldn't has no interest in peace.

Who am I supposed to believe when it comes to what Right of Return means? You or a barrage of scholars and experts who actually know what it's all about? I know who'd I pick...

[aranthus]

97. Then perhaps you didn't read the top of the subthread.

Let’s go back to the beginning of this sub-thread, which is my post 8 (to Douglas Carpenter, not to you), titled, “You have to take the movement as a package,” and in which I said, “Re-read the "debate," and see what Barghouti says are the goals of the movement. They are: 1. withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza; 2. full equality within Israel; 3. right of return.” You then objected to my statement that the BDS movement included a demand for unlimited RoR. In that context, I pointed out in post 34, that if Omar Barghouti says that the BDS movement is about RoR, then that’s what it is about. However, since we’ve already agreed from the start that BDS is about other things, I didn’t burden the post with reiterating what was already an understood point.

The focus here is on what the BDS movement means by RoR. Whether larger Palestinian society has a different meaning may suggest what the BDS movement means (or not, depending on how radical BDS really is), but it seems to me that the best source for what the BDS movement thinks of RoR is the leadership of the BDS movement, i.e. Barghouti. If you think that there are Palestinian leaders of BDS who think differently, go ahead and post them. If Barghouti’s opinion is any indication, the meaning of RoR that the BDS movement has in mind is full RoR.

As for the Crisis Group Report; the “experts” as you put it. When I first looked at what you posted, I thought it was just the executive summary (instead of the full 39 page report), and the summary doesn’t contain any reference to a poll. Now that I have read the full report, I’m certain that it not only doesn’t support your position, it actually supports mine.

To start with, there are several rules of interpreting what a statement means, or what people mean by it. The first of these is the “plain meaning rule”. Just looking at the words, “right of return of refugees,” what do they mean? A right is a person’s moral claim to action. I have a right to speak or be silent, and the government isn’t supposed to be able to do anything about it. That’s my choice. So if a refugee has a right to return, it means that the refugee has the choice to return or not; Israel has to take them back. The meaning of “refugee” in this case has been that supplied by the UNRWA and cited in the Crisis Group Report as “persons whose ‘normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict’ and their descendants.” (ICG Rep. Page 1). The plain meaning of the RoR is therefore that the refugees and their descendants have the right to return to where they came from.

A further way to interpret RoR is by looking at what people have said about it in the past. As the ICG Report states:

“Nor should one forget that the right of return – not statehood – formed the original raison d’etre of the contemporary Palestinian national movement, notably of the dominant Fatah movement and the PLO.” (ICG Rep. Page 7).

Since statehood wasn’t the issue, when the Palestinians spoke of RoR in the early days, they meant to Israel, and they meant all of them. Likewise, in 1977 when the PLO (the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people) issued its Six-Point Program, it said, among other things:

THIRD: We reaffirm our rejection of Security Council resolutions242 and 338.

FIFTH: To strive for the realization of the Palestinian people's rights to return and self-determination within the context of an independent Palestinian national state on any part of Palestinian land, without reconciliation, recognition or negotiations, as an interim aim of the Palestinian Revolution. Laquer, “The Israel-Arab Reader”, p. 602 (1984).

Textually and historically the only meaning of RoR up until recently has been what you call the “extreme” version. In light of that, the issue isn’t what the meaning of RoR is; it’s whether the meaning has changed.

To the extent that it has, you point to a poll mentioned in the ICG report (but not the executive summary). What the ICG actually said is:

In July 2003, the results of a public opinion poll indicating that if Palestinian refugees obtained explicit Israeli recognition of the right of return in the context of an Israeli-Palestinian permanent political settlement, only 10 per cent would seek to exercise this right if it entailed living under Israeli sovereignty, were strenuously contested. (ICG Rep, Page 8).

The poll appears in the context of showing how different Palestinian groups (and others) manipulate and use the refugee issue for their own purposes. The ICG neither affirmed, nor refuted the poll. We don’t know anything about it; not the number of people questioned, nor the questions asked, nor the circumstances of the polling. We do know that at least one Palestinian group vehemently disputed it. Especially given the strong evidence for the “extreme” version of the RoR, this seems pretty thin evidence that its meaning has changed, even if it evidenced a change at all.

Except that even if the poll is dead on accurate, it doesn’t change the meaning of the RoR one iota. It doesn’t say that Palestinians have changed their understanding of what the RoR is. It says only that about 10% of Palestinians would exercise the right if they got it. That doesn’t change the meaning of RoR; at most it changes what the Palestinians would do with the right.

Get real, you say. As a practical matter, if the effect of RoR is that only 10% of refugees would actually want to return, then people can’t argue that RoR means the destruction of Israel. An interesting thought. Or as the ICG put it.:

Paradoxically, as has been noted, Israelis oppose any acknowledgement of a right of return, even in the context of an agreement that would significantly constrain its implementation, while Palestinians insist on it, even in the context of an agreement that would give it little practical meaning. (ICG fn. 74, Page 11).

In fact, there really is no paradox; merely the ICG’s failure to appreciate the implications of its own research. First, the ICG is assuming that polling in 2003, and other indicators of Palestinian moderation on this issue, even if accurate, will hold true after Israel actually agrees to a RoR. There are a few reasons to think that it won’t.

First, there is the continuing misery of the Palestinian diaspora to consider. The ICG report spends quite some time explaining that. Do more than 10% of refugees live outside Israel proper, the West Bank, and Gaza? Yes, they do. Many of them live in the Arab world at large. An Arab world that pretty much doesn’t want them, and where they don’t feel welcome. Given the chance, most of them will leave, or be pushed out. Will they all go to the Palestinian state? Or if they were given the opportunity would they go to Israel where the economy is better? The point is that the poll at best tells us what Palestinians think now, when they don’t have the RoR, but are trying to convince the world that they should have it. It doesn’t tell us what they would do if Israel actually agreed to a RoR.

Second, according to the ICG Report:

According to the PSR poll, more than 95 per cent of respondents ‘insists on maintaining the ‘right of return’as a sacred right that can never be given up.” (ICG fn. 68, p. 11).

We are expected, then, to accept that even though the Palestinians can never give up the RoR, that they can, now and forever, give up the right to exercise the RoR. That’s just splitting the hair too thin to be believed.

The deeper problem is that RoR has not only huge symbolism for Palestinians, it’s a foundation of Palestinian national existence.

There are obvious historical reasons why the refugee question was and remains the most emotive permanent status issue for Palestinians – refugees and nonrefugees alike. It must be understood in its multiple dimensions: as a practical, material issue for refugees, who endure harsh living conditions in refugee camps or as second class citizens in third countries; as a political issue for those refugees who genuinely want to return to their homes or seek compensation for their losses; but also as an existential issue for the Palestinian people as a whole, the most compelling embodiment and expression of the Palestinians’ experience of dispossession and injustice. (ICG, p. 6).

Yes, there are lot’s of reasons why Palestinians want a RoR, but it’s the symbolism of it that is at the essence of the problem. ICG catches a bit of that with this statement:

Behind such sentiments expressed by refugees and non-refugees alike lies a powerful need for recognition that the Palestinians have suffered an historic injustice. It also reflects a continued reluctance to accept Israel’s legitimacy and its right to exist as a Jewish state – seen as tantamount to a retroactive legitimisation of their own dispossession – that is unlikely to be overcome in the foreseeable future. (ICG, p.11 ).

Yes the Palestinians believe (falsely) that they were all intentionally expelled by the Jews to create the Jewish state. However, the above relationship involves more than that false belief. In the Palestinian conception, RoR is intimately linked with the denial of Israel’s legitimacy. They demand the right of return as recognition of an historic injustice. As Efraim Karsh puts it:

Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Palestinians’ legal case, their foremost argument for a “right of return” has always rested on a claim of unprovoked victimhood. In the Palestinians’ account, they were and remain the hapless targets of a Zionist grand design to dispossess them from their land, a historical wrong for which they are entitled to redress. In the words of Mahmoud Abbas (a/k/a Abu Mazen), Yasir Arafat’s second-in-command and a chief architect of the 1993 Oslo accords: “When we talk about the right of return, we talk about the return of refugees to Israel, because Israel was the one who deported them.” (Commentary Magazine, May 2001; http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=252).

The problem is that the Palestinians aren’t innocent victims, and they know it. They know that they rejected compromise prior to the Partition Resolution. They know that they rejected any compromise that even hinted at allowing a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. They know that they rejected the Partition Resolution. They know that they were the ones who initiated the rioting that started after the Resolution was passed in November, 1947. They know that they were the ones who initiated attacks on buses and truck convoys in December of that year. They know that they were the ones who initiated large scale organized military attacks in January of 1948. They know that the war raging in Palestine between Jews and Arabs gave the surrounding Arab states the excuse to come in and destroy the Palestinian state before it could get started. They know that it was the Palestinians who started the war that made them refugees. The only way that they get out of responsibility for their own situation is because they believe that they were justified in starting the war because the Jews didn’t have the legitimate right to create a state in Palestine. That’s why accepting Israel’s legitmacy is , “seen as tantamount to a retroactive legitimisation of their own dispossession.” If the Jews had a legitimate right to create their state, then the Palestinian attacks on them were unjustified aggression, the Palestinians aren’t victims, and they aren’t entitled to a right of return, which is a huge foundation block of Palestinian national myth. Conversely, the demand for RoR is now seen as the physical expression of Israel’s mea culpa for being the reason that the Palestinians started the war that caused them to be refugees.

The Palestinians hesitate to accept Israel’s legitimacy; precisely because doing so would undercut their own. The Palestinian political ethos grew up around demanding the right of return which is itself based on, and intertwined with, delegitimizing the Jewish state. Today, the demand for RoR has become a surrogate for continuing the fight. The flip side of this for Israel is that accepting a RoR is tantamount to admitting to the world, and especially the Arab world, that Israel has no legitimacy. That’s why no sane Israeli government could ever agree to the RoR, even if the Palestinians solemnly agreed that not one of them would return. Unfortunately, as the ICG report indicates, the Palestinians have turned RoR into a zero sum game.

Given the above, the idea that RoR has changed based on Palestinian proposals to not actually return goes way beyond wishful thinking motivated by an, “It’s Israel’s fault” meme.

[shira]

21. Here's Omar Barghouti on RoR and his solution to the conflict

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10562.shtml

Now on the ground, back to your question, there is no political party in Palestine now or among Palestinians outside either calling for a secular, democratic one-state solution. Despite this, polls in the West Bank and Gaza have consistently in the last few years shown 25-30 percent support for a secular, democratic state. Two polls in 2007 showed two-thirds majority support for a single state solution in all flavors -- some of them think of a purely Palestinian state without Israelis and so on -- in exile it's even much higher because the main issue is that refugees in particular, and people fighting for refugee rights like I am, know that you cannot reconcile the right of return for refugees with a two state solution. That is the big white elephant in the room and people are ignoring it -- a return for refugees would end Israel's existence as a Jewish state. The right of return is a basic right that cannot be given away; it's inalienable. Â A two-state solution was never moral and it's no longer working -- it's impossible with all the Israeli settlements and so on. We need to move on to the more moral solution that treats everyone as equal under the law, whether they are Jewish-Israeli or Palestinian.

That would be full RoR in one state, not two.

But from the Amy Goodman debate, I particularly enjoyed this from him:

"So we’re reaching a stage where Israel is committing slow acts of genocide against 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza."

:eyes:

What a tool.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. I now support one binational and secular state with a full physical right of return...

You've convinced me, Shira!

[shira]

23. figures

[Violet_Crumble]

24. It shouldn't come as a shock to you as you always falsely accused me of doing so..

So now I've changed my mind and I do support the pure evil and illiberalness of one binational and secular state :)

[shira]

25. good for you

[Violet_Crumble]

26. It is. Supporting equal rights for all and secularism is so empowering! n/t

[proteus_lives]

33. Then you support never-ending conflict.....

[Violet_Crumble]

50. No, actually, I don't... n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

67. This discussion is so illuminating.

What we have now is never-ending conflict, only it does not disrupt the lives of too many Jewish Israelis, therefore it's quite acceptable.

Please just be clear about your position.

You support the status quo, because the side you support can still live pretty comfortably with it. If your side was locked in a 5 mile cage for a year, spent half their lives sitting at checkpoints, had random family members tossed into jail at a moments notice, and had land stolen at the point of a gun, I don't think you'd think the status quo was so groovy.

Fear not, Proteus, white practitioners of Jim Crow believed their lives would come crashing down, as did Afrikaaners. They survived the move to justice, and Jewish Israelis will too.

[aranthus]

27. Thanks for posting this.

It's also interesting to see Violet's response to it.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. And what do you find so interesting about my response?

Also curious to know what you've actually read on the subject of Right of Return that leads you to so totally simplify it that any utterance of the word sends you into a flurry of accusations that anyone who supports it is demonising Israel, anti-Jew etc etc...

[aranthus]

30. Because instead of admitting the truth or refutting it

you tried to make light of it by pretending to have been suddenly convinced that Barghouti was right. So which is it really? By the way, you mentioned that you posted some suggested reading about the right of return. If you did, I can't find it now. Would you mind reposting it?

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Sorry, but what's this truth I'm supposed to be admitting?

This may come as a shock to some, but Barghouti's opinion is his opinion, and not some authoritative definition when it comes to Right of Return....

The subject of right of return isn't a simple one, as there's been a lot written on it and most who support it do believe there can't be an unrestricted return of refugees because as you hinted at in one post, that would be a having the cake and eating it too sort of thing. During the Oslo era the PA formally accepted a negotiated resolution of the conflict and in doing so recognised there couldn't be an unrestricted right of return. Right of return is going to be a symbolic thing which will satisfy all parties that UN resolution 194 has been complied with, and will be made up of return of some refugees, compensation for others, and resettlement in other countries. This is a very reasonable sort of thing to wish to achieve, and it's why I strongly support the right of return.

Here's one really good publication about it and I hope you do read it as some of it's very interesting and goes into detail about the refugee quetion and right of return...

Palestinian Refugees and the Politics of Peacemaking

I'd also recommend a book called 'Palestinian refugees: mythology, identity, and the search for peace' by Robert Bowker, though it's a bit of a dry read and speaks more about the sense of identity of refugees. The book might be hard to find and expensive, but I found a huge chunk of it online, so you should have a read if only to have a laugh at me for paying over $80 for it back when I was studying and long before it was available online like this...

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=LOYtfyJFBIQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Palestinian+refugees:+myth+bowker&source=bl&ots=wHm8yV-NUn&sig=sPb4sa4VCpbNbxnaf9CkWOwtITk&hl=en&ei=tr-RS4CIFY_40wTW2dzkDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Palestinian%20refugees%3A%20myth%20bowker&f=false

[aranthus]

35. Two things

One. That, as Barghouti stated in the "debate" article that started this thread, the BDS movement is about, among other things, enforcing the right of return. Two. that as Barghouti makes clear in the post by shira, the Palestinian conception of the right of return is of the full right of return.

As to the two publications you posted. I have read the first one; the second will take some more time, and I haven't started it yet. As to the first, the Crisis Group makes some interesting points, but none that refute the fact that Palestinians conceive of the right of return as full right of return. More to the point, what the Crisis Group writes is irrelevant to the discussion. It can't speak authoritatively about what the Palestinian conception of the demand is (and they don't try to). They aren't Palestinian; certainly not Palestinian leaders. It's the Palestinians' demand. They get to define it; not western think tanks or writers. Likewise, the BDS movement is a Palestinian movement. They get to say what it's about. That's why Barghouti's opinion is important. As a Palestinian leader, and a leader of the BDS movement, he can speak with authority on the issue. The movement isn't about what Western supporters of the movement say it's about. BDS is about what the Palestinians say it's about. Barghouti says that it's, in part, about the right of return. Who are you to say he's wrong? That is incredibly presumptuous don't you think?

[shira]

40. The vast majority of Palestinians want full RoR and here's evidence

<snip>

"The depressing fact is that all the polls of Palestinians and all the statements of the leaders and all the documents of the PLO and the Fatah have been fairly consistent in giving negative replies to all the issues. The one ray of hope is that some surveys show that the Palestinian people would be willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but only provided that Israel accept Right of Return and give up all of East Jerusalem. This review will focus primarily on the issue of Right of Return, because it is the issue most studied in the polls, and it is the Palestinian demand with the most devastating consequences for Israel. Surveys almost never ask about giving up parts of the West Bank or any part of East Jerusalem. Almost all the results that show Palestinians support a "two state" solution assume in the questions that the "solution" includes right of return, and Israeli concession of all territories taken in 1967, including all of East Jerusalem. "

<snip>

http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000724.html

[aranthus]

47. I need to amend my statement.

I first said that it was the Palestinian understanding of RoR that mattered, not the Western understanding. That's in part because Israel has to make peace with the Palestinians, and not Western elites. It also has to make peace with the Arab World at large, so the understanding of RoR in the larger Arab world is important as well. However, I don't think that's really any different from the Palestinian understanding.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. You do realise that what Shira linked to wasn't true at all?

Just wondering if you picked up on that after reading the ICG publication...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

68. A blog post on ZIO-NATION is evidence of Palestinian beliefs and intentions? Only in your mind.

That's the problem with kicking people out instead of killing them. They don't go away. They don't quit. They have long memories. They don't let injustice die. Perhaps driving out 750,000 Palestinian people wasn't the smartest move in retrospect.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. I totally disagree with both points...

Firstly, the post by Shira didn't show that the Palestinian conception of the right of return is of the full right of return. It showed that Barghouti's may be...

Secondly, I'm not sure how you could have read through the ICG publication and come away from it having drawn the conclusion that Palestinians view the right of return as a full physical right of return. And excuse me, but what ICG writes is relevant to the discussion when that paper included polls showing things like only 10% of refugees polled want a full physical return (and note this doesn't mean just to Israel, but also includes to the future Palestinian state). Also, you not being a Palestinian either, don't get to sit there and pick and choose which Palestinian you think will represent all Palestinian thought on a subject. That's exactly like someone taking what Lieberman has to say as being representative of Israeli thought.

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. admittedly this is my own anecdotal experience

And not a scientific study, by any means. However having spent a great deal of my life in the Middle East, I have talked to a lot of Palestinians. I cannot even begin to guess how many. I would say that almost all would agree in principle with a full right of return. However, there is always a difference between what most people believe as a matter of principle and what one believes is realistic and plausible.

For that matter all the world's leading human rights organizations support the right of return. And In spite of efforts to explain it away, UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948 really is quite clear:

11. Resolves that the 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 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;

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C758572B78D1CD0085256BCF0077E51A

However Palestinian, at least the vast majority are realist. The ones I have talked to understand full well that a fully implemented full right of return is not plausible. They do understand that compensation, resettlement in third countries for those who need and want such assistance, a certain negotiated number resettled inside of Israel, resettlement of those who wish so inside a new Palestinian state and a public acknowledgment by the State of Israel of the injustice done to them - This is the realistic and pragmatic hope to which most aspire.

There is also an awareness that with international humanitarian law and U.N. General Assembly resolutions on the side of right of return, this is a huge bargaining chip which can be employed to address other issues.

Even the Arab Peace Plan which has been endorsed by all 22 members of the Arab League and 57 members of the Organization of Islamic conference states:

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

http://www.al-bab.com/Arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

[ProgressiveMuslim]

69. I am interested in the way Israel's supporters interpret this. What are they afraid of?

Are they afraid that if they implement Right of Return, it will be admitting to the crimes they committed in the '40's?
Are they afraid that 100s of 1000s of Palestinians will swarm back and tip the demographic balance?

What specifically are they so afraid of that they feel this single move toward justice would undo their entry country? That's a lot of emotional fear tied up in that!


It would be fascinating to do a world-wide poll of Palestinians in the diaspora to find out how they would respond if provided full right of return, including the option of actual physical return. I think it would depend greatly on where the Palestinians were.

My husband's family moved from Khan Younis Camp to another part of town. No way would they return. My husband would not return. How Palestinians in camps in Jordan and Lebanon would respond would be interesting.

One thing we WOULD take advantage of would be the ability to travel in and out. It would be great to be able to go see our relatives, visit the holy sites, etc.

[oberliner]

70. Poll from 2003 suggests that 100s of 1000s would move to Israel from Lebanon, Jordan, and

the West Bank and Gaza. The highest percentage being from Lebanon.

From the survey:

The number of those wishing to exercise the same right of by returning to Israel from the three areas under examination would be 373,673.

The vast majority of them said they would not want Israeli citizenship.

Of those who said they would return to Israel, approximately 40 percent of them said that they would not respect applicable Israeli law and would not live in peace in Israel.

[shira]

71. so roughly 150,000 refugees or 40% want to return to Israel in order not to live in peace

what could go wrong?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

72. Well, the Israeli gov't manages many more illegal, non-law abiding settlers. Piece of cake! nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

73. So Oberliner, can you spell out what about that data frightens you so? nt

[oberliner]

75. "Said that they would not respect applicable Israeli law and would not live in peace in Israel"

That part is disturbing.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

76. What does that even mean?

[oberliner]

80. Here is the question

If you decide to return to Israel (areas of 1948) and obtain the Israeli citizenship, do you accept to live in peace in the Jewish state and respect the applicable Israeli laws?

[azurnoir]

37. Editing to change the meaning again Shira

the full quote with the first part which you did not post

I must clarify that the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement takes no position on the shape of the political solution. It adopts a rights-based, not solutions-based, approach. I am completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land and therefore, we have to accommodate both national rights. I am completely opposed to that, but it would take me too long to explain why, so I will stick to the model I support, which is a secular, democratic state: one person, one vote -- regardless of ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, and so on and so forth ... Full equality under the law with the inclusion of the refugees -- this must be based on the right of return for Palestinian refugees. In other words, a secular, democratic state that accommodates our inalienable rights as Palestinians with the acquired rights of Israeli Jews as settlers. Why do I see this as the main solution? Morally, it's obviously the most moral solution because it treats people as equals, the two-state solution is not only impossible now -- Israel has made it an absolute pipe dream that cannot happen -- it is an immoral solution. At best, it would address some of the rights of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, while ignoring the majority of Palestinians -- those in exile, the refugees, as well as the Palestinian citizens of Israel. There are three segments of the Palestinian people -- unless you address the basic requirements of justice for all three segments than we will not have exercised our right to self-determination. The only way that we can exercise our right to self-determination, without imposing unnecessary injustice on our oppressors, is to have a secular, democratic state where nobody is thrown into the sea, nobody is sent back to Poland, and nobody is left in refugee camps. We can coexist ethically with our rights given back to us.

Now on the ground, back to your question, there is no political party in Palestine now or among Palestinians outside either calling for a secular, democratic one-state solution. Despite this, polls in the West Bank and Gaza have consistently in the last few years shown 25-30 percent support for a secular, democratic state. Two polls in 2007 showed two-thirds majority support for a single state solution in all flavors -- some of them think of a purely Palestinian state without Israelis and so on -- in exile it's even much higher because the main issue is that refugees in particular, and people fighting for refugee rights like I am, know that you cannot reconcile the right of return for refugees with a two state solution. That is the big white elephant in the room and people are ignoring it -- a return for refugees would end Israel's existence as a Jewish state. The right of return is a basic right that cannot be given away; it's inalienable. Â A two-state solution was never moral and it's no longer working -- it's impossible with all the Israeli settlements and so on. We need to move on to the more moral solution that treats everyone as equal under the law, whether they are Jewish-Israeli or Palestinian.

[shira]

41. another baseless accusation by you....what was taken out of context?

This guy is for a one-state solution and full RoR.

You wish to defend that?

[azurnoir]

43. so you are against a Democratic state

where all of the inhabitants have equal rights? No surprise there

[shira]

45. an election that puts the PLO or Hamas into power in one democratic Israelstine would be disastrous

As soon as that happens, end of democracy.

No thanks.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. But there's extremists in power in Israel right now and it's still a democracy...

I don't consider the PA to be extremist like Lieberman and co are, so if democracy can still exist in Israel with extremists in positions of power, why wouldn't it exist if the PA were in power?

[shira]

56. you "don't consider the PA to be extremist like Lieberman and co are..."

:rofl:

Quote of the day.

As disgusting as Lieberman is, the PA makes him look progressive in comparison.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Actually, the PA isn't extremist...

And seeing the point I was making (which you totally ignored) was that there's currently extremists in power in Israel yet you wouldn't try to claim it wasn't a democracy, maybe you could explain why you think democracy wouldn't exist with Palestinian extremists but still exists with Israeli extremists?

[shira]

60. the PLO/Fatah is very extremist

Really, do you have any idea what Arafat and Abbas did while in Lebanon? Anyone knowing what went on there wouldn't argue that democracy (with the full civil/human rights package) would exist with the PLO/Fatah in charge.

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/hobeika_damour/hobeika_damour.html

[Violet_Crumble]

61. The PA is not extremist...

And seeing the point I was making (which you totally ignored) was that there's currently extremists in power in Israel yet you wouldn't try to claim it wasn't a democracy, maybe you could explain why you think democracy wouldn't exist with Palestinian extremists but still exists with Israeli extremists?

Just wondering how long you can go totally ignoring the question you were asked a few posts ago...

[shira]

62. Read the link in that last post about Arafat and Abbas' legacy in Lebanon

I'm not sure - other than complete and total ignorance or delusion - why you think voting in Hamas, the PLO, or Al-Qaeda is not that much different than voting in Lieberman and his goons.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. And yet again you've totally ignored the question you were asked

So here it is yet again...

And seeing the point I was making (which you totally ignored) was that there's currently extremists in power in Israel yet you wouldn't try to claim it wasn't a democracy, maybe you could explain why you think democracy wouldn't exist with Palestinian extremists but still exists with Israeli extremists?

Just wondering how long you can go totally ignoring the question you were asked a few posts ago...



Also, the PA is not extremist. It's considered by most to be moderate, which is why Israel deems it suitable to negotiate with...

[shira]

64. the answer - which should be obvious to you

Have you noticed what happens when certain elements are voted in democratically to power?

Germany 1930s, Gaza 2005, Iran's "democratic" elections....

All disasters.

Those organizations gaining power didn't renounce their twisted goals beforehand. They used democracy to gain power and once in they made certain they stayed in power and accomplished their twisted goals. As bad as Lieberman is, he's nowhere near in ideology to that espoused in the Fatah charter. The PLO already has a record of rule - when they were a state within a state in Jordan, to Lebanon, and in the Palestinian territories. They don't even try to pretend to run on a platform of Western civil/human rights. The depravity that they advocate is the complete opposite.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. How about answering the question you were asked...

I'll bold it for you so hopefully this time you'll give me an answer to the question I actually asked you:

'And seeing the point I was making (which you totally ignored) was that there's currently extremists in power in Israel yet you wouldn't try to claim it wasn't a democracy, maybe you could explain why you think democracy wouldn't exist with Palestinian extremists but still exists with Israeli extremists?'

Do you understand the question? I'm not asking you to rank extremists as I don't give a shit who you think is more extreme than who. I asked you to explain why Israeli extremists are considered by you to be capable of being democratic, but not Arabs...

And yet again, the PA aren't extremists. What are you failing to comprehend about the fact that they're actually moderates and considered so by Israel which is why Israel agrees to negotiate with them? Is everyone else but you wrong?

[azurnoir]

79. So based on that are you against any peace talks

with the current Palestinian leaders?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

81. They did NOTHING compared to what extremist-led Israel did in Lebanon.

How will we ever negotiate with them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila

The Sabra and Shatila massacre (Arabic: مذبحة صبرا وشاتيلا‎ Maḏbaḥat Ṣabrā wa Shātīlā) — or Sabra and Chatila massacre — was a massacre of Palestinian and Lebanese Muslim civilians carried out between 16 and 18 September 1982 by the Christian Lebanese Forces militia group, following the assassination of Phalangist leader and president-elect Bachir Gemayel. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF), who surrounded Beirut's Palestinian refugee camps after having invaded Lebanon, allowed the Lebanese Forces militia to enter two of these refugee camps, Sabra and Shatila (33°51′40.47″N 35°30′01.50″E / 33.8612417°N 35.500417°E / 33.8612417; 35.500417). The exact number killed by the Lebanese Forces militia is disputed, with estimates commonly in the neighborhood of 3,500.<2>

[oberliner]

82. Lebanese people committed this massacre nt

[Violet_Crumble]

83. The IDF allowed them into the camp knowing full well what they'd do..

Not sure why you'd ignore that important bit...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

85. My point is that Shira needs a reality check.

However, her disclosure about Fatah is quite illuminating. I think it goes to the point that many pro-Zionists who post here really don't believe in making peace with ANY Palestinian.

As for Israel in Lebanon, having others into doing your murdering for you is worse....as history has shown time and again, don't you agree?

[oberliner]

87. Phalangists and Palestinians had been massacring each other in Lebanon well before 1982

The murders and massacres that occurred on both sides of the Civil War in Lebanon in 1976 were certainly not "done for Israel" nor were the massacres committed by Lebanese forces in 1982.

[Douglas Carpenter]

89. it is not arguable that the IDF allowed the Phalangist into the two camps knowing full well what

would likely happen.

In 1982, an independent commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that the Israeli authorities or forces were involved directly or indirectly in the massacres at Sabra and Shatila.<5> The Israeli government established the Kahan Commission to investigate, and in early 1983 it found Israel indirectly responsible for the event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

Robert Fisk who was the first western journalist to enter Sabra and Chatila camps gives this assessment which was originally published in the Independent:

All the Israelis knew what had happened inside the camps. The smell of the corpses was now overpowering. Outside, a Phalangist jeep with the words "Military Police" painted on it--if so exotic an institution could be associated with this gang of murderers--drove by. A few television crews had turned up. One filmed the Lebanese Christian militiamen outside the Cite Sportif. He also filmed a woman pleading to an Israeli army colonel called "Yahya" for the release of her husband. (The colonel has now been positively identified by The Independent. Today, he is a general in the Israeli army.)

Along the main road opposite the stadium there was a line of Israeli Merkava tanks, their crews sitting on the turrets, smoking, watching the men being led from the stadium in ones or twos, some being set free, others being led away by Shin Beth men or by Lebanese men in drab khaki overalls. All these soldiers knew what had happened inside the camps. One of the members of the tank crews, Lt Avi Grabovsky--he was later to testify to the Israeli Kahan commission--had even witnessed the murder of several civilians the previous day and had been told not to "interfere".

And in the days that followed, strange reports reached us. A girl had been dragged from a car in Damour by Phalangist militiamen and taken away, despite her appeals to a nearby Israeli soldier. Then the cleaning lady of a Lebanese woman who worked for a US television chain complained bitterly that Israelis had arrested her husband. He was never seen again. There were other vague rumours of "disappeared" people.

I wrote in my notes at the time that "even after Chatila, Israel's 'terrorist' enemies were being liquidated in West Beirut". But I had not directly associated this dark conviction with the Cite Sportif. I had not even reflected on the fearful precedents of a sports stadium in time of war. Hadn't there been a sports stadium in Santiago a few years before, packed with prisoners after Pinochet's coup d'etat, a stadium from which many prisoners never returned?

Among the testimonies gathered by lawyers seeking to indict Ariel Sharon for war crimes is that of Wadha al-Sabeq. On Friday, 17 September 1982, she said, while the massacre was still (unknown to her) underway inside Sabra and Chatila, she was in her home with her family in Bir Hassan, just opposite the camps. "Neighbours came and said the Israelis wanted to stamp our ID cards, so we went downstairs and we saw both Israelis and Lebanese Forces on the road. The men were separated from the women." This separation--with its awful shadow of similar separations at Srebrenica during the Bosnian war--were a common feature of these mass arrests. "We were told to go to the Cite Sportif. The men stayed put." Among the men were Wadha's two sons, 19-year-old Mohamed and 16-year-old Ali and her brother Mohamed. "We went to the Cite Sportif, as the Israelis told us," she says. "I never saw my sons or brother again."

The survivors tell distressingly similar stories. Bahija Zrein says she was ordered by an Israeli patrol to go to the Cite Sportif and the men with her, including her 22-year-old brother, were taken away. Some militiamen--watched by the Israelis--loaded him into a car, blindfolded, she claims. "That's how he disappeared," she says in her official testimony, "and I have never seen him again since."

It was only a few days afterwards that we journalists began to notice a discrepancy in the figures of dead. While up to 600 bodies had been found inside Sabra and Chatila, 1,800 civilians had been reported as "missing". We assumed--how easy assumptions are in war--that they had been killed in the three days between 16 September 1982 and the withdrawal of the Phalangist killers on the 18th, that their corpses had been secretly buried outside the camp. Beneath the golf course, we suspected. The idea that many of these young people had been murdered outside the camps or after the 18th, that the killings were still going on while we walked through the camps, never occurred to us.

....

Why did we not think of this at the time? The following year, the Israeli Kahan commission published its report, condemning Sharon but ending its own inquiry of the atrocity on 18 September, with just a one-line hint--unexplained-- that several hundred people may have "disappeared" at about the same time. The commission interviewed no Palestinian survivors but it was allowed to become the narrative of history. The idea that the Israelis went on handing over prisoners to their bloodthirsty militia allies never occurred to us. The Palestinians of Sabra and Chatila are now giving evidence that this is exactly what happened. One man, Abdel Nasser Alameh, believes his brother Ali was handed to the Phalange on the morning of the 18th. A Palestinian Christian woman called Milaneh Boutros has recorded how, in a truck-load of women and children, she was taken from the camps to the Christian town of Bikfaya, the home of the newly assassinated Christian president-elect Bashir Gemayel, where a grief-stricken Christian woman ordered the execution of a 13-year-old boy in the truck. He was shot. The truck must have passed at least four Israeli checkpoints on its way to Bikfaya. And heaven spare me, I realise now that I had even met the woman who ordered the boy's execution.

Even before the slaughter inside the camps had ended, Shahira Abu Rudeina says she was taken to the Cite Sportif where, in one of the underground "holding centres", she saw a retarded man, watched by Israeli soldiers, burying bodies in a pit. Her evidence might be rejected were it not for the fact that she also expressed her gratitude for an Israeli soldier--inside the Chatila camp, against all the evidence given by the Israelis--who prevented the murder of her daughters by the Phalange.

Long after the war, the ruins of the Cite Sportif were torn down and a brand new marble stadium was built in its place, partly by the British. Pavarotti has sung there. But the testimony of what may lie beneath its foundations--and its frightful implications--might give Ariel Sharon further reason to fear an indictment.



http://www.counterpunch.org/fisksabra.html

[ProgressiveMuslim]

90. Oberliner seems to prefer Shira's version of history. nt

[oberliner]

91. Tell me your version of 1976 in Lebanon

Damour, for example.

[oberliner]

92. No argument here

But one should be aware of who did the killing and why. It wasn't Israel and it wasn't done "for Israel".

[Douglas Carpenter]

93. I believe that in this, case the term - LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose)

is a fair description.

[azurnoir]

78. Many Afrikaners said similar things n/t

[FarrenH]

86. Its interesting how often your arguments

against justice and rights guaranteed by international treaty are premised on "my crystal ball says". And how your crystal ball always premises its opinions on the idea of Palestinians being inherently violent and destructive, even when their rights are respected.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. No, it's not total bullshit...

The Occupied Territories aren't Israel and aren't the Jewish homeland, and the system there can quite rightly be described as a form of colonial rule. It is reminiscent of apartheid because there's two totally separate systems, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians. And it is racist because Arabs are a race. So, now that we've got past the little niggly bits, let me make one thing very clear to you. If Barghouti wants as you claim, I really see no difference between him and those who insist that Israeli settlers have a right to be in the West Bank...

Also, isn't demonising Israel kind of antisemitic? Curious to know yr thoughts on whether you think demonising Israel is bigoted or not...

[ConsAreLiars]

59. Damn, you really need a reality check, or something.

Colonial rule: Those who used terrorism to settle in that land came from Europe and they have controlled as much of the land mass as possible ever since arriving. Claiming some religion/tribal based title makes about as much sense as me claiming the right to steal land in Africa because humans originated on that continent.

Apartheid: It is the same both within and in the occupied territories. SA never denied all political and civil rights, only some. Just like Israel

Israel denies some rights to Arabs in Israel, just as SA did for those not confined to Bantustans, something sort of comparable but even worse to those in the WB (Bantustans were able develop some sort of independent economy, and they never set up checkpoints, walls and such within them) and it is far, far worse in Gaza, where basic necessities are being denied in a systematic policy iof collective punishment, a crime against humanity. SA killed thousands of those fighting for human rights, sent hit squads after the ANC and all that, just as Israel does, but Israel not only does the same but uses bombs, artillery, bulldozers and any means to destroy the homes, industries, and infrastructure within the 'two Bantustans' but anywhere Palestinians live and are not wanted within the area the claim as Israel.

Not the same. Worse.

Racism: OK, call it tribalism, nationalism, ethnic supremacism or whatever. The practice is one of treating one group as superior and the other as something less than human and using that belief system as support for oppressing and brutalizing is the same regardless of the label, and a fact. Both do this, but Israel is far better at it. The casualty numbers put Israel as 100 times 'better' in this competition.


And, contending for the 'Asinine-Reasoning Double-Standard Dumbfuckery Award,' you claim in the same post that Jews whose ancestors left around 2000 years ago or maybe some hundreds of years have more right to 'return' than those who left or were driven out dozens of years ago.

[aranthus]

4. Not a real debate at all.

Real debate is founded on truth, and there was precious little in this exchange. For example, in his opening remarks Rabbi Waskow takes as the basis of the discussion that the issue is how best to end the occupation. The problem is that Omar Barghouti has explained just before that, that the goals of the BDS are NOT merely the end of the occupation; that it's also about enforcing the right of return (which Barghouti claims is a good thing, and that effectively ending the Jewish state isn't demonizing Israel or anti-Jewish). While Rabbi Waskow does argue that BDS demonizes Israeli society, he ignores the major problem; that the demonization directly derives from the goals of the movement in the first place. So what we have here is a conversation between Rabbi Waskow's misrepresentation of what the BDS is about, and Barghouti's misrepresentation of what the BDS means. Only in the fantasyland of Democracy Now could two men talking past each other's fabricated realities be called a debate.

[pelsar]

5. the most interesting paragraph....

the trouble with the BDS, across-the-board sanctions and boycotts and so on, vis-à-vis Israel is that it demonizes Israeli society. It does not say there is an Israeli government which is behaving badly, and therefore we need to bring pressure to bear on the Israeli government, as, by the way, and not so by the way, the folks who actually did the Gaza Freedom voyage found that when they got into Gaza, Hamas acted unjustly and repressively toward them. It didn’t want them to make contact with the Palestinians of Gaza, the real folks in the streets. So there is not just the demonization of a whole people and the sanctification of another people. The Israeli government, overwhelmingly, some Palestinian leaders, less powerfully, because they have less power, are acting unjustly and oppressively. And that’s where the focus needs to be. BDS demonizes a whole society

outside of that BDS obviously avoids taking into consideration the concerns of israelis....and of course the classic "slow genocide" and the criminal seige of gaza without mentioning egypt.......like the rabbi wrote: BDS demonizes a whole society.

they wont get much support from israelis, but then were not their audience...we don't even rate a mention.....guess were one of those 'subhumans"..that gets mentioned here
---

having reread it...i realize its basic subtext is to delegitimize israel as country...its institutions etc

[aranthus]

10. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the Rabbi,

but he seems to be saying that the BDS is the wrong tactic to seek a good end. The problem that I see is that the end he seeks (and with which I agree) is not the same end sought by the BDS movement. By ignoring that, he misses the elephant in the room. The problem is not that the BDS movement unfairly demonizes Israel on the way to achieving a worthy goal, such as Palestinian statehood. The problem is that demonizing Israel is the point of the BDS movement. It's ultimate goal is the replacement of Israel with an Arab state. Of course it's going to demonize Israeli society.

[shira]

11. of course demonizing Israel is the point and the goal is to eliminate Israel

Here is an article for you that really makes the case for what you just wrote...
http://sadredearth.com/the-malice-of-mondoweiss/

And here's the conclusion about those who run Mondoweiss, which corresponds to your theory...

What more can we say? That – though I would disagree myself with almost all of the judgments – out of humanistic sympathy for Palestinian aspirations and suffering through all these years of conflict, Mondoweiss advocates for greater Israeli compassion in its ascendency? That it seeks more humane treatment toward Palestinians in administration of road-blocks and check points? That it seeks, even, a unilateral end to all of the partial and periodic “occupations” prior to any other agreement on disputed issues? That it argues for the constructive role that might be played by the complete opening of the Gaza borders? That it believes the recent Gaza conflict (and probably, then, by reasoned extension, every other Israeli military action over the decades that was not an immediate defensive response to a conventional attack by a national army) was misguided and excessive? That it believes the West Bank settlements – just as the Gaza settlements, now unilaterally dismantled – are illegal and immoral and need to be removed as a basis for a just settlement, leading to the willingness of an empowered Palestinian authority to agree, for the first time, to exchange land for peace and to recognize a Jewish state of Israel while gaining a Palestinian state?

Can we say all this of Mondoweiss? No, we cannot. Not really. For while Mondoweiss may at times espouse these positions, none of them are the end it seeks to serve, not even the ultimate end of a just settlement and a lasting peace. In conflict, a just settlement recognizes the legitimate desires of all parties, not the moral claim of only one. But the active agents behind Mondoweiss do not believe that Israel, or the Jewish people in relation to Israel, has just desires. Horowitz does not support the existence of a Jewish state. Blumenthal, like him, believes that Zionism (Jewish nationalism) – in apparent contradistinction to any other nationalism – is inherently racist. Weiss, a deeply anti-Semitic work in progress, in his haziest, most narcotic fantasy of peace, envisions as its ecstatic end not the peace, but the end of Israel.

The cause of Mondoweiss is not a settlement of grievances. It is not peace. The cause Mondoweiss serves, the position it espouses, is that of the most unreconstructed, unrelenting, and agonistic of all Palestinian positions and causes – and end to a Jewish state in its ancient homeland. It is a position, coming from Mondoweiss no less than from any Palestinian – or Israeli in reverse – that will further not the interests of peace, but the continuation of conflict, and of the suffering of all, especially Palestinian suffering, over which Mondoweiss hearts purport to bleed.

This is the malice of Mondoweiss.

Read the whole article.

[aranthus]

12. True.

My point went further, however. The so called debate was a bit of a sham, because the purported anti side (Rabbi Waskow) ignored that all important fact. It's like arguing that while deposing Stalin is a good thing, the invasion of the Soviet Union had the unfortunate side effect that some Russians got killed (when wholesale slaughtering them was the point of the exercise). It excuses the evil by ignoring it.

Great article. Thanks for posting it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

77. So interesting that you guys feel "demonized" by this.

YOu (Israeli citizens) are unwilling or unable to get your often vaulted democratic jewel of a gov't to behave morally and legally.

What do you expect?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

94. Pelsar, can you think of a more effective way to motivate Israeli citizens to change the status quo?

BDS doesn't demonize individuals. It demonizes unconscionable government practices and policy.

[pelsar]

96. and israeli institutions.....

israelis are rather active politically and for the most part identify with their govt and its institutions...for all their imperfections. This is generally considered a good thing when it comes to societies. BDS is pushing for their replacement, i.e. replacing the state. For many this is the ultimate goal, what was not successful in 48,67, 73 by military means, can perhaps be done politicaly.

but its not going to happen. The attacks simply dont work to *motivate israeli citizens no matter how much you wish for it. Its been over 60 years using the same tactic....

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Middle East Peace: Ground Truths, Challenges Ahead,

Sorry to piggyback, but the mods locked this when I posted it, so I'll stick it here...

Testimony by Robert Malley, Middle East and North Africa Program Director, International Crisis Group to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “Middle East Peace: Ground Truths, Challenges Ahead”.

Mr. Chairman: First, let me express my appreciation to you for the invitation to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In the seventeen years since it was first launched, the peace process has gone through times that were better and through times that were worse, but none that were more complex, confusing or contradictory as today. That is because of late so much that had been relatively stable -- in terms of the character of local actors, shape of the regional landscape and assessment of the U.S. role -- has undergone dramatic shifts. Only a handful of these recent transformations need mention: the death of Yasser Arafat, father of Palestinian nationalism, and incapacitation of Ariel Sharon, Israel's last heroic leader; Fatah's crisis; Hamas's electoral triumph and takeover in Gaza; the 2006 Lebanon and 2008 Gaza wars, which shook Israel's confidence and bolstered that of Islamist militants; the failure of the Abbas-Olmert talks; U.S. regional setbacks in Iraq and diplomatic disengagement elsewhere; Iran's increased influence; and the growing role of other regional players. This is not a mere change in scenery. It is a new world. As the ground beneath the peace process has shifted, U.S. efforts have yet to fully adjust.

This hearing is entitled "Ground Truths, Challenges Ahead", and there could not have been more fitting title. Only by taking a sober, honest look at where things stand today might we have an opportunity to overcome the challenges and begin to reshape the region in ways that serve our national interests.

1.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset it is important to acknowledge several stark, uncomfortable realities.

Among Palestinians, the national movement, once embodied by Fatah and led by Arafat, is in deep crisis, weakened, fragmented and without a compass. Fatah is divided, lacking a clear political program, prey to competing claims to privilege and power. Rival sources of authority have multiplied. Mahmoud Abbas is President, though his term has expired; he heads the PLO, though the Organization's authority has long waned. Salam Fayyad, the effective and resourceful Prime Minister, cannot govern in Gaza and, in the West Bank, must govern over much of Fatah's objection. Hamas has grown into a national and regional phenomenon, and it now has Gaza solidly in its hands. But the Islamist movement itself is at an impasse -- besieged in Gaza, suppressed in the West Bank, at odds with most Arab states, with little prospect for Palestinian reconciliation and with internal divisions coming to the fore. Meanwhile, diaspora Palestinians -- once the avant-garde of the national movement -- are seeking to regain their place, frustrated at feeling marginalized, angered by what they see as the West Bankers' single-minded focus on their own fate.

Both symptom and cause of Palestinian frailty, foreign countries -- Arab, Western and other -- are wielding greater influence and in greater numbers. All of which leaves room for doubt whether the Palestinian national movement, as it currently stands, can confidently and effectively conduct negotiations for a final peace agreement, sell a putative agreement to its people, and, if popularly endorsed, make it stick. There is insufficient consensus over fateful issues, but also over where decisions should be made, by whom and how.

To this must be added more recent travails: the Goldstone affair, which damaged President Abbas's personal credibility; the U.S. administration's course correction on a settlements freeze, which undercut Palestinian as well as Arab trust in America; and steps as well as pronouncements by the Israeli government, which depleted what faith remained in Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The backdrop, of course, is seventeen years of a peace process that has yielded scant results, not a few of them negative, and has eroded confidence in negotiations as a means of achieving national goals. The Palestinian people, as much as its political elite, sees no real alternative option, and so for now will persist on this path. The acceptance of indirect talks, after some hesitation and after rejecting their direct version, is the latest indication. But the acceptance is grudging rather than heartfelt, and resigned rather than hopeful. They are hoping for guarantees now, a sense that talks will not last forever even as facts on the ground change in their disfavor.



In far less pronounced fashion, Israel too has witnessed a fragmentation of its political landscape. Endemic government weakness and instability as well as deepening social splits have combined with the rise of increasingly powerful settler and religious constituencies. Together, these developments call into question the state’s ability to achieve, let alone carry out, an agreement that would entail the uprooting of tens of thousands of West Bank settlers.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6560&l=1

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

39. that should be read by everyone here...

probably the most comprehensive, objective, realistic article i have read in a long time that takes into account much of the real motivations and political realities of the players and their societies....

very good post

[shira]

42. agreed - it is a good article

[ProgressiveMuslim]

74. I particularly like the calls to end to the siege, and to "allow" Palestinian reconciliation. nt

[LeftishBrit]

46. Very interesting article...

I don't know why it would have got locked; but thank you for re-posting it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

88. Having listened to the entire podcast... the Rabbi never addresses the primary stumbling block to

his approach: the US does not now, and never can, control Israel's policy!

He so distinguishes the Israeli gov't from the Israeli people that he doesn't recognize that the gov't has the support of the electorate!

I just can't imagine that this rabbi truly thinks that US pressure is the magical solution to this problem.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

95. I would really love to discuss the Rabbi's position, if anyone here shares it! nt