Why the Right of Return Matters to Palestinians

My father’s family is from a Palestinian town named Atteel that lies a few kilometers north of the West Bank city of Tulkarem. In 1948, as Zionist gangs set about ethnically cleansing most of Palestine, they did not succeed in eradicating our village. Today, the town lies in the West Bank, just east of the Green Line—the virtual separation line between the West Bank and “Israel proper”. Some of Atteel’s agricultural land was not as lucky—it fell on the other side of the partition and now forms part of the state of Israel. My grandfather had orange groves there that went to Israel, and are now owned by the Jewish National Fund, and can only be given to Jews. Any person claiming to be Jewish from anywhere in the world can travel to Israel, receive an Israeli passport and be given that land by the Israeli government at a subsidized price. Meanwhile, my cousins and I, some of whom live meters away from that land are not even allowed to set foot on it. Such is real estate in “The Only Democracy in the Middle East.”

Whenever peace is discussed, the majority of Israelis and westerners (and many Arabs) automatically assume that in order for there to be peace, the Palestinians need to give up their right of return. Israel has to remain a Jewish state, they argue, and giving Palestinians a right to return would mean no more Jewish majority, which would bring about a system of governance not based on religious exclusivity. It always amuses me when people make this argument with a straight face. Instead of ethnic cleansing and expulsion—an unquestionable evil—being used as an argument against a religiously exclusive racist state, the presence of the religiously exclusive racist state is used as an excuse for the propagation of ethnic cleansing and expulsion.

The problem that any secular or humanist (or even rational) person would have with the idea of a religious state is that it is a recipe for disaster, conflict and oppression. Never in history has a religious state not led to massive bloodshed. In Israel, this is obviously true: to set up a Jewish state in a land that was predominantly non-Jewish, the Zionist movement’s terrorist gangs had to undertake an enormous premeditated program of ethnic cleansing that murdered thousands and displaced almost a million Palestinians from their homes, for no reason other than that they believed in the wrong god. Israel then destroyed their homes (and some 400 of their villages) and denied them their right to return to them. Ilan Pappe has recently published a book detailing and documenting the elaborate nature of these crimes, how their planning started in the late 1930’s and how cynical and ruthless their execution was.

That monstrous crime against humanity had to be carried out in order to establish a religiously exclusive state should give us pause to think about the desirability of having any religiously-exclusive state, especially in a place as religiously diverse as historic Palestine, and especially considering that this state has not stopped expanding its territory until today, as can be attested by the increasing building of religiously-exclusive colonies in the West Bank. Instead, many people are hypocritical and racist enough to state that this crime needs to be continued, with millions denied their right to return, in order to save the existence of this religiously-exclusive racist state.

That the right of return is legal is not something even worth arguing, it is fully and comprehensively established in international law and UN resolutions. That it is necessary for many Palestinians to return to their home can be seen from the terrible conditions in which many refugees live in countries surrounding Palestine. Getting these lands back will be what these people need to lift them out of the horrible poverty of exile in which they have lived for 60 years. These vital uncontroversial issues are not the points I want to make today. Even if one were to ignore them, the right of return remains vital, and we as Palestinians should continue to cling to this inalienable right after almost 60 years, since it is the only commendable and honorable thing to do, and it is the only path to achieve a true and comprehensive peace.

In my case, I would be lying if I said I needed these orange groves. My grandfather has 56 descendants spread out all over the world, and splitting these lands is unlikely to give any of us a large amount of land or money. Yet that does not in any way diminish my determination to fight until my last day for these lands, and all my cousins all over the world think similarly. In order to understand this “unreasonable” demagogical clinging to old pieces of land, it might be instructive to contrast it with another famous case of someone "unreasonably" refusing to give up something which a racist authority had told them they were not entitled to.

When Rosa Parks got on a bus in Montgomery and was asked to move to the back of the bus, she refused. It was an honorable stance in the face of incredible racism. This, as is well known, led to an invigoration of the civil rights movement and mobilized the masses to the streets until they were victorious and segregation was abolished all over the south.

After abolishing segregation, Rosa Parks may have never taken a bus, or sat in the front of it. Her descendants may never think about where they sit when they board a bus, if they ever take one. Everyone would agree that the problem with segregation is not with the mere act of sitting in the front of a bus, it is about living in a society that bans people from sitting in the front of the bus based on their race. This is equally a problem for someone who takes the bus every day and someone who never takes it.

The same people who tell me I am being unreasonable clinging on to my grandfather’s land, should surely have told Rosa Parks that she was unreasonable clinging on to the seat in the front of the bus. After all, a lot of protests, riots, clashes and lynchings resulted from the civil rights movement, surely, it would’ve been better for the sake of “peace” for Rosa Parks to have compromised and moved to the back of the bus. Similarly, a lot of resistance, fighting and murder resulted from Palestinians not giving up their right of return and it would’ve been better for the sake of “peace” for Palestinians to have compromised and forgotten their homes and lands. This, of course, is equally nonsensical in both cases.

However, most people who tell me to forget my land in Palestine would never be caught dead saying Rosa Parks was unreasonable. But the blatant hypocrisy is still lost on them. Why is it that in one case, blacks should not give up a seat on a bus because of their race, while Palestinians should give up their own lands, homes and villages on which they and their ancestors have lived for millennia because of their religion (or lack thereof)?

The way to end racial conflict in the American South was not for Rosa Parks and blacks to give up their rights to the front of the bus and ‘let everyone live in peace’, but by ending the system that denies someone the right to sit in a certain part of a bus depending on their skin color. Similarly, peace in Palestine will not come when Palestinians give up their right to own a piece of land because of the religion to which they were born; but rather, when we abolish the system that assigns plots of lands, houses and villages to people based on what version of god they believe in.

I will never consider there to be peace in Palestine so long as I can visit my grandfather’s house in Atteel and look a few kilometers west to see my land that I can not visit, own, or sell. The day I can reclaim that land, I will visit it once, savor the feeling, and the very next day, I’ll sell my share of it to the highest bidder regardless of their religion, race or ethnicity, and donate the money to an educational institute that will teach the children of Palestine, regardless of their religion, race or ethnicity about the importance of equality and justice, about Rosa Parks, and about how peace could never be achieved on the basis of racist exclusion, whether it be from the front of a bus or from an orange grove.

Comments

[dkmy]

As an avid 3QD reader, I am extremely disappointed in the recent articles appearing here relating to the Israeli -Palestinian conflict - starting from the 7/14 post "Hamas, In Its Own Words to The US" and now this one. The continues use of the term "racist" to denote Israeli - sorry, "Zionist" policy - and such alarming and violent phraseology as "Zionist gangs set about ethnically cleansing most of Palestine" reminded me of Ambassador Herzog's response to the infamous "Zionism is Racism" U.N. resoulution in 1975. I give it to you here as a rather longish reply to the rather longish piece by Mr. Ammous:

"Mr. President,

It is symbolic that this debate, which may well prove to be a turning point in the fortunes of the United Nations and a decisive factor in the possible continued existence of this organization, should take place on November 10. Tonight, thirty-seven years ago, has gone down in history as Kristallnacht, the Night of the Crystals. This was the night in 1938 when Hitler's Nazi storm-troopers launched a coordinated attack on the Jewish community in Germany, burned the synagogues in all its cities and made bonfires in the streets of the Holy Books and the Scrolls of the Holy Law and Bible. It was the night when Jewish homes were attacked and heads of families taken away, many of them never to return. It was the night when the windows of all Jewish businesses and stores were smashed, covering the streets in the cities of Germany with a film of broken glass which dissolved into the millions of crystals which gave that night its name. It was the night which led eventually to the crematoria and the gas chambers, Auschwitz, Birkenau, Dachau, Buchenwald, Theresienstadt and others. It was the night which led to the most terrifying holocaust in the history of man.

It is indeed befitting Mr. President, that this debate, conceived in the desire to deflect the Middle East from its moves towards peace and born of a deep pervading feeling of anti-Semitism, should take place on the anniversary of this day. It is indeed befitting, Mr. President, that the United Nations, which began its life as an anti-Nazi alliance, should thirty years later find itself on its way to becoming the world center of anti-Semitism. Hitler would have felt at home on a number of occasions during the past year, listening to the proceedings in this forum, and above all to the proceedings during the debate on Zionism.

It is sobering to consider to what level this body has been dragged down if we are obliged today to contemplate an attack on Zionism. For this attack constitutes not only an anti-Israeli attack of the foulest type, but also an assault in the United Nations on Judaism -- one of the oldest established religions in the world, a religion which has given the world the human values of the Bible, and from which two other great religions, Christianity and Islam, sprang. Is it not tragic to consider that we here at this meeting in the year 1975 are contemplating what is a scurrilous attack on a great and established religion which has given to the world the Bible with its Ten Commandments, the great prophets of old, Moses, Isaiah, Amos; the great thinkers of history, Maimonides, Spinoza, Marx, Einstein, many of the masters of the arts and as high a percentage of the Nobel Prize-winners in the world, in the sciences, in the arts and in the humanities as has been achieved by any people on earth? . . .

The resolution against Zionism was originally one condemning racism and colonialism, a subject on which we could have achieved consensus, a consensus which is of great importance to all of us and to our African colleagues in particular. However, instead of permitting this to happen, a group of countries, drunk with the feeling of power inherent in the automatic majority and without regard to the importance of achieving a consensus on this issue, railroaded the UN in a contemptuous maneuver by the use of the automatic majority into bracketing Zionism with the subject under discussion.

I do not come to this rostrum to defend the moral and historical values of the Jewish people. They do not need to be defended. They speak for themselves. They have given to mankind much of what is great and eternal. They have done for the spirit of man more than can readily be appreciated by a forum such as this one.

I come here to denounce the two great evils which menace society in general and a society of nations in particular. These two evils are hatred and ignorance. These two evils are the motivating force behind the proponents of this resolution and their supporters. These two evils characterize those who would drag this world organization, the ideals of which were first conceived by the prophets of Israel, to the depths to which it has been dragged today.

The key to understanding Zionism is in its name. The easternmost of the two hills of ancient Jerusalem during the tenth century B.C.E. was called Zion. In fact, the name Zion, referring to Jerusalem, appears 152 times in the Old Testament. The name is overwhelmingly a poetic and prophetic designation. The religious and emotional qualities of the name arise from the importance of Jerusalem as the Royal City and the City of the Temple. "Mount Zion" is the place where God dwells. Jerusalem, or Zion, is a place where the Lord is King, and where He has installed His king, David.

King David made Jerusalem the capital of Israel almost three thousand years ago, and Jerusalem has remained the capital ever since. During the centuries the term "Zion" grew and expanded to mean the whole of Israel. The Israelites in exile could not forget Zion. The Hebrew Psalmist sat by the waters of Babylon and swore: "If I forget three, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning." This oath has been repeated for thousands of years by Jews throughout the world. It is an oath which was made over seven hundred years before the advent of Christianity and over twelve hundred years before the advent of Islam, and Zion came to mean the Jewish homeland, symbolic of Judaism, of Jewish national aspirations.

While praying to his God every Jew, wherever he is in the world, faces towards Jerusalem. For over two thousand years of exile these prayers have expressed the yearning of the Jewish people to return to their ancient homeland, Israel. In fact, a continuous Jewish presence, in larger or smaller numbers, has been maintained in the country over the centuries.

Zionism is the name of the national movement of the Jewish people and is the modern expression of the ancient Jewish heritage. The Zionist ideal, as set out in the Bible, has been, and is, an integral part of the Jewish religion.

Zionism is to the Jewish people what the liberation movements of Africa and Asia have been to their own people.

Zionism is one of the most dynamic and vibrant national movements in human history. Historically it is based on a unqiue and unbroken connection, extending some four thousand years, between the People of the Book and the Land of the Bible.

In modern times, in the late nineteenth century, spurred by the twin forces of anti-Semitic persecution and of nationalism, the Jewish people organized the Zionist movement in order to transform their dream into reality. Zionism as a political movement was the revolt of an oppressed nation against the depredation and wicked discrimination and oppression of the countries in which anti-Semitism flourished. It is no coincidence that the co-sponsors and supporters of this resolution include countries who are guilty of the horrible crimes of anti-Semitism and discrimination to this very day.

Support for the aim of Zionism was written into the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and was again endorsed by the United Nations in 1947, when the General Assembly voted by overwhelming majority for the restoration of Jewish independence in our ancient land.

The re-establishment of Jewish independence in Israel, after centuries of struggle to overcome foreign conquest and exile, is a vindication of the fundamental concepts of the equality of nations and of self-determination. To question the Jewish people's right to national existence and freedom is not only to deny to the Jewish people the right accorded to every other people on this globe, but it is also to deny the central precepts of the United Nations.

As a former Foreign Minister of Israel, Abba Eban, has written:

"Zionism is nothing more -- but also nothing less -- than the Jewish people's sense of origin and destination in the land linked eternally with its name. It is also the instrument whereby the Jewish nation seeks an authentic fulfillment of itself. And the drama is enacted in twenty states comprising a hundred million people in 4 1/2 million square miles, with vast resources. The issue therefore is not whether the world will come to terms with Arab nationalism. The question is at what point Arab nationalism, with its prodigious glut of advantage, wealth and opportunity, will come to terms with the modest but equal rights of another Middle Eastern nation to pursue its life in security and peace."

The vicious diatribes on Zionism voiced here by Arab delegates may give this Assembly the wrong impression that while the rest of the world supported the Jewish national liberation movement the Arab world was always hostile to Zionism. This is not the case. Arab leaders, cognizant of the rights of the Jewish people, fully endorsed the virtues of Zionism. Sherif Hussein, the leader of the Arab world during World War I, welcomed the return of the Jews to Palestine. His son, Emir Feisal, who represented the Arab world in the Paris Peace Conference, had this to say about Zionism:

"We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement.... We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home.... We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East, and our two movements complement one another. The movement is national and not imperialistic. There is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a success without the other."

It is perhaps pertinent at this point to recall that when the question of Palestine was being debated in the United Nations in 1947, the Soviet Union strongly supported the Jewish independence struggle. It is particularly relevant to recall some of Andrei Gromydo's remarks:

"As we know, the aspirations of a considerable part of the Jewish people are linked with the problem of Palestine and of its future administration. This fact scarcely requires proof.... During the last war, the Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering. Without any exaggeration, this sorrow and suffering are indescribable. It is difficult to express them in dry statistics on the Jewish victims of the fascist aggressors. The Jews in the territories where the Hitlerites held sway were subjected to almost complete physical annihilation. The total number of Jews who perished at the hands of the Nazi executioners is estimated at approximately six million....

"The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference, since this would be incompatible with the high principles proclaimed in its Charter, which provides for the defense of human rights, irrespective of race, religion or sex....

"The fact that no Western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration."

How sad it is to see here a group of nations, many of whom have but recently freed themselves of colonial rule, deriding one of the most noble liberation movements of this century, a movement which not only gave an example of encouragement and determination to the peoples struggling for independence but also actively aided many of them either during the period of preparation for their independence or immediately thereafter.

Here you have a movement which is the embodiment of a unique pioneering spirit, of the dignity of labor, and of enduring human values, a movement which has presented to the world an example of social equality and open democracy being associated in this resolution with abhorrent political concepts.

We in Israel have endeavored to create a society which strives to implement the highest ideals of society -- political, social and cultural -- for all the inhabitants of Israel, irrespective of religious belief, race or sex.

Show me another plualistic society in this world in which despite all the difficult problems, Jew and Arab live together with such a degree of harmony, in which the dignity and rights of man are observed before the law, in which no death sentence is applied, in which freedom of speech, of movement, of thought, of expression are guaranteed, in which even movements which are opposed to our national aims are represented in our Parliament.

The Arab delegates talk of racism. What has happened to the 800,000 Jews who lived for over two thousand yeras in the Arab lands, who formed some of the most ancient communities long before the advent of Islam. Where are they now?

The Jews were once one of the important communities in the countries of the Middle East, the leaders of thought, of commerce, of medical science. Where are they in Arab society today? You dare talk of racism when I can point with pride to the Arab ministers who have served in my government; to the Arab deputy speaker of my Parliament; to Arab officers and men serving of their own volition in our border and police defense forces, frequently commanding Jewish troops; to the hundreds of thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East crowding the cities of Israel every year; to the thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East coming for medical treatment to Israel; to the peaceful coexistence which has developed; to the fact that Arabic is an official language in Israel on a par with Hebrew; to the fact that it is as natural for an Arab to serve in public office in Israel as it is incongruous to think of a Jew serving in any public office in an Arab country, indeed being admitted to many of them. Is that racism? It is not! That, Mr. President, is Zionism.

Zionism is our attempt to build a society, imperfect though it may be, in which the visions of the prophets of Israel will be realized. I know that we have problems. I know that many disagree with our government's policies. Many in Israel too disagree from time to time with the government's policies ... and are free to do so because Zionism has created the first and only real democratic state in a part of the world that never really knew democracy and freedom of speech.

This malicious resolution, designed to divert us from its true purpose, is part of a dangerous anti-Semitic idiom which is being insinuated into every public debate by those who have sworn to block the current move towards accommodation and ultimately towards peace in the Middle East. This, together with similar moves, is designed to sabotage the efforts of the Geneva Conference for peace in the Middle East and to deflect those who are moving along the road towards peace from their purpose. But they will not succeed, for I can but reiterate my government's policy to make every move in the direction towards peace, based on compromise.

We are seeing here today but another manifestation of the bitter anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish hatred which animates Arab society. Who would have believed that in this year, 1975, the malicious falsehoods of the "elders of Zion" would be distributed officially by Arab governments? Who would have believed that we would today contemplate an Arab society which teaches the vilest anti-Jewish hate in the kindergartens?... We are being attacked by a society which is motivated by the most extreme form of racism known in the world today. This is the racism which was expressed so succinctly in the words of the leader of the PLO, Yassir Arafat, in his opening address at a symposium in Tripoli, Libya: "There will be no presence in the region other than the Arab presence...." In other words, in the Middle East from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf only one presence is allowed, and that is Arab presence. No other people, regardless of how deep are its roots in the region, is to be permitted to enjoy its right to self-determination.

Look at the tragic fate of the Kurds of Iraq. Look what happened to the black population in southern Sudan. Look at the dire peril in which an entire community of Christians finds itself in Lebanon. Look at the avowed policy of the PLO, which calls in its Palestine Covenant of 1964 for the destruction of the State of Israel, which denies any form of compromise on the Palestine issue and which, in the words of its representative only the other day in this building, considers Tel Aviv to be occupied territory. Look at all this, and you see before you the root cause of the twin evils of this world at work, the blind hatred of the Arab proponents of this resolution, and the abysmal ignorance and wickedness of those who support them.

The issue before this Assembly is neither Israel nor Zionism. The issue is the fate of this organizaiton. Conceived in the spirit of the prophets of Israel, born out of an anti-Nazi alliance after the tragedy of World War II, it has degenerated into a forum which was this last week described by [Paul Johnson] one of the leading writers in a foremost organ of social and liberal thought in the West as "rapidly becoming one of the most corrupt and corrupting creations in the whole history of human institutions ... almost without exception those in the majority came from states notable for racist oppression of every conceivable hue." He goes on to explain the phenomenon of this debate:

"Israel is a social democracy, the nearest approach to a free socialist state in the world; its people and government have a profound respect for human life, so passionate indeed that, despite every conceivable provocation, they have refused for a quarter of a century to execute a single captured terrorist. They also have an ancient but vigorous culture, and a flourishing technology. The combination of national qualities they have assembled in their brief existence as a state is a perpetual and embittering reproach to most of the new countries whose representatives swagger about the UN building. So Israel is envied and hated; and efforts are made to destroy her. The extermination of the Israelis has long been the prime objective of the Terrorist International; they calculate that if they can break Israel, then all the rest of civilisation is vulnerable to their assaults....

"The melancholy truth, I fear, is that the candles of civilisation are burning low. The world is increasingly governed not so much by capitalism, or communism, or social democracy, or even tribal barbarism, as by a false lexicon of political cliches, accumulated over half a century and now assuming a kind of degenerate sacerdotal authority.... We all know what they are...."

Over the centuries it has fallen to the lot of my people to be the testing agent of human decency, the touchstone of civilization, the crucible in which enduring human values are to be tested. A nation's level of humanity could invariably be judged by its behavior towards its Jewish population. Persecution and oppression have often enough begun with the Jews, but it has never ended with them. The anti-Jewish pogroms in Czarist Russia were but the tip of the iceberg which revealed the inherent rottenness of a regime that was soon to disappear in the storm of revolution. The anti-Semitic excesses of the Nazis merely foreshadowed the catastrophe which was to befall mankind in Europe....

On the issue before us, the world has divided itself into good and bad, decent and evil, human and debased. We, the Jewish people, will recall in history our gratitude to those nations who stood up and were counted and who refused to support this wicked proposition. I know that this episode will have strengthened the forces of freedom and decency in this world and will have fortified the free world in their resolve to strengthen the ideals they so cherish. I know that this episode will have strengthened Zionism as it has weakened the United Nations.

As I stand on this rostrum, the long and proud history of my people unravels itself before my inward eye. I see the oppressors of our people over the ages as they pass one another in evil procession into oblivion. I stand here before you as the representative of a strong and flourishing people which has survived them all and which will survive this shameful exhibition and the proponents of this resolution.

The great moments of Jewish history come to mind as I face you, once again outnumbered and the would-be victim of hate, ignorance and evil. I look back on those great moments. I recall the greatness of a nation which I have the honor to represent in this forum. I am mindful at this moment of the Jewish people throughout the world wherever they may be, be it in freedom or in slavery, whose prayers and thoughts are with me at this moment.

I stand here not as a supplicant. Vote as your moral conscience dictates to you. For the issue is neither Israel nor Zionism. The issue is the continued existence of this organization, which has been dragged to its lowest point of discredit by a coalition of despots and racists.

The vote of each delegation will record in history its country's stand on anti-Semitic racism and anti-Judaism. You yourselves bear the responsibility for your stand before history, for as such will you be viewed in history. We, the Jewish people, will not forget.

For us, the Jewish people, this is but a passing episode in a rich and event-filled history. We put our trust in our Providence, in our faith and beliefs, in our time-hallowed tradition, in our striving for social advance and human values, and in our people wherever they may be. For us, the Jewish people, this resolution based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance, is devoid of any moral or legal value."

[carl r]

Wow. That piece by Herzog really sums up everything that's wrong with the Palestinian's stance.

[Hektor Bim]

Two points:

Is Saifedean Ammous in favor of the dissolution of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican? After all, these are all states founded on an expressly religious basis that currently or at one time led to "massive bloodshed" and ethnic cleansing.

This position seems extremely inflexible. There's no mention of compensation. No, Mr. Ammous has to own the land himself - that is, he wishes first to dispossess someone else of the land.

It's also important to note that many Israelis are refugees or descendants of refugees. Would he support the Palestinian government giving land back to Jewish survivors of massacres in the 30s and 40s? Would he support the same from the Egyptian, Syrian, Yemeni governments?

[Barbara]

Thank you for your comment, "dkmy", I agree with every line you wrote - but couldn't write that impressive on my own because of my rather underdeveloped English

Barbara

[Tony C.]

dkmy –

You state that you are upset by:

The continues use of the term "racist" to denote Israeli - sorry, "Zionist" policy - and such alarming and violent phraseology as "Zionist gangs set about ethnically cleansing most of Palestine".

Are you upset because such language and descriptions are indelicate, or inaccurate? Assuming the latter, why, then, do you choose not to address the substance of such claims?

[Hektor Bim]

Racism is an inaccurate term, precisely because people can and do become "Jewish" or "Palestinian" by converting to another religion. The correct term is probably sectarianism.

There are Arabs who became Israeli citizens by converting to Judaism, and thus have gained full rights and citizenship. The reverse is also true in many Arab countries. Part of the point of a racist system is that it is impossible to escape - one is considered to have an essential nature that can not be changed.

It's also a ludicrous notion because the populations involved are not racially homogenous. There are black Jews and black Palestinians, South Asian origin Jews and South Asian origin Palestinians, etc.

[Saifdean Ammous]

Hektor Bim,

You said: "Is Saifedean Ammous in favor of the dissolution of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican? After all, these are all states founded on an expressly religious basis that currently or at one time led to "massive bloodshed" and ethnic cleansing."

I am in favour of all these state becoming states for all their citizens and not states based on religion. When you use these dishonest terms like dissolution you betray an incredible simplicity in intellect so characteristic of Zionists. When South Africa became a state for all its citizens, this was not a destruction of the state, nor a dissolution of it; nor was the American South destroyed when segregation ended. Preaching equality and the end of a racist system is NOT preaching destruction.

But what strikes me as really interesting is that an Israel-firster like yourself needs to resort to giving examples from Saudi Arabia and Iran to justify the existence of Israel's current racist system. That's a pretty rich position for "the only democracy in the middle east", eh?

As for compensation for Jews--absolutely. I am in favour of every refugee getting their rights back. And more imoprtantly, for people to be able to live as equal everywhere they find themselves. And what stops this from happening are religiously-exclusive states like Israel and Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Yet, it is worth mentioning that Jews, Christians and Bahais and other sects can own land in Iran, and that Saudi Arabia is entirely Muslim, and so the establishment of the modern Saudi state did not involve the ethnic cleansing of anyone based on their religion. So even though you would like to look up to these countries as an excuse for Israel's racism, they are still not quite as bad when it comes to ethnic cleansing and racist exclusive ownership of land.

And also, just ask yourself, if Saudi Arabia and Iran become secular democracies tomorrow, what would someone like you have as an argument for Israel continuing to deny me my right of return?

[Hektor Bim]

Actually, Saifdean, there are something like a million non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, and there are definitely non-Muslim citizens in Saudi Arabia, but they are repressed and their existence is denied. Saudi Arabia is not "entirely Muslim". The founding of the modern Saudi state involved vicious repression against Shiites and other groups considered non-Muslim by the Wahhabis at the time. There definitely was sectarian cleansing. I'd suggest talking to some Shiites and asking them about the founding of Saudi Arabia.

As for Iran, a lot of Bahai land was seized after the revolution, particularly cemeteries. I met your Iranian Bahai counterpart in high school, and his family's land was seized and he was forced to leave.

Finally, Israeli Arabs do own land and businesses in Israel. Much of the land in Israel is, in fact, reserved for Jews, but this is a sectarian policy. Since it is impossible to officially be non-Muslim in Saudi Arabia and be a citizen, I don't see how this is not quite as bad as Israel.

"And what stops this from happening are religiously-exclusive states like Israel and Saudi Arabia and Iran." Actually, no. Egypt and Syria and most other Arab states are officially not religously-exclusive states, but that did not stop them from revoking the citizenship of their Jewish citizens and forcing them out of the country, seizing their land in the bargain.

You can say racism as much as you want, but it isn't that simple. Sectarianism is more the proper word for the policy.

[miuw]

Hektor, I think it is safe to assert that within the sectarian divisions you describe there are also deep 'racial' discriminations (I place 'race' in scares because such distinctions are made significant only be racism).

Within Israeli society doesn't one find certain discriminatory economic and social hierarchies that fall around categories that can be traced to race and 'national origin'? Despite what Herzog might assert, the arab Israelis are indeed subjects of a pervasive racism.

Nor is it ludicrous to assert racism can be a feature of a non-racially homogenous society. Brazil is a deeply hybrid nation, yet racism (as a discriminatory force based on hue and features) is entrenched.

I think it needs to be acknowledged that there are profound prejudices on both sides of this conflict. It must also be possible to criticize the policies of both the Palestinian and Israeli regimes without being accused of racism.

[Lalalina]

No, people do not become Palestinian by converting to another religion. Palestinian is not a religious identity, nor is Arab.

In the eyes of the Zionist movement, frankly, neither is Jewish - Zionism views Jews as primarily, for the context of state-building, a nation, not a religious group.

[Hektor Bim]

Miuw,

Yes, racial or more precisely (ethnic origin) divisions do exist within Israeli and Palestinian society, but coding the problem as one of straight "racism" obscures more than it illuminates. Unlike in the American South or South Africa, it is possible to become "white" merely by changing your religion. It can and does happen on both sides, so that Palestinians become Jews and Jews become Palestinians.

One can go from being a dispossessed Palestinian to being a Jewish settler by converting to Judaism and moving a kilometer or two. The same thing can happen in reverse: one can go from being a Jewish settler to a dispossessed Palestinian by converting to Islam or Christianity and moving a kilometer or two.

The fact that such fluidity exists and is recognized by the governments involved suggests that it isn't a simple issue of "racism".

[Hektor Bim]

Lalalina,

I don't agree with you. Despite that fact that Jews have lived in Palestine in all of recorded history, in practice, Palestinian groups routinely refer to all Jews as settlers and implicitly as non-Palestinian.

[dkmy]

Mr. Ammous,
Where do you find the audacity and, quite frankly, "chutzpah" to use phrases such as "the incredible simplicity in intellect so characteristic of Zionists"?

How do you qualify this statement?
Are all Zionists bound to be intellectually simplistic just by being Zionist, or do you shed your intellectual simplicity and become more profound the minute you stop being one (and apparently, start thinking like you?)
Is the change permanent once you stop being a Zionist, or do occasional Zionist thoughts impare your intellectual profundity?
Perhaps you could clarify the intellectual simplicty of Nobel prize winning Zionists, or Zionist artists, writers, musicians and thinkers?
2. Here is the webster dictionary definition of the word "Racist":
"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".
You are absolutly mistaken in judging Israeli attitudes towards Palestinians through the race issue. For the majority of Israelis it is a political conflict devoid of any racial overtones. But it sounds so angry and extreme when you write it, and seems to give some sort of credibilty to your argument, that I can understand why you choose to repeat it again and again and again.

[miuw]

Hektor, you speak of 'dispossessed Palestinians' and Jewish settlers', but surely it is disingenuous to characterize the movement between dispossession and possession/settlement as so fluid?

It is disingenuous for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the mere existence of a formal or legal condition of possibility says nothing of the ease or arduousness of the process of exchange - one could hardly describe these os practically fluid categories.

Secondly, the implication is that all a Palestinian has to do to address the tragedy of dispossession (your term) is to stop being Palestinian, to become a Jew. In other words, you fall back on strict sectarian distinctions. (As a humanist, I find such distinctions pernicious). So while this may not be 'a simple issue of "racism"', you are certainly suggesting that the renunciation of the religious practices that attend many Palestinian ethnicities is a route to inclusion. If this is not 'simple racism' it is certainly a position based on ethnic exclusion.

Thirdly, I think you underestimate the instrumentality in which sectarianism, nationality and ethnicity have been mobilized by the sate apparatus of Israel for the purposes of national consolidation.

Therefore, you have not satisfactorily addressed Lalalina's point, nor have you yet satisfactorily addressed the crux of what I thought to be a lucid and forcefully argued post: that whether you want to speak of race or sect, the Israeli state denies the human rights of an entire population (and I speak of human rights here in a technical and formally precise sense).

[miuw]

dkmy, you may well be right that 'for the majority of Israelis it is a political conflict devoid of any racial overtones'. Though, I would be interested in learning on what evidence you base your assertion.

That said, I think this is somewhat of a false distinction. The discourses and institutions of politics are not necessarily absent of either racist rhetorical strains or of impacts that are racist in effect.

If one looks at both the premises and the effects of much Israeli state policy one will see racism and sectarianism (which is not to say, of course, that there is not also all too often the most virulent and vile racism and sectarianism on the Palestinian side).

[Hektor Bim]

Miuw,

The reason I speak of "dispossessed Palestinians" and "Jewish settlers" is because these categories are considered to be in total opposition to one another, but in fact, people do move between them. It is true that this is not an easy process, and is becoming less easy all the time, but it does in fact occur.

I don't defend the sectarian construction of Israel, but the point is to explain that it is in fact distinct from racially-based distinctions. You are correct that is in many ways pernicious, but it is not simple racism.

It is also not as simple as "ethnic exclusion", since close to a majority of Israelis are ethnically Arab and had all the ethnic indicators of such in the recent past. It is, in fact, sectarianism, that is, exclusion based on religion.

There are some people who conceive of Palestinian or Arab representing all the people who used to live in Palestine, but they are not a dominant strain. Right now, must people and most Arabs (and most Palestinians) understand Palestinian to mean non-Jewish Arab. That could of course change, and we can all look forward to that day.

Miuw, you'll note that many states deny the human rights of entire populations - Lebanon is a sterling example here.

[miuw]

Hektor, thank you for your responses. They have surely increased my measure of understanding.

They leave me wondering what has happened to that 'other' possibility: the 'one state solution'? All citizens of a secular state, vibrant, various, incorrigibly plural, all equal under the law. But of course such a solution is impossible if a state is founded on sectarian grounds.

The present suffering of the those people herded and walled into Gaza and the West Bank is great. As is the longing of those in exile for return.

It seems beyond contest that the current situation is deeply unjust. It seems clear that the profundity of that injustice will preclude peace until core inequities issue into restitution.

Yes, indeed, one can site examples from the Pacific shores of the United States to the those of China where states deny the human rights of entire populations. But the measure of a nation's strength is its capacity to draw on difference while remaining observant of principles that transcend difference (such as 'human rights').

Will Israel draw on its deep creative and material resources to find the strength be just? To do so will not be to make painful concessions, it will be view and to treat all humans in its sphere and sway as equals, with equal dignity, and equal rights.

[SLC]

I have stated on several blogs that the reason that peace talks between Israel and the PA finally failed was because the Palestinians insist that people in the refugee camps be allowed to resettle in Israel. This has been vigorously denied by the various Israel bashers on those blogs. Hopefully, some of them will read this screed by Mr. Ammous and learn that my claim was 100% correct and accurate. The fact is that no Israeli Government will ever agree to such a demand as it is tantamount to that governments' agreeing to go out of business. Not going to happen. Until such time as the Palestinians give up on this demand and stop their terrorist activities they will continue to be the outcasts of the Middle East, despised by their fellow Arabs and treated in a beastly manner by Israel.

[Abbas Raza]

Instead of continually changing the subject, can one of his attackers please tell Saif what it is that makes it right that he (or any Israeli Arab) cannot even buy what used to be his grandfather's land (before it was forcibly taken from him), much less any of the other land held by the Jewish National Fund? And what makes it right that any Jew from Brooklyn (or for that matter from Addis Ababa or Kiev or Tehran) can?

And by the way, Hektor, even Christians with Jewish ancestry have been allowed to return to Israel, so it is not just a matter of faith: Jewishness is explicitly construed as a racial predicate by Israel. Even if it weren't, should non-Muslim minorities in, say, Pakistan be told: just convert to Islam, then you'll be treated well?

[miuw]

SLC, what a disturbing logic you appear to evidence: until the Palestinians renounce what has been determined to be a legal right (defined both in general instruments of human rights, such as the Universal Declaration, and in specific resolutions and treaties recognized by international law, such Resolution 194), they are to be treaded as beasts.

Perhaps I am mistaken, and your statement was descriptive not prescriptive.? If so, I presume that you are not in favour of a people being treated as beasts? I would therefore presume that while you may contest the Palestinian right of return, you denounce the Israeli state's treatment of Palestinians?

Is your position on the right of return merely a realist assessment of the 'situation on the ground'? or are you arguing from principle that the Palestinians have no right of return (whether or not that right is likely to be upheld)?

If you are arguing against return, it would be interesting to hear such an argument articulated.

Would you do so, or are you content with bold, but rather hollow, triumphalist assertions?

This might speak to Abbas Raza's concern that the crux of the original post be addressed.

[SLC]

Re miuw

1. Does Mr. miuw propose that the land taken from Native Americans by European settlers be returned to the descendants of the original owners? Does Mr. miuw propose that land taken from ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland area of the Czech Republic be returned to the descendants of the original owners? Does Mr. miuw propose that land taken from Moslems in what is now India and Hindus in what are now Pakistan and Bangladesh be returned to the descendants of the original owners? If the answer to any of these queries is no, then Mr. miuws' demand vis a vis the State of Israel demonstrates a lack of consistency.

2. Mr. miuw wants' to know if I am in disagreement with the Government of Israels' beastly treatment of the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Unfortunately, the State of Israel has discovered to its peril that being nice to the Palestinians therein provides no reciprocation. Instead, being nice is taken by the Palestinians as a sign of weakness and is exploited by the dispatching of homicide bombers to blow up pizza parlors and the current aggression by Qassems. The duty of the Government of Israel is to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks. If that means being beastly to those who launch such attacks, that's the price of security.

[Jonathan]

Abbas,

You write: "even Christians with Jewish ancestry have been allowed to return to Israel, so it is not just a matter of faith: Jewishness is explicitly construed as a racial predicate by Israel."

That is because Israel adopted Hitler's Nuremberg Law definition of who is a Jew: ie. anyone with one grandparent. History here is crucial. It was a definition written in the aftermath of the holocaust, with the idea of providing a safe haven for any future holocaust. That may be practically irrelevant. But it is *the* rationale that underlies the definition. You're a philosopher. It is the reason, as Davidson would way, that provided the rationale for the definition.

My appeal to you as a philosopher is not without reason. And it is reason that is lacking in this piece. You'd like people to respond to Saif's point? Well, it's hard when it's buried within rhetoric at once bullying and saccharine. But he has taken a maximalist position on questions that are obviously quite complex and crying out for compromise. There's little chance that the right of return *as he has defined it* will ever be made law. All the mawkish whining about orange groves and nasty talk about gangsters and terrorists *on all sides* will only lead to confusion, bloodshed and anguish.

[dkmy]

Abbas,

I was intrigued by your assertion that "...any Israeli Arab cannot even buy what used to be his grandfather's land".
Where did you get this information from?
I refer you to
http://www.meforum.org/article/370
for an excellent discussion of this subject.

Here is a preview regarding private land:

"There are no restrictions on the purchase of private land in Israel. Israeli Arabs or non-citizens, including Arab foreigners, may freely purchase it. The Israeli authorities have placed no obstacles in the way of such purchases, which are proceeding, as Israel's Deputy Housing Minister Meir Porush recently noted:

The Palestinian Authority is encouraging purchases of land in Israeli territory by wealthy Palestinians. It is a matter of Palestinian figures tied to the real estate business, and living mainly in London, who try to purchase homes and lands in Jerusalem through agents and lawyers who live mainly in Ramallah".

Clearly, many journalists reporting on Israel's land policies have uncritically accepted charges leveled by activists and Palestinian spokesmen. Typifying the problem was a New York Times article in which reporter Joel Greenberg made four major errors in one sentence:

"In Israel, Palestinians cannot buy state land, which is 91 percent of the country's territory, and state land held by the Jewish National Fund cannot even be leased to Israeli Arabs".

In fact, state land amounts not to 91 percent of Israel's territory but to roughly 80 percent; neither Arabs nor Jews can buy state land; the Jewish National Fund holds no state land; and JNF land is leased, with some restrictions, to Israeli Arabs".

_________________________________________

As for the crux of the matter, Abbas, Mr Ammous' supposition is simply legally wrong.
I would also like to add that, fortunately, Rosa Parks did not proceed to blow up the bus with everyone in it as retaliation for her indignity.

[Hektor Bim]

Abbas,

You are correct. The Law of Return for Israel allows people with Jewish ancestry (but who are not Jewish) to attain Israeli citizenship; this was done precisely because these people were killed for their Jewish heritage, even though they weren't Jewish religiously. It is, however, true that this is an addition to and not a replacement for conversion. Conversion to Judaism does allow one to claim a right to Israeli citizenship. So it isn't just a "racial predicate".

As to your second point, no, it isn't ok that there are a host of sectarian discriminatory practices in Israel. But this is a problem all over the world. Many countries do not have real religious freedom, including almost every Muslim-majority country in the world. In fact, many conservative scholars interpret Islamic law to _require_ discriminatory practices against non-Muslims. Even the UK has issues relative to establishment of religion and supported an avowedly sectarian government in Northern Ireland and in some ways continues to do so.

So, you are right that it isn't ok in Israel, just like it isn't ok in Pakistan. What I'd like to see from people like Saifedean Ammous is some recognition that this is a more general problem that also occurs in places like Pakistan (or Saudi Arabia).

As for Saif's grandfather's land, there's no real justification for the retention of vast tracts of Israeli land under the Jewish National Fund.

[Sami]

Saif was wrong to call the groups "Zionist gangs." They were actually "Zionist terrorist groups."

[Abbas Raza]

Hektor, you can't be serious that to protest an injustice that he feels very personally (his own very real dispossession), Saif is obliged to catalogue every other injustice in the world!?

But thanks for your reply...

[Sami]

DKMY,
If Rosa Parks blew up the bus would it be reason to not give African Americans their rights? The Black Panthers were committing violent acts right about the same time, would you argue that these things are reason to not give blacks their civil rights??
The cause itself demands recognition. You are skirting the real issues by screaming security. And you can scream it till kingdom come, it works, but it is disingenuous.

[Hektor Bim]

Abbas,

No, I don't think he has to catalogue them, but I do think he has to be able to recognize them. If he is a secular humanist, then he has to be a secular humanist in all cases. I expect him to be against religious oppression in general, not just in his own particular case. Otherwise, what's the point? "New boss, same as the old boss."

Also, the dispossession isn't his, it's his grandfathers'. He's the one who has chosen to keep it alive. That's his right, and he's explained his reasons in detail above, but it wasn't an automatic choice. Plenty of people in his situation have moved somewhere else and forgotten about the whole thing.

[Hektor Bim]

Let me be clear that what I am referring to here by dispossession is his grandfather's land in Israel, not the daily life of occupation.

[Saifedean Ammous]

So it seems this post has generated a lot of discussion; that’s always a good thing. Before I get to answering them, I just want to point out that in spite of the enormous amount of garbage arguments spewed by Zionists here, not a single one has given me any good reason (or bad one) for the fact that I am denied the right to go back to my land. This is the main argument of the article, and as is customary when arguing with Zionuts, everything in the world is discussed, except the main argument of the article.

Again, I wait for someone to tell me why is it that I must give up my right to own MY land, and also accept being barred from setting foot on it for the sake of peace. And if someone thinks this is right, then would they also tell Rosa Parks she needs to give up her right to a seat in the front of a bus for the sake of peace?

I’m not holding my breath for an answer.

Now, I will try to address some of the points raised by commenters. Obviously, there is an incredible amount of drivel that is not worthy of commenting on, and I will ignore it; those commenters know who they are, and need to realize that I am not ignoring them because they are offering earth-shatteringly smart arguments, but because their moronic racist rhetoric is not worthy of even mentioning.

Firstly, dkmy asks me “Where do you find the audacity and, quite frankly, "chutzpah" to use phrases such as "the incredible simplicity in intellect so characteristic of Zionists"?”
Easy; from a lifetime of listening to people like you attempt to make arguments to defend racist Zionism. As for your contention that many Nobel Prize winners are Zionists; please grow up. Some of the smartest scientists in history have worked for very racist regimes and have been very racist in their political and social views. The Nazis and apartheid South Africa in particular were immensely successful in science, and their scientists were proud of their racist systems, that in no way gives any credence to any of their political and moral beliefs.

Also, dkmy, the stuff you site about the purchasing of private land is pure garbage. 97% of the land of Israel is owned by the Jewish National Fund and can only be given to Jews. What remains are the 3% that the Zionist criminal gangs could not completely ethnically cleanse from Palestinians in 1948. They have taken much of the Palestinians’ land, but this little bit remains for them, and it is the only part they can buy and sell. Everything else is for Jews only. Just because some bullshit Zionist propaganda site wrote something, doesn’t make it true, in fact, it probably makes it false.

As for the discussion about my use of the term ‘racist’. This nit-picking is absurd. There is no such a thing as ‘race’; all of these criteria of race, ethnicity and religion mean as much to me as horoscopes. Racism, however, does exist, and since there is no such a thing as a clearly defined ‘race’, then any discrimination based on a stupid classification to which someone is born is racist, whether that be the color of the skin or the kind of god worshipped. Even if you don’t want to accept the term racist to describe what Israel is doing, you have to understand that this is discrimination that is as wrong as racism. The rest is just semantics. And how convenient it is that you sidetrack this discussion to semantics and keep avoiding the real question.

Hektor, you can not possibly argue that Israel isn’t racist because Palestinians can convert to Judaism. By your criteria, the Spanish Inquisition was not racist since Jews could convert to Christianity. That’s nonsense. I don’t want to have to go through an elaborate process of religious nonsensical conversion in order to get to my land. That’s pretty rich coming from someone flaunting his ‘humanism’ all over this comment thread.

Which brings me to your continuous harping on about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and so on. How clearer can I make myself: I’m a humanist who rejects any form of racism, religious discrimination and ethnic cleansing. Now please explain to me how it is in any way relevant to me and my grandfather’s land that this happened in Iran? I oppose all of these equally vociferously; but you insist that I do not have the right to demand MY land back because someone who claims to be from a religion similar to one practiced by most Palestinians did something wrong. Some humanist, you are. By your standard, every form of oppression can not be opposed until all the others ended; and no one can speak out against any single act of dispossession until they have denounced all the others in the world.

Jonathan; please stop taking the usual cop-out of complaining about “saccharine rhetoric” to avoid answering the point. For the record, the reason I call them Zionist criminal gangs, is because they are, unquestionably, Zionist criminal gangs. If they weren’t I wouldn’t be calling them that, and I would love it if they weren’t. The problem is not that I call them that; the problem is that they ARE that. And that is the root of this conflict. Now please try to actually offer an answer instead of whinging like a little kid about hearing words you don’t like.

[Elatia Harris]

Saif, writers and readers –

I have been aware of this post since shortly after midnight, and have been following with care the comments it generates.

Saif, I am disappointed in you. Your rhetoric is helping you to do your cause a disservice, and it is plain that you have much to learn about expressing outrage in order to persuade. All you persuade me of is that you are angry, with a taste for making others angry too. This is not an emotion in short supply, and it confers no distinctions on you. What have you to offer beyond it, Saif? One has seen evidence that the entitlement of dispossession is in large part responsible for the pretty pass that Israeli right-wingers have come to. I wonder if it would be fruitful for you to consider how uncannily your position mirrors theirs. If it represents dead-end thinking for them, scornful of a better future except as they narrowly imagine it for themselves, then should you be mirroring it?

There is never complete redress for the crimes of history, if only because there is no time machine. Events of more than half a century ago have deprived you of an orange grove, which I recognize is beautiful and symbolic and deeply meaningful to you. I am sorry for your family’s losses. I understand that your truculence is a mask for pain. And I hope that you will find the way to create, along with the many Israelis who see your point of view, a society that looks forward in hope more than it looks back in rage. This is more important, in the long run, than the orange grove – would you not agree?

[Hektor Bim]

Saif,

You're the one flaunting your humanism, not me. (According to your bio, you spent time in Saudi Arabia and somehow missed that non-Muslims live there.) And yes, if you can convert to get your land, then it isn't simple racism.

The point about other countries is to show that sectarianism is a widespread problem, and as such, is not a solely Israeli problem. You also can't blame expulsions and ethnic cleansing solely on sectarianism, since ostensibly secular regimes also indulge in it.

I also don't particularly see why getting your grandfather's land back is the sine qua non for helping the Palestinian people out of their current parlous state. It seems to me the founding of a Palestinian state and the removal of the occupation is the critical element. Citizenship and civil rights for the Palestinians in their countries of residence or patriation to another country is also critical.

Who else in the mass expulsions of the twentieth century got their land back? And yet, we did get peace in many of those situations.

[Saifedean Ammous]

Dear Elatia,

Thank you so much for your comments. I'm sorry that you do not seem to like my arguments, and maybe I should frame them differently. However, I think you misunderstand my point. As I thought I made clear in the article, I do not care about the orange grove itself, it means nothing to me, neither its beauty nor symbolism matters. The point of the article is that it matters to me as much as a front seat of a bus matters to a black person in the South. And in fact, not just any black person, but someone who never takes a bus and for whom it wouldn't matter practically whether buses are segregated. Still that person would fight and resist the imposition of a system of segregation even if it doesn't affect them. That is exactly how I feel. It is not the orange grove, it's the fact that a racist system exists that denies me access to an orange grove I should own.

I neither aim to be truculent nor to convince you that I am angry. I aim to challenge a deeply held belief among many people today, that in order for peace to happen, Palestinians need to give up the right to their lands. My contention, inspired by the story of Rosa Parks, is that peace can not be achieved by laws that discriminate and exclude people, regardless of how important or insignificant these exclusions are. Peace can only be achieved when these systems of exclusion are themselves removed: when buses are open to everyone, and when lands are open to everyone.

Again, this isn't about the land or the bus seat, but about the system that excludes people.

My aim from this article is to open people's eye to this, so we can work together to stop this exclusive racist system, instead of continuing to demand Palestinains agree to being excluded.

[miuw]

In light of the above, then, what about the 'one state solution'? Is it really beyond the pale (and I use this term, with its territorial implications, advisedly)? Such a solution being based precisely on a system of inclusion.

Of course, agreeing the terms of such a solution would be fraught, but no less fraught than the two state solution, an option that strategic planning and economic geography are making ever-less feasible.

[SLC]

Re miuw

"In light of the above, then, what about the 'one state solution'?"

This is tantamount to the Government of Israel agreeing to go out of business. It is not going to happen. A better solution is to return to the situation prior to the 1967 war of Arab agression where the West Bank was part of Jordon and the Gaza Strip was administered by Egypt. In other words, the Palestinian State is in Amman.

Re Saifedean Ammous

Since Mr. Ammous likes to smear his opponents, I am henceforth going to refer to him as a Fakistinian.

[dkmy]

Mr. Ammous,

Though you evidently believe very strongly in your position and do not refrain from any form of abuse and insult to get your extremist message across, I must point out to you, in my own "childish" way, that your inability to see things any other way but your own is depressing in the extreme. Any text that displeases you is a lie, simply because you disagree with it. We need plausible, pragmatic solutions to these extremely complex problems. People are suffering, Jews and Arabs alike, and your contributions, while so full of self righteous "humanism", offer only a continuation ad-infinitum of this terrible conflict. Your position is inflexible, untenable and you express it in a vehement and offending way which discourages any attempt to discuss things with you. So, hold on to those thoughts - you are so pompously right, yet so tragically wrong.

[aguy109]

I'm glad this was posted, because it accurately reflects the mainstream view of Arabs: no compromise, settling of all 1948 refugees and their descendants and families in what is now Israel, dissolution of the Jewish state and for the Jewish population...well, Saif doesn't go into that issue, out of polite concern for the tender stomachs of Western liberals, but, since there wouldn't be anywhere left for us to live in this tiny, crowded little land, we would be expelled or exterminated. Some ultra orthodox Jews would no doubt be kept in a zoo in El Kuts (Jerusalem) for propaganda purposes.
So there it is: let all those who are sympathetic to the "Palestinian Cause" be fully aware of what it means.

As Elatia remarked, Saif's wistful desire to turn back time reflects a deep immaturity and refusal to accept realities. This immaturity is not a personal attribute but of Palestinian politics, which are based on a common sense of hurt and betrayal, but lack a real sense of internal unity and direction.
Dragging the Laura Parks case into this issue is an example of supreme chutzpa. Muslim Arabs played a crucial role in the slave trade, by travelling deep into Africa to bring out captured men and women and deliver them to the waiting ships. Even today, black slaves are traded and exploited in parts of the Arab world, with fresh 'stock' collected in Sudan and elsewhere. I'm sure Saif disociates himself from slavery, just as, at the end of his post, he revealingly disociates himself from the egalitarian Paradise he dreams of setting up in 'Palestine'. He plans to sell the orange grove 'the very next day' and get the hell out of here!!!
Meanwhile, my son, who is paralysed and in a wheelchair, attends an egalitarian, state run, Israeli educational institute where half the pupils are Arab, including Christians and Muslims. His best friend is called Muhammed.

[Hektor Bim]

Per the one-state solution:

The most practical thing against it is that it is deeply unpopular among both Israelis and Palestinians. Polls regularly show that large majorities in both Israel and Palestine don't support it.

Even now, when the Palestinian national dream looks shaky, many people would rather have one state with Jordan than Israel.

The other reason it is unlikely is that it is often accompanied by disingenuous aims. Many of the people who push it also believe in the ultimate and irrevocable Palestinian demographic tide that will put Arabs in the majority in the area of old Palestine. That is, they want one state which they believe eventually Palestinian Arabs will dominate, thus reducing Jews to a minority in one country. The idea is to reduce Jews to a minority in an Arab country. That is, to force Jews back into the diasporic model and make them dependent on the goodwill of their neighbors.

Given Israeli perceptions of what happens to Jews when they become minorities in a state (particularly modern Arab states), Israelis show no inclination to agree to this, even if they don't wholly buy the demographic argument.

So I find the one-state solution unlikely, purely for practical reasons. It seems to be largely pushed by academics in the West who don't actually live in Israel or Palestine.

[maniza]

Saif, thanks for your post and for all the comments it has generated. Your posting has exposed in their outcry here on this blog quite a few "fair minded" commentators. They will not allow you the right of return to your lands which have been documented as belonging to you, and which were stolen by the State of Israel less then 60 years ago. But they allow Israel the right to not allow your right to return or even to buy back your own stolen land based on their unquestionable rights to the land based based on a presence there 2000 years ago and enshrined in their own created mythology. Their right to Aliya. And they chose to identify themselves by following Hitler's classification of themselves. It is incredible.

[Hektor Bim]

"And they chose to identify themselves by following Hitler's classification of themselves. It is incredible."

That is unworthy of you, maniza. They chose to allow more people to come to save them from being killed. That is, it is rooted in compassion.

And it's a bit rich for a Pakistani to be criticizing Israelis for dispossessing people, forcing them into exile, and taking their lands.

[david friedlander]

The Palestinian right of return lies on weak argumentation. It is the classic example of applying double standards in a self serving fashion. The history of the world involves millions over millions of refugees from different circumstances and events. The international community does not rewind time and reconstruct the austrohungarian empire, nore do we send European Americans back to Europe, and more relevantly there are no Jews placing bombs in Gatorade bottles and walking into malls in berlin.
From a legal perspective there is a statute of limitation on this claim. If there is no statute of limitation on the claim than why can israel not assert that it is reclaiming its land after 2000 years of exercise.
The author cites international law. This reeks of irony since international law established the estate of Israel and established the 1948 partition plan that the Arabs reject. It also calls for the dismantling of Hizballah. You cannot cite international law where it helps your argument and then discard it when its a liability to your argument

The most amusing aspect of this is that every single arab country in the middle east, out of the 22, is less democratic than Israel. What rights do Jews have for example in the Arab republic of Syria or Jordan. Do they have more or less rights than what arabs have in Israel.

The truth is that the last thing the palestinians want is a state since then they will have no one to blame for their failures but themselves. Unfortunately antagonism towards Israel does not a collective identity make.
The day the author has credibility is the day the author creates a template for his model state in the 99.9 percent of the other lands in the middle east owned by arabs. Otherwise he is engaging in hypocrisy plain and simple.
Unfortunately this is another manifestation of the enormous premium on honor-shame in Arab culture in which they rather die attacking Israel than improve their societies.

[dkmy]

This discussion has degenarated into bitterness and negativity. I would suggest a different approach, and start again:

Mr. Ammous, I understand your sense of loss, better than you know. I feel the same way for my maternal grandfather's 3 factories in Bulgaria, of which he was deprived during WWII, simply for being Jewish. For my mother-in-law's entire family estate, confiscated as they were booted out of Iraq in the 50's with the shirts on their backs and nothing else, simply for being Jewish. My grandmother and mother used to speak Ladino between them - 500 years after they were booted out of Spain, simply for being Jewish. Family tradition persits that we come from Seville - probably had an orchard or two there too.

So, I come from a long tradition of exile and torment.

Now I've told you enough about what I'm against, so now let me tell you what I am for, and what seems to me a pragmatic way forward for our people:

1. A Palestinan State, alongside Israel.
2. Partitioning Jerusalem.
3. Return to pre-1967 borders.
4. Return of the Golan Heights in exchange for true peace with Syria.

Now tell me: What seems to you a pragmatic way forward?

[SLC]

Re David Friedlander

"What rights do Jews have for example in the Arab republic of Syria or Jordan. Do they have more or less rights than what arabs have in Israel."

Actually, the situation is even worse then Mr. Friedlander has stated. The fact of the matter is that Arabs in Israel have more rights then Arabs in any of the 22 Arab countries. This is in no way to be taken as a pat on the back for the State of Israel. It's a sad commentary on the state of human rights in the Arab world.

[allah goldberg]

israelis and palestinians are made for each other. time to embrace,cross-breed and start a new religion with a different god but based on the same fear and paranoia that judaism and islam hold dear. a pox on both your houses.

[bernarda]

In a sense it is amusing, but sad, to see racist zionist propaganda like dkmy's.

Zionism is simply a white European racist colonialist ideology: any white person from Europe is better than anyone else.

Zionism was invented by these racist white Europeans. It is in the tradition of European imperialism of the 19th century.

Apartheid South Africa was also created in 1948. It has been transformed. It is no longer a question of apartheid or separate development or bantustans or legal privileges for a particular racist group.

All these things still exist in apartheid Israel. Your typical Israeli jew is probably no different than a typical Afrikaaner in old South Africa of a good German in 1939.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, maybe a million white racist ex-Soviets immigrated to Palestine. Why do these white Europeans have more right to live on Palestinian land than the Palestinians? Many of them are simply Russian Mafia gangsters that moved to safe haven in so-called Israel.

In Western Europe, criminals typically flee to Israel if they can confirm that they are somehow "jewish". They use Israeli banks for money laundering.

If you want to have a better idea of what "Israel" is really about, try Sabbah's blog.

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2007/07/14/why-palestine-matters-by-roger-h-lieberman/#respond

[VoT]

It is remarkable the Israeli responses this seems to bring up. On the one hand, we have people like dkny recounting their own family losses; on the other, we have people like Hektor defending, apparently seriously, the very 20th century mass expulsions that deprived people like dkny of their land. A priori, I would never have thought the idea that banning people from entering their own country and confiscating their property is a bad thing would even be a subject of debate, let alone among Jews, whose ancestors have suffered such a fate many times. But when it comes to Palestinians, suddenly things are different, and suddenly all sorts of things, like the medieval mindset of the unelected rulers of countries that Palestinians have never ruled, or the mistreatment of Jews (not to mention Arabs) by unelected dictators in countries that Palestinians have also never ruled, become excuses for denying Palestinians their right to their own property in Israel.

The twentieth century was tragically full of ethnic cleansing - but plenty of the expulsions of the 1940s have been reversed. There are Crimean Tatars back in the Crimea and Chechens back in Chechnya again, decades after Stalin expelled them all; Jews are free to return to Germany, and sometimes do. Even earlier cases have sometimes been partly resolved; the Australian aborigines have regained a lot of their land, which just fifty years ago they had no title to. Let Palestinians join the list.

[Saifedean Ammous]

dkmy,

I totally understand your past, and I would think it goes without saying that I am against all of those things happening to your grandparents, and that I would not hesitate to join you anytime to fight for your right to get this property back.

Equally, I hope you would support me in my quest to get my groves back.

BUT, the important thing for me is not the grove itself, it is the idea of being excluded from it. As I said in the article, I would sell this grove and donate the money to charity, I don’t need it, don’t want to visit it or to live in it. What matters is that I have the right to live there. If Rosa Parks had bought a car and never taken the bus again, she would still have fought to end segregation.

Now, I want to address the practical point you mention, which also touches on the ‘practical’ point that Hektor raised.

If you spoke to me a few years ago, I may have said to you that your idea of peace is a great one. At some point, many (most?) Palestinians started believing that giving up the right of return and agreeing to let Israel hold on to all the land they stole from us might be a price worth paying for the sake of peace. Time has proved us wrong. What we believed was the equivalent of Rosa Parks agreeing to segregation on buses in exchange for some perks being given to black neighborhoods in the South.

What this shambles of a peace process has taught us as Palestinians, is that we can not accept to engage in a racist process on racist premises and expect to get anything in return. Just like blacks in South Africa could never have peace within the framework of apartheid. While this peace process was going on, Israel has tripled its settlements in the West Bank, confiscated countless areas of land for racist colonies, and continued to imprison our population. They employed racist collective punishment against a whole population, murdered children indiscriminately, and built the world’s only religiously segregated road network in the West Bank. The racist dynamic at work in the West Bank with the military and the settlements is the same one that denies me my orange groves. This has taught us as Palestinians that we can not accept one type of racism and expect everything else to work itself out. This is the equivalent of blacks accepting segregation in schools in return for desegregation on buses. The racist segregation system is what has to go. And in Palestine, it is the racism that has to go for there to be peace.

Also, on a purely practical basis, your solution is now impossible. To implement it, one would have to move out half a million Jewish settlers from the West Bank, which is not gonna be easy, and frankly it's something that makes me very uneasy, as someone who has seen how bad displacement can be. And it is becoming apparent that the West Bank and Gaza can not be a sovereign state with all the control that Israel exerts over the borders, which no Israeli government has ever even contemplated conceding, nor have they contemplated ever making the Palestinian state a soverieng state. Also, millions of Palestinians would be denied their right to their own property in Israel, and Israel would continue to exist as a racist state that discriminates against the fifth of its population that isn’t Jewish.

A far more workable, and morally acceptable solution, would be for the settlers to stay where they are, with the settlements becoming open to everyone to move in, the refugees going back to their destroyed villages. Everyone can live everywhere regardless of their religion. A democracy will exist where government merely runs the logistic affairs of the people, and everyone is free to do whatever they want; except murder people and displace them based on their religion.

The majority of the world has this system in place, and it works a charm. The places that don’t have this are all beset by sectarian conflict. The choice has become pretty obvious for anyone. There can only be peace with equality and justice; not with racism. It worked in South Africa, it worked in the American south, and it worked everywhere in the world where religious racist states like Israel have been transformed to secular nations for all their citizens.

[Shaniqua]

Some of my ancestors were captured and sold as slaves from Africa so that other tribes could steal their land. Some were kicked out of Europe for religious reasons (and, yup, their land was taken too).

Nearly every piece of land on this planet has belonged to waves of people and most of them have been stolen tens or hundreds of times.

What would you say to the claim of the descendant of someone who had the land stolen a hundred or a thousand years before your grandfather was there? How do you imagine that we are going to go back and redress the piles of competing claims over every chunk of rock on the planet?

While it's very emotionally satisfying to obsess over the harms done to our ancestors, perhaps it's time you thought of _your_ descendants. Will your children be better off if you continue obsessing over the past or if you let it go and focus on building a better future for them?

[dkmy]

Mr Ammous,

Let me first say that I feel we are making some progress here and I thank you for your compassion. However, I am a bit skeptical that you would seriously join me anytime in my fight to regain my family's lands in Spain or Iraq.
I would like to address the point you keep making about racism. I think this is a misunderstanding on your part. I recently saw an hour long interview with Bashar Assad (http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2006/03/27/1/an-hour-with-syrian-president-bashar-al-assad) and he states there that the west misunderstands Arab politics because it is an alien culture to them. I feel that is very true, but also true of your vision of Israel.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about the Jews or Zionists feeling racially superior to the Palestinians. Extreme right-wing political parties which advocated such views were outlawed and are completely out of the Israeli consensus. I have been following the Israeli internal discourse for 3 decades - it is simply not about race. It is a political struggle between two ethnic groups for land. And most Israelis see it that way. It is true that we have our religious extremists - but the Palestinians have their fair share of wild eyed religious extremists too. I understand the frustration and anger the settlements cause. Yet I also understand the anger felt by many Israelis at the continued bombing of Sderot after the evacuation of the Gaza Strip. We accept the concept of land for peace, but even when we comply, to the letter, with UN resolutions and evacuate lands we continue to be killed and bombed. What was the pretext for the kidnapping and killing of Israeli soldiers along the UN recognized Israel-Lebanon border, which started the 2nd Lebanon war? As someone has already stated here, you cannot use International law when it is convenient for you and discard it the next.

I feel that the racial issue is a misconception. Unlike Rosa Parks, who was an American citizen and therefore legally entitled to sit on the bus wherever she chose as any other American citizen, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not an internal one. As for international law, both sides break it on a daily basis.
Do you really think that Hamas would even contemplate your one state Utopian solution? I have read their charter and listened to their bombs and threats many many times. Sadly, the answer is - not in a million years.
Let me tell you something on a more personal note: My paternal grandfather was born here. So was my father. I was born in Jerusalem. My children were born in Israel. My brother was killed in the army and is buried in Israel. This is my ancestral home. The use of "morally" just accusations goes both ways - and leads us again and again and again to death's door. Perhaps we could leave the moral high ground for a bit and concentrate on something more... practical?

[maniza]

Hektor, please see my comments to Pervez Hoodbhoy's article on this blog. Maniza

[Ann]

Saifedean,

An excellent piece, thoughtfully and reasonably argued. Thanks for sharing your personal story with us, and for addressing the stock GIYUS responses one gets that are always most refutable, not that that stops their unctious attempts. Its good to see some of the other commenters have appreciated your article as much as I did.

[Hektor Bim]

VoT,

I don't "defend" the expulsions. I just don't agree with Saifdean Ammous's prescreptions for resolving them.

His position seems to be that the occupation is not solvable unless a one-state solution is implemented. He also seems to be wavering on allowing all refugees to repossess their land, precisely because so many people have pointed out how this could never be resolved in practice.

I don't agree with him, because I don't think a one state solution is the only solution or even necessarily the most "just" solution.

Most of your examples of people returning to their lands are examples of internal refugees. The Chechens were deported to other parts of the Soviet Union and returned from them. Same for the Aborigines of Australia, who by no means have gotten back the "majority" of their land. The Crimean Tatars also started returning to Crimea while the Soviet Union still existed. Their repatriation has sped up under the Ukrainian government, which takes a dim view of forced Russification in Ukraine and thus is positively disposed toward non-Russian minorities with loyalties to the Ukrainian state returning.

None of these examples have much to do with Israel/Palestine, where people who fled Israel in 1948 live _in other countries_ (that are in general, extremely hostile to Israel) or in the West Bank, which by international law and Israel's own laws, is not part of Israel. There are a number of closer parallels, like India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, where no one has gotten restitution for lost land and refugees are not allowed to return and gain citizenship.

So, I don't think your examples are particularly relevant to this specific situation.

It seems to me that the Jewish settlers will have the same choice in a two-state solution that Israeli Arabs had: they can stay or go. Since I don't believe in ethnically pure states anyway, having a Jewish minority in the new Palestinian states might be instructive for Palestinians and Jews both, largely about what kind of state the new Palestine is.

[snibril]

There is some hypocrisy that is hard to stomach.

A minor one that nonetheless really bugs me: how can it be that "returning to your origins" after 2000 years is a noble cause for zionism, but wanting to return to confiscated land that was owned 60 years before is inmature and out of touch with realism?

And why is it repeatedly pointed out that other arab nations are no cradle of religious tolerance neither? How does it justify the treatment of palestinians? Ah, because they are all arabs, that's why (and worse, muslims). But why do people think it indicates moral high ground to be able to say "we might not be better than Saudi Arabia and Iran, but hey, we're at least not worse!"? Hello?

What really, really gets me is a certain lack of perspective. (the following numbers are estimates, so feel free to correct them)
Palestine is reduced to 11% of its original territory. There are about 4 million palestinians living in Gaza and West Bank. 1 million refugees away from Palestine not allowed to return.

Now imagine this: The indian population of North America is taking back the land reasoning that it was once theirs (only 4 centuries ago!), they kept the memory of their cultural origins alive and the land is a vital part of their religion.
In the process about 6 million americans are killed and 60 millions scattered all over the world as refugees. 200 million americans would be relocated to California and NewYork, the remaining US territory (again, if the numbers are inaccurate, you can throw in Ohio as well). Some rednecks fighting the occupation will be labeled terrorists and all of the other americans that do not despise those are labeled terrorists as well because of their support. You would condem them too? Ok, so it's the americans own fault that in the following years California and NewYork are cut of from the rest of the world, their infrastructure is bombed and levelled repeatedly, and another 3 million are killed (300.000 indians die too). The indians have to battle hard for their security, attacking most of the neighbouring, mainly christian nations. They occupy some million square miles in Canada, Mexico, Venezuela etc.

I could go on but i think you get the idea. The sad thing is, i know this is not helpful. Such reasoning won't bring an end to this conflict. But i strongly doubt that neglecting such perspectives will help in bringing peace about. Yes, forgeting about old wrongdoings is an essential part of finding peace. But i think we fool ourselves if we think that something on this scale can be forgotten without amends.

After all what happend to jews in the world over the centuries, i can understand the desire, even need, for a "secure" national state. But palestine had no part in that so it is simply no excuse, just a reason for what happens there.

[bernarda]

dkmy comes out with more propaganda and falsehoods, "Yet I also understand the anger felt by many Israelis at the continued bombing of Sderot after the evacuation of the Gaza Strip. We accept the concept of land for peace, but even when we comply, to the letter, with UN resolutions and evacuate lands we continue to be killed and bombed. What was the pretext for the kidnapping and killing of Israeli soldiers along the UN recognized Israel-Lebanon border, which started the 2nd Lebanon war? As someone has already stated here, you cannot use International law when it is convenient for you and discard it the next."

Israelis have never accepted the idea of "land for peace". They like to accept the UN resolution giving them half of Palestine that they never deserved but ignore all the resolutions going back to 1948 that tell them to allow the return of the people they violently expelled.

Lebanon did not violate international law. When did the Lebanese government attack Israel? Israelis dropping a million cluster bombs on Lebanon is a war crime and a crime against humanity. An Israeli soldier, or any soldier, is not "kidnapped", he is captured. Furthermore, that was not the cause of the Israeli massacre of Lebanese, it was a pretext as the attack had been planned by the Israelis long before.

Jews would not be getting killed in Palestine if they had stayed home and not invaded Palestine, and that goes back to the beginnings of the zionist movement. The only cause of the conflict is the zionist invasion.

There is so much disinformation in dkmy's posts that it is impossible to address it all.

For further information:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

http://www.palestineremembered.com/

[Pablo K]

First, a disclaimer - I know Saif pretty well and have worked with him on Palestinian rights before. Second, I recognise people's concerns about language and anger, but I think it reflects more on them then on Saif (more on which later).

But here's the crux for me - all the detail about who expelled who, when and how, who has more extremists and so on - all this is irrelevant to the central question (and the central point of Saif's piece).

If we agree to be universalists, then the only question is whether we agree with the following statement:

"The right of group X to self-determination is non-negotiable and is not related to actions that members of group X may or may not carry out against members of group Y."

It seems clear to me that we would agree to this statement whenever we fall into group X, however defined. So I do not think that my right of self-determination, or the right of self-determination of the citizens of England, is affected by actions of other English citizens against citizens of any other polity, whether that be by armed invasion, colonialism or simple murder. Similarly, the right of citizens of Israel to self-determination is not affected by the actions of the IDF or settler militias against Palestinians. And, to continue with the segregation argument, the rights of african americans to self-determination* would not have been lessened or compromised if some african americans had engaged in political assassinations, cafe bombings or mass non-violent protest.

If we agree with the preceeding claims it follows that terrorism, armed resistance, missiles falling on settlements, Haifa or Jerusalem - none of these have any bearing on the question of the rights of Palestinians to determine their own future without interference.

Yet the language of the conflict continues to violate this principle. It is often emphasised by defenders of Israel that Israel has an inalienable right to self-defence, which in political theory terms follows from the right of Israel to self-determination. This right, it is emphasised, is so basic that any other actions that Israel may or may not have carried out have no bearing on this right.

Yet, often in the same breath, it is said that Palestinians can have a state, can discuss restitution for previous wrongs, can be treated as 'partners for peace', ONLY WHEN they stop violence, don't use their democratic right to vote for parties we don't like, when Fatah or Hamas renounces this or that part of their Charter/ideology. In terms of our initial statement this is the equivalent of "Group X have the right to self-determination, but only when they satisfy conditions set by Group Y". This is patently ridiculous, as any of us non-Palestinians will discover by substituting the group of which we are members for X and another group (whether our friend or not) for Y.

The series of comments on Saif's piece here reflects an even more disgusting trend which amounts to "Group X have the right to self-determination, but only when they stop being so angry about everything and when they stop using language that Group Y, Z or Q find uncomfortable and counter-productive".

It will be argued that equal rights for non-Jews in Israel violates the right of Jews in Israel to self-determination. Leaving aside the obvious violation of any basic principle of universal democracy that this statement contains, it also does not follow in terms of our initial statement on the rights of self-determination. It should be obvious that a corrollary principle to the non-negotiable right of group X to self-determination is that 'self-determination' cannot involve the right to deny other groups, however defined, their right to self-determination (this follows from the universalist bit). Since the self-determination of an ethnic, racial or religious group is perfectly possible without an ethnically homogenous state, self-determination cannot be the justification for the racial, ethnic or religious purity of a nation. This goes for Saudi Arabia, England, Iran and Israel.

A final point for those complaining that Saif doesn't lambast (other) racist states enough is that political discourse is clearly contextual. You would not preface every criticism of X or Y government or group by pointing out that, of course, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were much worse. That is because it is basically given that everyone knows this. There are not a lot of people running around arguing otherwise. This is the difference when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Noone is on primetime news night after night arguing that Saudi Arabia is the most enlightened country in the middle east, that it doesn't torture or repress it's own citizens, or that it is an all-round good egg. But people do argue that Israel isn't really oppressing anyone, that's there's no occupation to speak of, that Palestinians don't actually exist as a group anyway, that Israel is not seriously responsible for one of the world's biggest (if not biggest) refugee problems, that Israel doesn't violate international law and has never broken basically accepted rules of war. So it is completely legitimate to focus on Israel to counteract such misinformation. I might as well criticise people who point to Palestinian suicide bombings or Hamas by saying "yeah, fine, but I don't hear you complaining about the Chinese occupation of Tibet".

(* I should clarify, to avoid confusion, that self-determination is not the same as exclusive nationhood. Groups within countries can have self-determination without having their own country. Although the desire for a country is often a part of the claim of self-determination, it is not a necessary element of it)

[Hektor Bim]

This sentence in particular leaps out at me as strange:

"If we agree with the preceeding claims it follows that terrorism, armed resistance, missiles falling on settlements, Haifa or Jerusalem - none of these have any bearing on the question of the rights of Palestinians to determine their own future without interference."

If you start a war with your neighbors, that seems to invite your neighbors to interfere in determining your own future, if only to stop you from killing them. This principle is true even if you didn't start the war, but merely continue it.

So I don't understand what you mean by this - self-determination is not some absolute right that all other rights, including the right to life, must bow before.

[Hektor Bim]

Also, about the other states comment. I agree with you that one must pick what they will focus on, but that doesn't mean that one denies the reality of other states: "Saudi Arabia is entirely Muslim", for example, is just factually wrong and insulting.

[Pablo K]

Hektor,

This goes to the root of the issue. It doesn't actually matter whether we agree on who 'started' the war. Let's say England starts a war with France. Of course France has a right to self-defence which follows from its right of self-determination. But it does not consequently have the right to rule or prevent English self-determination, even if England has attacked it. This is not self-determination obliterating the right to life but a limit on what it is reasonable to do in 'self-defence'. Of course, it may be that bombing or violence is an outcome of this self-defence, but the right does not go to colonisation or collective punishment.

In the Israel/Palestine case the issue is whether or not renouncing violence is a precondition for the right to self-determination. I am saying that it is not. The fact that the King David hotel was bombed during the period of Mandate Palestine does not violate(or should not have violated) the right of Jews or Zionists (there were no Israelis then) to self-determination. This is so even though the British could have argued that the terrorism of the Irgun (and others) 'invited' their interference in the future of Jewish refugees, which parties or political fronts were permissible, and so on.

It certainly would not legitimate a complex series of refugee camps and bantustans controlled by the British with unequal rights for any Jews living in Britain until there was an unequivocal renunciation of violence from all those who identified with the Zionist cause. Police, or even military action, may have been required to save civilian lives. But collective punishment through the denial of the right of self-determination to a group of people on the basis of the actions of individuals or smaller collectives within that group is not a legitimage form of self-defence.

[miuw]

Now that Saifedean Ammous and dkmy have helped focus the debate again, and given the thoughtful comments that have followed, it would be good to have a response from both dkmy and Hektor to, i) the (moral and legal) right of Saifedean Ammous to his land ii) if they feel that such a right holds, how they feel about the situation that prevents its exercise, iii) how this might be redressed as part of, and in the context of a broader resolution.

Saifedean Ammous has proposed what sounds like a one-state solution (I broached this earlier). Hektor and dkmy dismiss this as utopian and/or unpopular. dkmy proposes a two state solution based on territorial terms that seem practically unfeasible (the work of Eyal Wiseman is particularly instructive here).

How to address this moral, legal and 'practical' crux?

[Hektor Bim]

Pablo,

I think I see what you are talking about here now, but let me ask you something. What is preventing the Palestinians from exercising their right to self-determination and declaring a state in Gaza? The Israelis don't occupy Gaza, and declaring a state would be a quick way to force the Israelis to give up control of the border crossing with Egypt and the Gazan territorial waters and airspace.

It isn't only a case of the Israelis denying the right of self-determination to Palestinians, but of the Palestinians choosing not to exercise that right.

[Hektor Bim]

Miuw,

Simple, money. A two, or even three state solution, compensation for refugees (hopefully including Israeli refugees from Arab states, though that is unlikely given the current political situation), guarantees for minority rights in Israel/Palestine, final borders agreed to by negotiation. Patriation of Palestinian refugees to Palestine or granting of full citizenship rights in the lands they currently reside in. Possibly some small observer force in the Old City.

[Rawand]

I think the truth is self-evident for those who want to see, the world wants Palestinians and their culture to disappear just like the Native Americans and Aborigines etc. only to give way to Western culture (and Judaism -the nation- does belong to Western culture now)to dominate the planet. All of the above discussion only proves that negotiations are not the way back home because in negotiations basic truths and morals are considered "unrealistic". The only way is to keep fighting... And for the love of Yahweh, Arabs and all Near Eastern peoples are Semites. The jews no longer live in the ghettos of Europe. So update the term; to speak of "anti-semitism" today should refer to the hatred and denial of Palestinian human rights.

[Jesse M.]

It seems to me there is something a bit reactionary about all arguments which frame property "rights" in absolutist moral terms. I am more of absolutist about basic human rights such as the right not to be tortured, the right to hold and speak about one's beliefs, and so forth; but the notion of "property" is an artificial construction (one that originally seemed foreign to american indians when europeans sought to purchase land from them), a sort of collective agreement made by society because it serves the common good, and so the question of what "rights" people have should be framed in purely utilitarian terms, not absolutist moral ones. Most would probably agree with this in the case of intellectual property, for example; few think patents and copyrights should last forever, they should last whatever time is optimal for encouraging innovation. In the case of land, whatever attachment a person may feel about the place they grew up, if in utilitarian terms more people would be better off if the area was flooded to make a dam, or if part of the land was declared public property in order to preserve its natural state, then the government should have every right to take that person's property away from them. In the case of Israel, I wouldn't argue that the way the land was obtained from Palestinians in the first place was just, but when thinking about where to go from here, we should again think in utilitarian terms; the suffering and death caused by the continuing occupation is likely to be a lot greater than the suffering that would be occur under a two-state solution, however many unsatisfactory compromises the solution might involve, and such a solution is a lot less likely to become a reality if either side makes absolutist ultimatums about any issue, including the right of return (and also including Israel's desire to keep control over Jerusalem, to keep the settlements, to not negotiate unless the Palestinians renounce violence, to have the Jewish National Fund preventing Palestinians from *buying* family land back, etc.). It's possible one could come up with a purely utilitarian argument for taking a hard line on the right of return, but Saifedean Ammous has not made this sort of argument.

I really don't see any comparison with Rosa Parks here, because that case had nothing to do with property rights, it had to do with not being discriminated against on a piece of public transportation which wasn't owned by any of the passengers.

Incidentally, I would also like to see the right of return advocates address the questions of SLC in an earlier comment, since they have direct bearing on the issue of utilitarian pragmatism vs. moral absolutism about property rights:

Does Mr. miuw propose that the land taken from Native Americans by European settlers be returned to the descendants of the original owners? Does Mr. miuw propose that land taken from ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland area of the Czech Republic be returned to the descendants of the original owners? Does Mr. miuw propose that land taken from Moslems in what is now India and Hindus in what are now Pakistan and Bangladesh be returned to the descendants of the original owners? If the answer to any of these queries is no, then Mr. miuws' demand vis a vis the State of Israel demonstrates a lack of consistency.

[Rawand]

The issue of property and rights overlap when we see Palestinians living like cattle. They also overlap because the land becomes representative of cilture, so when Palestinian artists (not extremists) are murdered, Palestinian culture is being wiped out, that is an issue of right but represented through land i think. So many examples have been rightly brought up that lands have always belonged to many different peoples at different times, so land should not "rightfully belong" to anyone as such. This is why I do support a one state solution as Saif had proposed in a previous comment, although I believe that will be problematic for the Israelis because the demography will eventually make the jews a large minority. The many propositions brought forth about a two states solution are not really an outstanding revelation, how many plans have been made and how many American envoys to Israel and Saudi Arabia to create such a workable plan? All to no avail! I suggest we address the factors that are making all Palestine/Israel discussions about peace remain forever theoretical?!

[David]

Jesse M - it's not an issue of property rights at all. The issue is one of racism; is it, or is it not, acceptable for Israel (or anyone else) to limit who can purchase or access land based on their ancestry or religion? I suppose that's still not an explicitly consequentialist argument, but I think making a consequentialist argument for an absolute rejection of racism is pretty easy. I, a non-religious half-Jew who's never visited Israel, could purchase Saif's family's land if I had the money. He could not. Who does this benefit? Well, I suppose there's the arms industry...

dkmy - I'm surprised and heartened that you have adopted a more reasonable tone, because that Herzog speech you initially posted is malicious bile premised on the disingenuous conflation of Zionism and Judaism.

SLC - is better ignored. This guy is a far-right Zionist who I've seen trolling a number of blogs, but have yet to see contribute usefully to a discussion.

[Jesse M.]

it's not an issue of property rights at all. The issue is one of racism; is it, or is it not, acceptable for Israel (or anyone else) to limit who can purchase or access land based on their ancestry or religion?

That's why I said Israel shouldn't stand by those rules of the Jewish National Fund (although I'm unclear on the current status of the rules--this article says that the Israeli Supreme Court recently forbid discrimination between citizens, although it also suggests that they've created a new discriminatory 'workaround' where the Jewish National Fund is automatically granted new land every time it sells some to a non-Jew, and it may be that they are still allowed to discriminate between non-citizens who want to buy land). However, I understood the "right of return" to mean that Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens, but whose ancestors lived in what is currently Israel, should automatically be able to immigrate to Israel if they wished to (that's how it's defined in the wikipedia entry), and I also had the impression (though I may well be confused about this) that the idea was that Palestinians would simply be able to reclaim land that belonged to their ancestors, not that they could purchase it back if they had the money and if the owner was willing to sell.

I don't know anything about SLC's posting history, but I had been thinking of asking about american indians myself, so I just quoted him because he provided some additional examples I hadn't thought of. I suppose the relevance of these analogies depends on whether I've misunderstood the meaning of the term "right of return" though (certainly american indians are free to buy land that was once lived on by their ancestors), so I'll wait for clarification on that.

[aguy109]

The elephant in the room which no one addressing here is the true geographic scale of this dispute. The Palestinians are part of the greater "Umma Arabia", the Arab nation which shares a common religion, ethnic makeup, culture history and language. The Arab nation controls 20+ countries stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, repleat with oil and other natural resources, with a total surface area of about 11.5 million square kilometers. The Jewish homeland, Israel, covers just 26 thousand square kilometers, or 0.2% of what the Arab nation controls. Thats what all the self righteous wailing, squealing and knashing of teeth is about: 0.2%

[dkmy]

Miuw,
Let me start off by stating emphatically my position regarding land ownership: To my mind, there can be no legal discrimination based on race or creed or any other factor regarding land ownership in Israel. Mr. Ammous' family should, and to the best of my knowledge, can, buy land in Israel.
However, Jews are forbidden, by penalty of death, to buy land in the PA: http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/backg/land-pa.html).
Another example:
"PA cabinet decision passed at its weekly meeting in Ramallah on May 2-3, 1997 (Voice of Palestine, May 3, 1997):
"The Palestinian leadership listened to a report regarding the fact that a number of land speculators have sold, via foreign intermediaries, Palestinian land to foreign companies, which are in fact Israeli companies working in the framework of the settlement plans being carried out by the Israeli government. The Palestinian leadership has decided to forbid the sale of land anywhere in Palestine either directly or via intermediaries. The leadership has empowered the legal authorities and security forces to implement the decision on this matter and to punish anyone who has sold land directly or has assisted in its sale. The sale of land constitutes the gravest danger concerning the Judaization of the Palestinian lands."

As I stated before, I come from a long line of uprooted people, so, sadly, I am in an excellent position to appreciate Mr. Ammous' point of view.
However, I cannot agree with with the mythology that comes with it. The blood thirsty Zionist hordes did not descend on the peaceful orange groves of Palestine in 1948 from nowhere just to relish in the displacement of the Palestinian people. Such a view of history is a fabrication to anyone who studies the subject.
By 1948, Palestine had been under English mandatory rule for 28 years.
Article 2 of that mandate states:
"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion." (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Palestine_Mandate).
387,500 acres of Arab land were purchased by the Jews during this period.
1948 saw the Jewish Agency, as the acting representative of the Jewish people, accept the UN sanctioned partition of Israel. The Arab bloc flat out denied it and declared war on Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan).
The Arab bloc was absolutely confident that it could win that war and seize by military force what the international community denied.
They lost.
That loss was and is tragic in their eyes, but Israel cannot be saddled with the blame for that loss. Nor can it be saddled with the moral obligation of restitution occurred by that loss.
The theoretical question of morality is a very complex one - and I fail to see how I could ever persuade you or Mr. Ammous or Rawand or any other contributor here of my moral righteousness, or the other way round. That is why I emphasis practicality and pragmatism.
I do not see any chance of a one state solution in Palestine. The suggestion can only be made by people who do not live in the region and who have not experienced this conflict on a daily basis for decades.
Israel has made many mistakes. It has done shameful things. So have the Palestinians.
A two state solution, while difficult (and would probably lead Israel to, or near, a civil war) is feasible.

[SLC]

Re David

"SLC - is better ignored. This guy is a far-right Zionist who I've seen trolling a number of blogs, but have yet to see contribute usefully to a discussion."

Apparently Mr. Davids' definition of a far right Zionist is anybody to the right of Norman Finkelstein, undoubtedly one of his heroes.

Re dkmy

The two state solution has apparently become a three state solution (e.g. Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip).

[saifedean]

dkmy,

You made countless factual errors in your latest comment.

I am NOT allowed to buy my land back. Non-jews can not buy land in Israel; even the land that they themselves had owned before 1948. That's a fact, stop twisting it and lying to get your warped views across.

Your talk about the law in the PA is nonsense. The reality was that some of these lands were sold to third parties who then transferred them to settlements for Jews only. Since these settlements would then be fenced off and no Palestinians allowed to enter them, it is pretty sensible to make sure that none of these lands go to Israelis. If Israelis would just buy land like anyone else in the PA, that wouldn't be a problem, but when they buy the land and then fence it off for Jews only, move IDF tanks to protect it, and then expect to keep it in any future negotiation on the borders, then that's just criminal.

Finally, the "history" you wrote of 1948 is completely bullshit, to put it mildly. I have no interest in acting like a school teacher and showing you your mistakes. Please try to read some real history about the conflict before coming here and making a fool of yourself by reciting Israeli high-school textbook propaganda. A good place to start may be Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Walid Khalidi or Rashid Khalidi.

Once you actually know the history, it might be possible for adults to start taking you seriously and replying to your comments.

Finally, one more very important point about your previous comments. The difference between your ancestors' land in Bulgaria and my land in Palestine, is that you could, if you wanted to, go to Bulgaria, buy land, live there and even get the passport. The property itself may have gone, but there is no system of discrimination that prevents you from going there. That is actually what I would like to have in Palestine. I wouldn't mind losing my land itself, as long as I am not discriminated against. I would gladly give up my land for the abolition of the racist Zionist system that prevents non-Jews from owning land.

[Saifedean Ammous]

aguy109,

I usually don't stoop down to the level of your likes to answer your "arguments", but I will have to make an exception this time because the point you make, as ridiculously racist and idiotic as it is, is one that is made all too frequently and needs to be answered sometimes.

By your "logic", it would be perfectly ok for, say, Gypsies to come to Michigan and ethnically cleanse it, forcing all non-Gypsies to move to other American states. After all, gypsies do not have their own state, and Michigans are Americans and have 49 other states to which they can move.

Palestinians are Arabs, and they do consider themselves so, but they are also very consciously Palestinian. You can read the work of Yehoshaua Porath or Rashid Khalidi on Palestinian identity if you don't believe me. There is nothing wrong with them having both these loyalties, everyone, everywhere in the world has several loyalties. Someone can be Parisian, French, European, Catholic and Black and have a strong sense of belonging to all of these identities. That does not make any of them expendable by invading armies.

Palestinians feel a very strong attachment to Palestine, which is evident by the fact that they are still fighting for it after all those years. For a genius like yourself to stand and say that they're just Arabs and can go anywhere is as nonsensical as me telling someone from France that they're just Europeans and can move anywhere they want in Europe, as they don't really need France.

[miuw]

There seems to be a fundamental material discrepancy between Saifedean Ammous's key contention that in Israel he faces a legal system which resorts to racial determinations to exclude him from even purchasing land that belonged to his grandfather (and a system based on such determinations is surely racist), and dkmy's position that this is not so (indeed, he asserts that the contrary conditions obtain).

I am presuming that Saifedean Ammous has had direct experience of the legal conditions he describes and has had ample opportunity to explore their legal form and their practical implications.

What implications follow, then, from dkmy's own claim that 'To my mind, there can be no legal discrimination based on race or creed or any other factor regarding land ownership in Israel'?

It would seem to be genuinely valuable to resolve this material discrepancy, for then it would allow the ethical and pragmatic implications (which are necessarily folded into each other) to be directly addressed by dkmy (I believe that Saifedean Ammous has done so).

(To my mind, and for what it's worth, the distinction that Saifedean Ammous draws between Bulgaria and Israel in this connection is a powerful one.)

[dkmy]

Mr. Ammous,
Citing Revisionist historians (why do you conclude that I've never read them?) does not constitute an argument. Nor does the fact that they present a different view mean that they are actually right. I can point you here - http://www.meforum.org/article/302 for an excellent discussion of Revisionist theory and assumptions. But the fact that Israeli society is able to bear such diversity is encouraging. Where is your diversity? Where is the Palestinian different perspective?
Hurling abuse does nothing to prove your point. Prefixing automatic derogatory terms before every mention of "Zionist", "Jew" and "Israel" makes reading you ridiculous.

Miuw,
Here is a concrete example. Of course it will be lambasted by Mr. Ammous as vile Zionist propaganda, but then again, he says that about everything.

"Jerusalem, 8 March 2000
High Court: Decision on Katzir

(Communicated by Court's Spokeswoman)

The High Court of Justice today (Wednesday) 8.3.2000 ruled in the Katzir case. Following is the case summary:

Petitioners are an Arab couple who live in an Arab settlement. They seek to build a home in Katzir, a communal settlement in the Eron River region. This settlement was established in 1982 by the Jewish Agency in collaboration with the Katzir Cooperative Society, on State land that was allocated to the Jewish Agency (via the Israel Land Authority) for such a purpose. The Katzir Cooperative Society only accepts Jewish members. As such, it refuses to accept the Petitioners and permit them to build their home in the communal settlement of Katzir. The Petitioners claim that the policy constitutes discrimination on the basis of religion or nationality an that such discrimination is prohibited by law with regard to State land.

The Court examined the question of whether the refusal to allow the petitioners to build their home in Kaztir constituted impermissible discrimination. The Court's examination proceeded in two stages. First, the Court examined whether the State may allocate land directly to its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality. The answer is no. As a general rule, the principle of equality prohibits the State from distinguishing between its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality. The principle also applies to the allocation of State land. This conclusion is derived both from the values of Israel as a Democratic state and from the values of Israel as a Jewish state. The Jewish character of the State does not permit Israel to discriminate between its citizens. In Israel, Jews and non-Jews are citizens with equal rights and responsibilities. The State engages in impermissible discrimination even it if is also willing to allocate State land for the purpose of establishing an exclusively Arab settlement, as long as it permits a group of Jews, without distinguishing characteristics to establish an exclusively Jewish settlement on State land ("separate is inherently unequal").

Next, the Court examined whether the State may allocate land to the Jewish Agency knowing that the Agency will only permit Jews to use the land. The answer is no. Where one may not discriminate directly, one may not discriminate indirectly. If the State, through its own actions, may not discriminate on the basis of religion or nationality, it may not facilitate such discrimination by a third party. It does not change matters that the third party is the Jewish Agency. Even if the Jewish Agency may distinguish between Jews and non-Jews, it may not do so in the allocation of State land.

The Court limited its decision to the particular facts of this case. The general issue of use of State lands for the purposes of settlement raises a wide range of questions. First, as the petitioners themselves agreed, this case is not directed at past allocations of State land. This petition looks to the future. Second, this petition focuses on the particular circumstances of the communal settlement of Katzir. In discussing this issue, the Court stated:

"Naturally, there are different types of settlements, for example, kibbutzim and moshavim. Different types of settlements give rise to different problems. We did not hear arguments regarding other types of settlements and therefore, we do not take a position with regard to these types of settlements. Moreover, we must consider the possibility that special circumstances, beyond the type of settlement, may be relevant. We did not hear arguments with regard to such special circumstances, and therefore we do not take a position with regard to their significance. Moreover, it is important to understand and remember that today we are taking the first step in a sensitive and difficult journey. It is wise to proceed slowly, so that we do not stumble and fall, and instead we will proceed cautiously at every stage, according to the circumstances of each case."

With regard to the relief requested by the petitioners, the Court noted various social legal difficulties. In light of these difficulties, the Court rendered the following judgement:

A. "We hold that the State of Israel was not permitted, by law, to allocate State land to the Jewish Agency for the purpose of establishing the communal settlement of Katzir on the basis of discrimination between Jews and non-Jews.

B. The State of Israel mist consider the petitioners' request to acquire land for themselves in the settlement of Katzir for the purpose of building their home. The State must make this consideration based on the principle of equality, and considering various other relevant factors - including those factors affecting the Jewish Agency and the current residents of Katzir. The State of Israel must also consider the numerous legal issues. Based on these considerations, the State of Israel must determine with deliberate speed whether to allow the petitioners to make a home within the communal settlement of Katzir."

President Aharon Barak filed an opinion in which Justices T. Or and I. Zamir joined. Justice M. Cheshin concurred in the judgement and filed an opinion. Justice Y. Kedmi dissented in the judgement and filed an opinion."
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2000/High+Court-+Decision+on+Katzir+-+8-Mar-2000.htm

[aguy109]

I did not address my remarks to Mr Ammous but to the international audience before which he is pushing his case. Arab Muslims control 99.8% of the lands of the Middle East that were once under Ottoman control. Should the rest of the world go out of its way to help them get their hands on the remaining 0.2% and throw out the Jews, whose religious, ethnic and political origins in that slither of land have always been accepted and tacitly acknowledged, even by the Prophet Muhammed himself, who knew and argued with Jews personnally and even incorporated the Hebrew patriarchs and Moses into the Islamic faith? How fitting that Ammous, like the Nazis, compares Jews with Gypsies. No coincidence: the leader of the main Palestinian group in the 1930's, the Mufti of Jerusalem, obtained a personal audience with Hitler and signed a pact with the Fuehrer. A number of Palestinians voluntered to serve in the Nazi army, which came close to conquering North Africa.

[Dave G.]

From yesterday's Haaretz:

"The Knesset plenum approved a bill Wednesday, in its preliminary reading, which calls for all lands under the Jewish National Fund (JNF) to be allocated to Jews only. The bill passed by a massive majority of 64 MKS to 16."

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2007/07/israel-racism-watch-knesset-gives.html

[kevin]

Damn I came late to this... I wish I'd seen this article earlier as this is my kind of brawl. I don't have the time to read thru every comment now and so I'll refrain from jumping in (just yet) other than to say props and bravo to Saif for this piece. It's time we really began to understand the central issues of the Palestinian-Israeli struggle; not the nonsense of "age-old" hatred but of practicalities like the right of refugees to return or be compensated for their lost property. None of the issue will be solved until 1948 is revisited -- all the Zionists here really need to take note of this. Until there is a just accounting of that historical moment, this tragedy will simply continue.

So many points deserve rebuttal, and Saif and others have done well so far. I would like to respond to those who castigate Saif for the passion of his elocution. This is such a tiresome way of putting down those who raise issues of justice -- seriously, just watch and see how white folk get uncomfortable when an African-American talks about ongoing racism... and when they're alone they look at each other and say, if only she was a little more reasonable in how she made her argument, if only a bit more polite. Saif's family (and hundreds of thousands - now millions - of others) have had the ongoing trauma of 1948 and then the occupation digging into their souls. You want them to be more polite while they make their points? Thank you masta, yessir masta?

Speaking of racism, thanks aguy109 for giving us a shining example: "Arab Muslims control 99.8% of the lands of the Middle East that were once under Ottoman control. Should the rest of the world go out of its way to help them get their hands on the remaining 0.2% and throw out the Jews..." (etc) First of all, Turks, Armenians, Bulgarians, Serbs and all sorts of non Arabs now have nations where the Ottomans once were, so your stats are all off my friend. But the point is what do Palestinians have to do with "Arab Muslims" unless, since you're racist, you think that all Arabs are just interchangeable, and so what if this million are ethnically cleansed they can just git up and move on over there with the others of their swarthy kind? That's textbook racism. And if you want to get into the race game, how many Jews actually have a blood link back to the fabled biblical Israelites? No one knows, and I really don't care, but making your asinine arguments about a birthright hold no water to those of us who see the world as a complex place whose history doesn't match a few odd stories in the Good Book. (By the way, how many days did it take for God to make the earth?)

[miuw]

Folks, I, for one, am keen to establish the facts as they pertain to Saifedean Ammous's central contention. It would be useful to reach agreement about points of law.

As I noted in an exchange with Hektor, the mere existence of a formal or legal condition of possibility says nothing of the ease or arduousness of the process of its realization. Nevertheless, it is important to establish what formal conditions do obtain (or did obtain until the most recent ruling posted above by Dave G). Of course, it is not always easy to reach an apodictic conclusion regarding a point of law, because laws tend to be established through contest and the actual nature of statute is always subject to (often willful) interpretation.

I distrust many of the online sources that address the issue, though many suggest that (at least until yesterday) such a 'formal' possibility (for non-Jews to buy land in Israel) did obtain. However, it also seems that the reason for such rulings as have been made establishing such a right is that in practice such a possibility was impossible to realise (for Palestinians).

I think it would be useful to keep this thread alive, and I think that the more substantiated facts that are brought to the debate the better. It would be truly useful for a great many people sympathetic with your position, Saifedean Ammous, if you would point towards relevant rulings and statutes (I'm sure you've much else to be busy with, but you did start this thread). Likewise, I think it would be of real benefit, at the risk of seeming school teacherly, if you did point out specific factual errors and untenable historical interpretations offered here as a rebuttal of your claims.

dkmy and Hektor, given your variously angled contentions that 'racism' is not at play here it would be truly useful to learn your response to the following from 'Jerry Haber', an orthodox progressive Jew (this text can be found at the URL in Dave G's post above):

Basically, the Israeli Knesset gave preliminary approval today to a bill outlawing the lease of land owned by the Jewish National Fund to goyim. It now goes into committee where, God willing, it will be buried. But I doubt it.

Of course, it is against the halakha to sell the land of Israel to idolaters. The fact that Rav Kook ruled that Muslims are not idolaters is a source of unending embarrassment to the religious right.

But the point of this bill -- cosponsored by a member of Ehud Olmert's Kadimah party -- is to bypass the High Court's 2004 ruling that required the JNF to lease state land to Israeli arab Adil Ka'adan as a result of that ruling, Meni Mazuz, the State Comptroller, instructed the JNF not to discriminate in sales. That angered the Israeli legislators, who wish to pass this discriminatory law. The irony is that there was an attempt to prevent the bill from being tabled because it is racist. Apparently, not enough.

By the way, the Ka'dan ruling was praised by Alan Dershowitz in his book, "The Case for Israel."

I am hoping that Alan will speak loud and clear against this racist -- oops -- "Jewish" law, (that is how the proponents are describing it.)

Should I be glad that the racism that is so deeply rooted in political Zionism, and the State of Israel, is being flushed out of the closet for everybody to see? Not really.

But hang on...it is a Jewish state, right? And that land was bought by Jews for Jews. I mean shouldn't everybody have to a right to buy land for her family?

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2007/07/israel-racism-watch-knesset-gives.html

Sure, and I have a legal and moral right to sell only to whites -- right?

[dkmy]

Miuw,

As I stated before, to my mind the preliminary approval of this law is an abomination. However, it still has to go through a long legislative process to become law, and I am sure that it will be contested in the Supreme Court and the Knesset itself. I would think that this attempt at legislation proves that no such legislation existed until now, as opposed to what Mr. Ammous and others keep claiming.

"Jerry Haber", a pseudonym for someone who claims to be an orthodox Jew yet uses the byline -"Not just another Israel-bashing blog" seems to me a very suspect authority for someone who claims to distrust online sources.

Dave G. - why not quote Ha'aretz's editorial about this attempt at legislation, which condemns it in the strongest terms:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/884358.html

Kevin,
Regarding the "passion" of Mr. Ammous' elocution - I'm surprised that a call for some restraint on language is so annoying to some of you. Is it so strange to have a debate that does not entail abuse?

One of the things I've learned during this discussion is that unlike Israeli discourse on the conflict, which ranges from revisionist historians such as Mr. Pape to right wing politicians who promote laws such as the one discussed here, the Palestinian side is a monolith. There are no gradations, no difference of tone or perspective, no self-doubt or admission of error.

As I started my comments here with a long quotation, I would like to end them with another one, from The Economist / May 26, 2007, which sums up my views on the matter quite succinctly:

"The 6-day war, 40 years on
Israel's wasted victory

On the seventh day Jews everywhere celebrated Israel’s deliverance from danger. But 40 years after that tumultuous June of 1967, the six-day war has come to look like one of history’s pyrrhic victories. That is not to say that the war was unnecessary. Israel struck after Egypt’s President Nasser sent his army into the Sinai peninsula, evicted United Nations peacekeeping forces and blockaded Israeli shipping through the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel’s victory opened the waterway and smashed its enemies’ encircling armies, averting what many Israelis sincerely expected to be a second Holocaust. And yet, in the long run, the war turned into a calamity for the Jewish state no less than for its neighbours.

Part of the trouble was the completeness of the triumph. Its speed and scope led many Israelis to see a divine hand in their victory. This changed Israel itself, giving birth to an irredentist religious-nationalist movement intent on permanent colonisation of the occupied lands (see article). After six days Israel had conquered not just Sinai and the Syrian Golan Heights but also the old city of Jerusalem and the West Bank—the biblical Judea and Samaria where Judaism began. In theory, these lands might have been traded back for the peace the Arabs had withheld since Israel’s founding. That is what the UN Security Council proposed in Resolution 242. But Israelis were intoxicated by victory and the Arabs paralysed by humiliation. The Arabs did not phone to sue for peace and Israel did not mind not hearing from them. Instead, it embarked on its hubristic folly of annexing the Arab half of Jerusalem and—in defiance of law, demography and common sense—planting Jewish settlements in all the occupied territories to secure a Greater Israel.

The six-day war changed the Palestinians too. They had been scattered by the fighting that accompanied Israel’s founding in 1948. Some fled beyond Palestine; others became citizens of the Jewish state or lived under Egypt in Gaza and Jordan in the West Bank. The 1967 war reunited them under Israeli control and so sharpened their own thwarted hunger for statehood. When, decades later, Egypt and Jordan did make peace with Israel, the Palestinians did not recover Gaza and the West Bank. This has left some 4m Palestinians desperate for independence but in a confined land choked by Jewish settlements—along with the fences, checkpoints and all the hardships and indignities of military occupation. Ariel Sharon, it is true, dragged Israel out of the Gaza Strip two years ago. But so what? The Palestinians will not consider peace unless they get the West Bank and Arab Jerusalem too. And Hamas, the Islamists who now run what passes for a Palestinian government, says it will not make a permanent peace even then.

Is there a way out? Yes: but making peace will take courage, and too much of the energy that should have gone into peacemaking has been squandered on the blame game. There is, admittedly, plenty of blame to go round. What right had the British, in 1917, to promise the Jews a national home in Palestine? Why did the Palestinians reject partition in 1947? Why did Israel colonise the territories after 1967? Why did the Americans let Israel get away with it? Why did the Arab states leave the refugees to fester in camps? The Palestinians are terrorists, Zionism is racism, Israel’s enemies are anti-Semites. Yasser Arafat should have accepted Israel’s “generous offer” at Camp David in 2000. But, hang on, Israel’s offer was not so generous...

And so the quarrel spins, growing more bitter with each revolution and spreading far beyond the Middle East. What started as a national struggle between two peoples for one land is gradually, and often wilfully, being transformed into a war of religion, feeding poison into the wounded relations between Islam and the West as a whole. It is scandalous that the occupation has persisted since 1967. This conflict should have been resolved long ago, and its continuation is an indictment of all involved, from the warring parties for their intransigence, to regional powers that have exploited the Palestinian cause for self interest, to the great powers for their lack of sustained attention. It should end—but how?

The answer has been obvious at least since 1937, when a British royal commission under Lord Peel reported that “an irrepressible conflict” had arisen between the Arabs and Jews of Palestine and that the country would have to be partitioned. More recently, the manner of the division has become obvious too. Despite all Israel’s settlements, demography and justice still point to a border based on the pre-1967 lines, with minor adjustments of the sort Bill Clinton suggested in 2000.

As Mr Clinton’s failure at Camp David demonstrated, securing agreement for such a deal will be hard. The Clinton solution would require Israel to give up the bulk of its settlements in the West Bank, uproot a great many more settlers than it did in Gaza and share sovereignty over Jerusalem. The Palestinians would have to accept that most refugees would “return” not to their homes of 60 years ago inside Israel but to a new state in the West Bank and Gaza. Such compromises will hurt. But for either side to give less and demand more will merely tip the difficult into the impossible.

Right now both continue to offer too little and demand too much. Israel has at least abandoned the dream of a Greater Israel that bewitched it after the great victory of 1967. The illusion that the Palestinians would fall into silence has been shattered by two intifadas and every rocket Hamas fires from Gaza. Israel’s present government says it is committed to a two-state solution. But it is a weak government, and has lacked the courage to spell out honestly the full territorial price Israelis must pay. The Palestinians have meanwhile gone backwards. If Hamas means what it says, it continues to reject the idea that Jews have a right to a national existence in the Middle East.

What self-defeating madness. For peace to come, Israel must give up the West Bank and share Jerusalem; the Palestinians must give up the dream of return and make Israel feel secure as a Jewish state. All the rest is detail.

[Kevin]

Dkmy displays the sad reality of American comprehension of this matter... while her or his perspective shows some awareness of those (few) brave Israeli Jews who dissent from the heavy weight of mainstream Israeli public discourse, yet when a Palestinian writes about anything the images of toothless raving Muslim hordes overwhelms his or her imagination: "the Palestinian side is a monolith. There are no gradations, no difference of tone or perspective, no self-doubt or admission of error."

Is it any longer acceptable to make claims that any peoples all think, act, are alike? Of course not - to claim that they do is now recognized as a form of racism. It's like saying "the Jews all say..." or "the Blacks all do..." The fact that you don't perceive variety among these impolite rabble-rousing Palestinians is due more to your willful ignorance and, let's face it, your racism toward Palestinians. I say this with some concern for you - you need to really examine how you view Palestinians. Perhaps it escaped you that recent months have brought about a significant ideological split between two very different political visions among the Palestinians. "A monolith"? Saif himself has already spoken about wide differences between Palestinians on the right of return as well as a range of other issues - just to begin with, as a baby-step to learning about this issue, you might take a look at the attention Sari Nusseibeh receives from lefty Zionists for arguing against the right of return - of course, he's a legitimate part of Palestinian public discourse, but someone Saif would argue against passionately, yet you can't - don't want to - see it... So much for the monolithic ideology that you seem to think every Palestinian robotically intones in jarring and uncouth statements.

And on your other point: it's your arrogant sense privilege that renders Saif's eloquence into 'abuse'. Every supposedly "common sense" claim you make about what the Palestinians need to give up here has such a long and terrible history of violence and oppression woven into it. But heaven forbid a Palestinian dare to speak back to you as an equal; that would certainly be abuse.

[PeaceThroughJustice]

"68% of Jews would refuse to live in same building as an Arab."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/697458.html

"A Haifa University poll released in June revealed that over 63 percent of Jews believed that the Government should encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate."
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm

[Dave G.]

It's interesting how few of the comments here have responded to the fundamental issues of justice that Saifedean raised. As usually happens with discussions touching on Zionism, this one was sidetracked into pointless quibbles over terminology and historical irrelevancies. It's so common a tactic on the Internet that it's hard not to suspect that it's intentional.

As we attempt to move forward in solving the problem the world faces in the Middle East, there are many principles and practices over which people of good faith can disagree. But the racism inherent in an ideology that teaches that Jews must not live amongst Gentiles, and that they possess a claim to Palestine which takes precedence over all others -- including the inhabitants' -- is not among them.

If the SLC's and dkmy's and guy109's continue to deny this, I'm afraid they must be politely left behind. Too much is at stake to let them continue to sabotage the struggle for justice. Sixty years is too long.

[Jonathan]

I posted a long time ago in this sad exchange. Returning to it a week later, I'm further dispirited to see that relatively moderate posts like dkmy's "Israel must give up the West Bank and share Jerusalem; the Palestinians must give up the dream of return and make Israel feel secure as a Jewish state" get treated like they're the ravings of "zionist racists." Such is madness. For as long as discussions like this get stuck in the idiom of the Ramsey Clark brigade they really don't offer much in the way of enlightenment, knowledge, or conversation.

[miuw]

The passage of this post, from dkmy's initial Herzog quote to that of the Economist article, should surely be welcomed, surely presents openings for genuine dialogue. Why is his position being dismissed out of hand? (And I am unsure why Kevin is making dkmy a proxy for the 'American comprehension of this matter'.)

It is so that the everyday of most Israelis affords (literally) more space for perspective. As an occupying power (and dkmy seems to accede to as much) they occupy the strategic heights, they control the water rights that keep the ample lawns of settlements green, they control the electricity in the very homes of Palestinians. So, perhaps one should expect greater accommodation in Israeli discourse (though, who is to judge the share of another's suffering without even knowing who they are?).

dkmy has clearly stated that discrimination on the grounds of race is an abomination, but has pointed to rulings that suggest, whatever the case in practice, this practice is not (or was not) enshrined in law. Of course, the case in practice is what counts, and so it would have been useful to have precise and considered examples from the likes of Saifedean Ammous, that either illustrate the situation in practice or confirm his claims about points of law.

It seemed to me that dkmy's approach was humane, principled and reasoned. It would be most heartening to see an engagement here. In such a forum as this, with intelligence, compassion, a rich historical sense and a forward looking political imagination, can we not try to sustain a debate that moves us all closer understanding and opens a space for the posing solutions?

[Shlomo]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F8527028-AA0F-4560-92E1-11D89FE0A4E3.htm

[Donald]

"Ramsay Clark brigade"--

In other words, anyone who steps outside the mainstream opinion in the US is to be lumped in with crazies, crackpots, etc. Typical bullying tactic by people who don't want to be bothered by reasonable arguments that make them uncomfortable.

Saife's opinion is logically unassailable. It might or might not be politically achievable--there's no evidence the two state solution is politically achievable in the current climate.

[aguy109]

"Saife's opinion is logically unassailable."
Only logical to those who accept the premises of his argument. These include the complete denial of any national right of Jews to live in the land of Israel, and the rightness of turning the clock back 120 years to the advantage of Saif's displaced family members. Is the best, most just way to conflict resolution the elimination of one side of the conflict?
Hey, I'm not too worried. The Israeli economy is booming, 5,000 American Jews, as well as thousands of French Jews, have come to settle here over the past 3 years, Israeli textile companies have boosted the Jordanian economy and provided many jobs there, the Palestinian camp has split into 2 main warring factions, apart from the many sub factions. Not wonderful, but not too bad, so we needn't worry about closet anti semites like Kevin etc who jump on the Palestinian bandwagon, even when its stuck in the mud.

[Elaine]

"the complete denial of any national right of Jews to live in the land of Israel"

Only if they continue to insist in not sharing it.

(A people apart, indeed.)