Alan Dershowitz --Palestinians and the 'right of return'
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 Jerusalem Posts -> Introduction to the Arab/Israel Conflict
Author: dbdent, Location: Israel PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:36 pm    Post subject: Alan Dershowitz --Palestinians and the 'right of return'
Israel doesn't have to affirm bogus Palestinian refugee claims to resolve this issue.


The Christian Science Monitor
April 16, 2007

Cambridge, Mass. - Among the major barriers to peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis is the so-called right of return. In its broadest formulation, this "right" belongs to some 4 million alleged descendants of the 700,000 or so Palestinian Arabs who left what is now Israel as the result of the war that began when Israel declared statehood in 1948.

Palestinians say the Israeli government used the war as an excuse to chase a significant percentage of its Arab population out of the newly formed Jewish state. Palestinians call this war and its aftermath "al Nakba" – "the catastrophe."

Israelis insist this catastrophe was self-inflicted. By attacking Israel in a genocidal attempt to push the Jews into the sea, the combined Arab armies created the refugee problem. Israel acknowledges that it forced out some local Palestinians who lived in areas critical to the defense of the new state. But Israel insists that many other Palestinians left of their own volition or at the behest of Arab leaders who promised that the Palestinians would return triumphantly after Israel was defeated.

What is beyond dispute is that many of the refugees – regardless of how they became refugees – were placed in miserable camps and kept there for half a century by the Arab nations in which they sought refuge.

The millions of other refugees who were forced to leave their homes in the decades following World War II – the Sudeten-Germans, the Greeks and Turks, Pakistanis and Indians, and the 700,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries – have all been integrated and normalized. Only the Palestinian refugees have been kept in camps by their Arab hosts. The reason was and is entirely political: to maintain resentment and to hold open the empty promise of a triumphant return that would achieve demographically what the Arab nations have been unable to achieve militarily – destruction of the Jewish state.

Israel sees the right not as an individual, humanitarian claim, but rather as a collective, political assertion designed to turn Israel into another Arab state. In 1949, Egypt's foreign minister candidly acknowledged: "It is well known and understood that the Arabs, in demanding the return of the refugees to Palestine, mean their return as masters of their homeland, and not as slaves. More explicitly: they intend to annihilate the state of Israel."

That is why Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may have been correct in principle when he announced recently that he would never accept a right of return by Palestinian refugees and their descendants. His argument was simple: The Palestinians, aided by the surrounding Arab countries, started a war against the new state of Israel in an effort to destroy it; had they instead accepted the partition – the two-state solution – Israel would have accepted the presence of significant numbers of Palestinians in the new Jewish state. But once the Palestinians started a genocidal war, the inevitable consequence was the creation of refugees. Even if some were in fact forced to leave by Israeli military commanders, such actions were in response to the attack by the Arabs.

The best proof of the correctness of Mr. Olmert's view is to imagine what would be happening today if the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine if the Palestinians had won and many Israelis had been forced to leave, while others left of their own volition or as the result of fear. Now imagine those Jews seeking a right of return, either in the immediate aftermath of the war or 60 years later. It is inconceivable that a Palestinian state would grant Jewish refugees a right of return. Certainly that would be true if the number of Israeli refugees and their descendants threatened to outnumber the Palestinian population. How can a right of return go only one way? Has Yemen offered its Jewish refugee population any right of return or compensation? Has Egypt? Has Iran? Has Iraq? Has Syria? Of course not.

Of all the post-WWII refugee claims, the Palestinian claim is the weakest, and yet it has received the widest and most vocal support from the United Nations and the international community.

Having concluded that Olmert was right as a matter of principle, I also believe that he may have been wrong as a matter of tactics. The Palestinian narrative, whether factually correct or incorrect, is a reality in the minds of most Palestinians. Earlier Israeli prime ministers recognized that and were prepared to compromise principle for a pragmatic peace. They indicated a willingness to accept some symbolic right of return coupled with compensation. As current Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres once put it: Don't destroy our enemies' dream; just don't let them turn it into our nightmare.

This issue is of great importance in light of the Saudi peace plan, which is ambiguous on the issue of refugees: demanding a just resolution, but not specifying the details of such a resolution. A just resolution could include a guaranteed right of all refugees and their descendants to return to this newly established Palestinian state, while also allowing those actual refugees – but not their relatives – who can prove they were ejected, to be reunited with families that now live in Israel or to be reasonably compensated for their financial losses. A numerical cap would have to be placed on the number of refugees allowed to move to Israel and their entry would be subject to security requirements. A reciprocal right should be accorded to Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

For peace to be achieved, pragmatism must be balanced with principle. The right of return should be implemented so as to protect Israel against demographic annihilation without denigrating the Palestinian narrative.

• Alan Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard University, is the author of "The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved."

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0416/p09s01-coop.html
Author: sparky, Location: Lexington Avenue & Concord Boulevaard PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:41 pm    Post subject:
"Right of return" .. indeed. Firstly there's no such thing as a "palestinian". Then there's no such place as "palestine". Other than that these non-existent people have a non-existent right to return to exactly nowhere How do I know?

Last edited by sparky on Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Author: BIG,  PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:09 pm    Post subject:
This is how the Israelis should grant the right of return.

They should say they will only grant it to the 700,000 that fled back in 1948. There are less than 60,000 still living today and the youngest would be almost 60. They can't bring wives they married from outside the group nor their chidren born in the refugee camps or elsewhere. They would also be granted a special temporary status (apartheid) where they go through a probationary period before they become citizens or are allowed visitors from outside of Israel. This could be done in stages where they gain rights like voting and welfare and finally visits from family that do not live in Israel.

In this way, the Israelis can claim they allowed full ROR for all those that were forced to flee while in actuality, I doubt very many would even take them up on it. Who wants to be old, living alone in a country you don't know, without your family and friends?
Author: Nannette,  PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:05 am    Post subject:
You've got a good point there Bruce... it would be a good idea if the Israeli government would take you up on it...
Author: Michael_BlackburnSr, Location: IsraelAmerica, Ani ohev et Israel PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:22 am    Post subject:
BIG wrote:
This is how the Israelis should grant the right of return.

They should say they will only grant it to the 700,000 that fled back in 1948. There are less than 60,000 still living today and the youngest would be almost 60. They can't bring wives they married from outside the group nor their chidren born in the refugee camps or elsewhere. They would also be granted a special temporary status (apartheid) where they go through a probationary period before they become citizens or are allowed visitors from outside of Israel. This could be done in stages where they gain rights like voting and welfare and finally visits from family that do not live in Israel.



Bruce I think your idea has been embraced by Dershowitz,

"A just resolution could include a guaranteed right of all refugees and their descendants to return to this newly established Palestinian state, while also allowing those actual refugees – but not their relatives – who can prove they were ejected, to be reunited with families that now live in Israel or to be reasonably compensated for their financial losses. "

The most direct, and most consistent method for dealing with the situation is the one mentioned by Olmert and outlined by Dershowitz:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may have been correct in principle when he announced recently that he would never accept a right of return by Palestinian refugees and their descendants. His argument was simple: The Palestinians, aided by the surrounding Arab countries, started a war against the new state of Israel in an effort to destroy it; had they instead accepted the partition – the two-state solution – Israel would have accepted the presence of significant numbers of Palestinians in the new Jewish state. But once the Palestinians started a genocidal war, the inevitable consequence was the creation of refugees. Even if some were in fact forced to leave by Israeli military commanders, such actions were in response to the attack by the Arabs.

I think, in reality, one has to accept that, as Mr Dershowitz points out,many Palestinians do in fact have what amounts to a legitimate issue in terms of at least having some claim to the land that they lived on for hundreds of years.

"Having concluded that Olmert was right as a matter of principle, I also believe that he may have been wrong as a matter of tactics. The Palestinian narrative, whether factually correct or incorrect, is a reality in the minds of most Palestinians.
For peace to be achieved, pragmatism must be balanced with principle. The right of return should be implemented so as to protect Israel against demographic annihilation without denigrating the Palestinian narrative."

There have been some hopeful signs, some of the Palestinians have shown some pragmatism and seem to be waking up to the fact that they have been victimized more by their fellow Arabs than they ever have been by Israelis.
We need to support and encourage the moderate Palestinians and oppose and undermine the lunatic fringe, i.e., Hamas and the like.
Obviously, for the reasons mentioned, and unequivocal right of return is unacceptable.






__________
Author: BIG,  PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:51 pm    Post subject:
The PLO-Arabs would only accept what you say on an interim basis. Until they get full ROR, the war will continue. Israel needs to get rid of the refugee issue once and for all. Their first move should be to try to get rid of UNRWA and get the original refugees listed under UNHCR and stop the increasing numbers of refugees. This way, the longer the Arabs hold out, the fewer Muslims they will be able to plant inside whatever is left of Israel.

As for your faith in Olmert, he is just as bad as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. He believes victory comes from surrender and talking to your enemies.
Author: reality check,  PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:20 pm    Post subject:
BIG wrote:
The PLO-Arabs would only accept what you say on an interim basis. Until they get full ROR, the war will continue. Israel needs to get rid of the refugee issue once and for all. Their first move should be to try to get rid of UNRWA and get the original refugees listed under UNHCR and stop the increasing numbers of refugees. This way, the longer the Arabs hold out, the fewer Muslims they will be able to plant inside whatever is left of Israel.

As for your faith in Olmert, he is just as bad as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. He believes victory comes from surrender and talking to your enemies.


Olmert is a clone of Mr. Bush, not Reid or Pelosi.
Bush is the one who appeases the Saudis, who
arms the PLO, who does nothing to confront the
threats posed by Syria and Iran, and loses wars
in the Middle East. Reid & Pelosi did none of this!

But I can see why you'd like to pin all of Bush's
failures on the Democrats! And of course you've
been doing this all along, even when Democrats
like Reid and Pelosi had no power at all. But this
is typical for a Republican. Blame the Democrats!

BTW, did you hear that Republican congressman
Darrel Issa made a trip to meet Bashir Assad in
Damascus right after Nanci Pelosi left? How come
all you Republicans had nothing bad to say about
that? I'll tell you why, because you have no firm
principles and are driven by purely political goals.

Author: Michael_BlackburnSr, Location: IsraelAmerica, Ani ohev et Israel PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:11 pm    Post subject:
BIG wrote:
The PLO-Arabs would only accept what you say on an interim basis. Until they get full ROR, the war will continue. Israel needs to get rid of the refugee issue once and for all. Their first move should be to try to get rid of UNRWA and get the original refugees listed under UNHCR and stop the increasing numbers of refugees. This way, the longer the Arabs hold out, the fewer Muslims they will be able to plant inside whatever is left of Israel.

As for your faith in Olmert, he is just as bad as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. He believes victory comes from surrender and talking to your enemies.


You are probably right, otoh, some Palestinians are sick of the fighting and the killing and want peace, and a chance at a decent life. Those are the ones we need to encourage.




______________________________
Author: BIG,  PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:08 pm    Post subject:
reality check wrote:

Olmert is a clone of Mr. Bush, not Reid or Pelosi.
Bush is the one who appeases the Saudis, who
arms the PLO, who does nothing to confront the
threats posed by Syria and Iran, and loses wars
in the Middle East. Reid & Pelosi did none of this!

But I can see why you'd like to pin all of Bush's
failures on the Democrats! And of course you've
been doing this all along, even when Democrats
like Reid and Pelosi had no power at all. But this
is typical for a Republican. Blame the Democrats!

BTW, did you hear that Republican congressman
Darrel Issa made a trip to meet Bashir Assad in
Damascus right after Nanci Pelosi left? How come
all you Republicans had nothing bad to say about
that? I'll tell you why, because you have no firm
principles and are driven by purely political goals.



When Issa becomes Speaker of the House and makes public statements that are treasoness, I will point them out like I did of Pelosi's. When are you going to condemn Pelosi's actions like you just did to Issa's? Or do you only find fault with Republicans and turn a blind eye to all the negative actions of Democrats?
Author: sparky, Location: Lexington Avenue & Concord Boulevaard PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:48 pm    Post subject: Beguiling Serpent Upon the Slow Witted
This comment is slightly off topic but it is a rather facinating observation none-the-less

What is it about liberals/democrats that they find "islam" facinating? A look at poor pathetic Nancy Pelosi as she skipped along in Damascus, showed her all agog almost pissing herself in eager anticipation with her new found friend, Bashar. It's almost as if they view this misFuk "religion" as something mysterious and intriguing ... like something that they should protect and cherish and hold to their tolerant and inclusive bosom. Let's take the "palestinians" for example: Democrats view this misfuk concept as if it were something real. It would seem that this whole nonsensical "palestinian" gig is tailor-made for softHeaded liberal thinking. Like, ".. those poor, poor downtrodden oppressed greasy smelly little people that are resisting so valiantly in the face of overwhelming odds .." etc., etc., ad nauseum

What is it about democrats that makes them so easily duped? It must be some kind of touchy-feely thing that sane and lucid people aren't aware of

:straight: Hypnotic
Author: Michael_BlackburnSr, Location: IsraelAmerica, Ani ohev et Israel PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Beguiling Serpent Upon the Slow Witted
sparky wrote:
This comment is slightly off topic but it is a rather facinating observation none-the-less

What is it about liberals/democrats that they find "islam" facinating? A look at poor pathetic Nancy Pelosi as she skipped along in Damascus, showed her all agog almost pissing herself in eager anticipation with her new found friend, Bashar. It's almost as if they view this misFuk "religion" as something mysterious and intriguing ... like something that they should protect and cherish and hold to their tolerant and inclusive bosom. Let's take the "palestinians" for example: Democrats view this misfuk concept as if it were something real. It would seem that this whole nonsensical "palestinian" gig is tailor-made for softHeaded liberal thinking. Like, ".. those poor, poor downtrodden oppressed greasy smelly little people that are resisting so valiantly in the face of overwhelming odds .." etc., etc., ad nauseum

What is it about democrats that makes them so easily duped? It must be some kind of touchy-feely thing that sane and lucid people aren't aware of

:straight: Hypnotic


Israel talks with her enemies.
So should the U.S.
The demonization of political parties we disagree with on some issues, (and sometimes our perception is based on misperception) is harmful to reasoned debate.
Listen to Joe Biden's position on Iraq.
It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There’s no military solution to Iraq, including the President. Everyone acknowledges the need for a political solution. And many of my colleagues have offered ideas, just capping troops or cutting troops, or removing troops, but none of them offered a political alternative. To be responsible, one has to be able to answer a two-word question in my view after you’ve put forward what you think should be done, and that is: Then what? After we pull our troops out, then what? After we cap troops, then what? After we cut partial funding, then what? Well, I put forward a political solution that’s been referred to as the Biden-Gelb plan. And it’s totally consistent with the Iraqi constitution. The problem in Iraq today is a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence. And there is no way to stop that in my view and maintain a unified Iraq, other than moving to a federal system which their constitution calls for. To maintain a unified Iraq, you have to decentralize it. You have to give the courage to the Sunnis and Shias, control over the fabric of their daily lives, control over the local police forces, rules relating to marriage and divorce and education… all the things they’re killing each other over.

Secondly, you have to have a limited central government that has concern for its borders, its army, the distribution of oil revenues, its foreign policy.

Thirdly, you have to secure access to oil revenues for the Sunnis who literally have nothing. Oil should be what binds the country together, not what splits it apart. There should be a guarantee in the constitution for proportional share of oil to get the Sunnis to get out of the business of supporting the insurgency.

Fourth, you have to increase reconstruction assistance for Iraq but you have to raise that money from the oil-rich Gulf states who are floating in a sea of oil money, and tie that reconstruction to the protection of the minority ranks.

And lastly, you have to make Iraq the world’s problems. Were I President, I would call for the permanent five of the Security Council along with Germany and the four largest Muslim nations in the world to call for an international conference on Iraq whereby they impose upon the regional powers, Iraq… I mean, excuse me: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey… a political solution, a political solution based on a federal system of giving local control in order to maintain a unified Iraq. If we do this, we can, not even if we do this, we should consistent with this, begin to draw down American combat troops within the next three months, and have a date of getting us out of Iraq by March of ’08. That is the essence of my plan. That is the only, in my view, workable solution for any new war in Iraq preserving our interests.
Author: BIG,  PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:36 pm    Post subject:
I disagree Mike. What you propose would only continue the problem.

The problem we have when trying to grasp the entire situation in the middle east is we tend to think in short term solutions to a problem that has existed for centuries against an enemy that could care less if the fight last for centuries to continue. Trying to maintain lines drawn in the sand as natural boundries when they didn't exist a century ago is the biggest fallacy we face when looking for answers. So what answers can we give besides the total extermination of Muslims?

We need to make winners and losers in the conflicts. We need to reward good behavior and punish harshly bad behavior. The Iranians are acting badly, they need to lose and lose big. Take away their northern regions and give it to the Kurds. Give their eastern regions to the Afghans. Remove Syria from the map. The lines the colonial powers drew were wrong at the time and worse today. My solution doesn't limit the conflict, it expands it. But instead of fighting half assed, we fight full bore. We fight like we did in WWII. RC is right to criticise the way we are fighting in the middle east. But his solution of outright surrender is the worst possible path for us to follow.

Bush was correct when he siad this is going to be a long struggle. It has been going on for 1400 years and will probably continue for at least that many more. Retreat and surrender only brings the enemy closer to your heart. We must show the enemy that their actions will lead to their peoples ruin. We must show the enemy that proper behavior leads to their freedom. And until this happens, all the Reid's in the world will continue to proudly claim that "America Lost".
Author: Michael_BlackburnSr, Location: IsraelAmerica, Ani ohev et Israel PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:04 pm    Post subject:
BIG wrote:
I disagree Mike. What you propose would only continue the problem.

The problem we have when trying to grasp the entire situation in the middle east is we tend to think in short term solutions to a problem that has existed for centuries against an enemy that could care less if the fight last for centuries to continue. Trying to maintain lines drawn in the sand as natural boundries when they didn't exist a century ago is the biggest fallacy we face when looking for answers. So what answers can we give besides the total extermination of Muslims?

We need to make winners and losers in the conflicts. We need to reward good behavior and punish harshly bad behavior. The Iranians are acting badly, they need to lose and lose big. Take away their northern regions and give it to the Kurds. Give their eastern regions to the Afghans. Remove Syria from the map. The lines the colonial powers drew were wrong at the time and worse today. My solution doesn't limit the conflict, it expands it. But instead of fighting half assed, we fight full bore. We fight like we did in WWII. RC is right to criticise the way we are fighting in the middle east. But his solution of outright surrender is the worst possible path for us to follow.

Bush was correct when he siad this is going to be a long struggle. It has been going on for 1400 years and will probably continue for at least that many more. Retreat and surrender only brings the enemy closer to your heart. We must show the enemy that their actions will lead to their peoples ruin. We must show the enemy that proper behavior leads to their freedom. And until this happens, all the Reid's in the world will continue to proudly claim that "America Lost".


Bruce, I don't see any evidence that the U.S., and here I include the Bush adminstration, is proposing anything as all encompassing as you are suggesting.
I don't see evidence of the willingness to ratchet up the conflicts we are currently engaged in, on any politicians part, repulicrat or democran.
If the fight in Iraq is going to be fought on the model of Vietnam, as seems to be the case, i.e.,a p.c. war, then the only real question is, when do we get out, and how?
I think Biden's view makes sense, in realistic terms.
Author: dbdent, Location: Israel PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:17 am    Post subject:
As usual the answer is somewhere in the middle
Author: BIG,  PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:48 pm    Post subject:
Michael_BlackburnSr wrote:
Bruce, I don't see any evidence that the U.S., and here I include the Bush adminstration, is proposing anything as all encompassing as you are suggesting.
I don't see evidence of the willingness to ratchet up the conflicts we are currently engaged in, on any politicians part, repulicrat or democran.
If the fight in Iraq is going to be fought on the model of Vietnam, as seems to be the case, i.e.,a p.c. war, then the only real question is, when do we get out, and how?
I think Biden's view makes sense, in realistic terms.


No Mike, Bush isn't going nearly as far in pursuing the enemy as I have proposed.

The question is not when or how we get out. That is already happening. The question should be what do we leave behind when we surrender? I wish the Harry Reid's would fill us in on what their vision is for the region and the world if we follow their plans. I have not once heard anything.

We have an actual example of what happens when we follow the Democrats plans with the aftermath of Viet Nam. Over 3 million people were slaughtered. I just wish Harry had the balls to say that 3 million dead will be a walk in the park compared with what the Islamics would do after we follow his plan. Maybe if people understood that the results of following Reid's plan would be carnage on the scale of Stalin, they might not so gung ho to allow it to happen.

What Reid and his ilk are counting on is not even bring this subject up. They want our full and unconditional surrender and then when the feces hits the oscilating device after our departure, they will just blame it on Bush for starting this whole thing in the first place and that they never envisioned the deaths of so many. And RC would be applauding them for their great vision.

I do not believe Bush's policies will bring us victory in this struggle. I don't think he is going after the enemy strong enough. He coddles many Islamofascists and outright supports others. But I do know if we follow what the Democrats are proposing, it means out defeat and will lead to the deaths of tens of millions. I've said it before and I'll say it right here, my choices are shitty and shittier. I go with shitty. RC will use his one square on shittier and just blame it all on Bush as he wallows in it.
Jerusalem Posts -> Introduction to the Arab/Israel Conflict

All times are GMT

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2