Conflict Blotter

23 responses so far ↓

• 1 Jeff // Aug 17, 2007 at 12:21 pm

  Isn’t refugees the real sticking point always?

  It really seems sometimes as if the Palestinians simply won’t accept the existence of a Jewish state. They will insist that refugees be able to return to Israel proper.

  The Israelis might conceivably give up Jerusalem, as unlikely as that seems. But they will never under any kind of pressure consent to the return of massive numbers of refugees to Israel proper since that would mean the end of the state of Israel.

  It’s the failure to believe that the Palestinians could “really” fail to understand that Peace with Israel EQUALS non-return of refugees to Israel proper that seems to have sunk the Clinton sponsored talks. Reportedly, Clinton was flabbergasterd when he discovered that the refugees problem was not simply a negotiating card being held by Arafat, but a real, non-negotiable sticking point.

  Once he realized that, he sent them home.

  My fear is that Palestinians haven’t understood–or perhaps they don’t care–that they simply cannot have peace with Israel if they are going to insist on the return of the refugees. Fair or not, it’s not going to happen. No Israeli government could ever under any circumstances agree to such a thing.

• 2 Jeff // Aug 17, 2007 at 12:26 pm

  Sometimes I think the solution is just to come to a de facto agreement WITHOUT settling these issues:

  –drop the “recognition of Israel” demand
  –agree to disagree or put off into the future -assign to some ‘panel’-the question of refugees and agree on some ambiguous principles
  –agree to some sort of ‘temporary’ division of Jerusalem, with final status questions put off

  If one could get some kind of practicable peace on the ground, perhaps these issues could simply disappear. After all, Greeks still want Constantinople and Turks still want Mosul. Syrians still claim Iskenderun. But life goes on.

• 3 lisoosh // Aug 17, 2007 at 4:18 pm

  Jeff - It really is one of the elephants in the room. To be honest, even if Abbas agreed to drop return, he would have to put up a damn good show of fighting for it and some kind of consessions would have to be made. Interesting to know if there has been any talk of compensation.

  Of course this is all moot. Any talks have a serious roadblock due to the current political separation of the West Bank and Gaza. To what extent can Abbas be said to represent all of the Palestinians? Even an agreement could be ignored by the remainder. In fact, even if the West Bank and Gaza politically united and came to an agreement, there are the Palestinians in places such as Lebanon that could just choose to ignore any agreement if it doesn’t suit their goals.

• 4 Lewis // Aug 17, 2007 at 6:32 pm

  If one could get some kind of practicable peace on the ground

  Thing is, there already is one. Palestinians can’t wage war on Israel. They can just blow up a couple bombs, toss a few inaccurate rockets. So if the Palestinians can’t offer peace, they can only offer security. Unfortunately, in order to offer security, they can’t go asking for things that reduce Israeli security. Otherwise, they’re really offering nothing.

• 5 Edie // Aug 17, 2007 at 7:02 pm

  Jeff - what you suggest is one reason why there has been no peace (”If one could get some kind of practicable peace on the ground, perhaps these issues could simply disappear.”) “these issues” make up the heart of the problem. Dancing around them has lead nowhere. That’s also why you always see ‘Peace with Justice’ groups. They know that there can be no peace (true, long lasting security for Israelis or prosperity and safety for Palestinians without justice on these issues.)

  Also, your statement, “My fear is that Palestinians haven’t understood–or perhaps they don’t care–that they simply cannot have peace with Israel if they are going to insist on the return of the refugees.” also shows a lack of understanding.

  ‘Right of Return’ is not simply a Palestinian insistance, it is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) as a basic expectation - that refugees created by war have the right and legitimate expectation to return to their homes after the fighting has stopped (such as those Iraqis fleeing now, the Darfur refugees, Bosnian, etc …). This principal is also re-confirmed in other internationally accepted and legal statutes such as UN Resolution 194 (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976).

  The fear is that because there is such an imbalance in power (Occupier vs Occupied, Israel’s superior military strength and training and their backing by THE Superpower, the U.S.) Palestinians will be coerced to surrender this right. There are also real live refugees, still languishing in refugee camps in Lebanon and elsewhere, that of course want a just resolution to their situation.

  A compromise might be that Israel acknowledge that yes, Palestinians (as all human beings) have the Right to Return, but to protect their status as a Jewish State, they cannot allow it. Monetary compensation should then be negotiated. But, for Israel to not allow this issue on the table to refuse to recognize their role in the creation of the refugees or for people like you to suggest the Palestinians are being fooling (or stupid or intransigent) and the subject should just be ignored won’t lead to lasting peace.

• 6 Lewis // Aug 17, 2007 at 10:13 pm

  A compromise might be that Israel acknowledge that yes, Palestinians (as all human beings) have the Right to Return, but to protect their status as a Jewish State, they cannot allow it. Monetary compensation should then be negotiated.

  Has there been any indication at all that this would be considered by the Palestinians?

  The problem of right of return is accompanied with the problem of Palestinian and Arab hostility towards Israel. The Palestinians and Israelis aren’t thinking in terms of security for the next 50 years, while things like Israeli military superiority and US megapower status can be taken largely for granted. They are thinking terms of hundreds of years.

  The concern on the Israeli side is that the Palestinians will continue to be hostile even if the right of return is given, and try to take over the country, despite any assurances of preserving the Jewish state, and that the Palestinians are simply waiting it out until such time, maybe a hundred or more years from now, they achieve that aim. It’s hard to ignore this concern when several Palestinian groups claim to fight the eternal struggle and preach hostility and hatred to future generations. It’s hard to do so when several Arab and Islamic groups and nations in the Middle East vow to do the same.

  Israel is a tiny country in an area where anti-Israel hatred is extremely common and encourage by several organizations, where those lined up against it far outnumber it, disconnected from any natural allies. The security of Israel is not a given. It’s not assured by a long shot, especially for the long term. And those in charge of Israel’s security know this all to well, as do those that call for its dissolution.

  Now, if you don’t care about all that, and wish Israel would just go away… then why should Israel make compromises with you?

• 7 Edie // Aug 17, 2007 at 11:24 pm

  1) “Has there been any indication at all that this would be considered by the Palestinians?”

  Has Israel ever indicated that they may be culpable in the creation of THE LARGEST refugee population in modern history and accept responsibility?

  And yes, the Palestinians have been unreasonably reasonable. They (by different representatives over time - even Hamas) have accepted Israel’s existence and only ask that Israel abide by international law (UN Resolutions 242 and 181, encapsulated in the Saudi Initiative made in Beirut 2002 which also guaranteed normalization in relations with all Arab neighbors). The Palestinians, although trying to survive in a compromised 22% of pre-British Mandate Palestine are willing to perhaps give up even alittle more of that measley 22% through negotiations.

  Anyway, without getting distracted, to answer your question - yes, but as long as Israel refuses to accept responsibility for their part in this disaster, the point is mute, isn’t it?

  2) “The problem of right of return is accompanied with the problem of Palestinian and Arab hostility towards Israel. ”

  Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

  3) “It’s hard to ignore this concern when several Palestinian groups claim to fight the eternal struggle and preach hostility and hatred to future generations.”

  Excuse me? Ignoring history, which would hold several examples of Israeli aggression, extremists exist on both sides. While the Palestinians’ extremists and their remarks are adequately covered by the media, mainstream media usually ignores the fact that many of Israel’s leaders were recognized ‘terrorists’ and right-wing extremists and that today’s Israeli gov’t also holds extremists that believe in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel proper, not just in the O.T. (The recipricol ‘hostility and hatred’ spewing). Let’s not ignore the on-going military Occupation and the settler aggression and hostility to their Palestinian neighbors (i.e. al Khalil (Hebron)) in the O.T. Settlers often write graffiti on shop doors such as ‘Kill the Arabs’, ‘Arab dogs’, etc …

  I understand Israel has legitimate security concerns, but the hostility and hatred isn’t just one sided. There will be extremists on both sides, it’s necessary to take care of the core issues mentioned by Charles and then rein in the extremists on both sides. Plus, I think you’ll find there’s fewer extremist Palestinians than you think if the core issues are addressed adequately.

• 8 Shawn // Aug 18, 2007 at 1:08 am

  I’m encouraged by the fact that Olmert and Abbas are actually discussing “final status” issues since, for so long, those issues have been not been a part of any real discussion.

  However, I’m concerned that, if Abbas compromises too much, while excluding Hamas, there could be real trouble in the territories. There is a real sense amongst Palestinians that I know in the West Bank (even ones that dislike Hamas) that is Abbas presses forward and makes deal without including Hamas, the elected government, there could be serious discontent in the West Bank. I’m no fan of Hamas either but excluding them could be real trouble.

• 9 Edie // Aug 18, 2007 at 3:16 am

  “I’m no fan of Hamas either but excluding them could be real trouble.”

  You’re not alone Shawn . The British House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee recently released the report on ‘Global Security - the Middle East’ and their conclusion concerning Israel and Palestine basically said what you just did.

  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmfaff/363/363.pdf

  They basically say the Quartet is a failure as it currently operates and excluding Hamas is not a smart strategy.

• 10 Edie // Aug 18, 2007 at 3:20 am

  Oops. The link above takes a long time to bring up since the report in .pdf format takes up a lot of memory. Patience.

• 11 tsedek // Aug 18, 2007 at 8:35 pm

  Has Israel ever indicated that they may be culpable in the creation of THE LARGEST refugee population in modern history and accept responsibility?

  Have the Arab states? I don’t see any willingness to assume responsibility for their part of the refugee problem… Why should the ‘attacked’ party take sole resposibility? What do you think was history? The jews arrived from poland and kicked out the Palestinians who did absolutely nothing and therefore 6 countries opened war n israel to destroy it in where many refugees fled, and still this is solely Israel’s responsibility?

  Well, well…

• 12 Edie // Aug 19, 2007 at 2:51 am

  Israel was not/is not innocent. Take a look at some books by Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Tom Segev, etc, etc, etc … Arab nations did not ‘attack’ Israel in a vacuum. Provocative and aggressive actions (including the unilateral declaration of Israel as a state) preceded their actions.

  The United Nations recognized Israel as a state based on the criteria that they abide by int’l law and implement UN resolution 194 - allowing those Palestinian refugees that fled during the fighting to return. They continue to be a recognized state although they never made good on their obligation. They couldn’t; it would threaten their Jewish State demography.

  So yes. Israel is solely responsible for the refugee issue. Israel was an artificially created country and as long as they refuse to accept responsibility for the issues that remain unresolved today they will continue to be viewed in this manner and treated in this manner.

  Different polling agencies have polled Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and the majority accept that Israel is here to stay. The PLO/PA has accepted Israel’s existence; the Saudi Initiative in Beirut 2002 officially states Israel’s neighbors are willing to normalize both economic and diplomatic relations with Israel if they abide by int’l law and still the fighting continues.

  Britain did a disservice to not only the indigenous Palestinians, but to the Jewish refugees that were fleeing anti-semitic Europe. Both parties are really victims of this greater evil, but it is what it is. Israel needs to deal.

• 13 yaacov // Aug 19, 2007 at 7:33 pm

  Edie -

  Less than three years before the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, the Soviets, Poles and Czechs together forced more than 11,000,000 ethnic Germans out of the towns and villages their ancestors had lived in for many centuries; at least one million of them (civilians, mind you, not German soldiers) died on the roads into Germany.

  Less than a year before the Arab-Israeli war of 1947-48 created two parallel groups of refugees - Palestinians, and Jews forced out of Arab countries, fewer than one million on each side - the partition of India was accompanied by the creation of some 16-18,000,000 refugees, with anywhere between 500,000-2,000,000 dead.

  According to the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees, at any given moment there are millions of refugees worldwide. 27,000,000 in 1995, for example, not counting the Palestinians, and an all-time high of 40,000,000 in 1945, not counting those 11,000,000 Germans.

  Given all these recorded facts, you might perhaps want to reconsider your previous statement about how the Palestinian refugee problem is so horribly unique. It isn’t. Nor does the idea that refugees always go back to their homes have much historical precedent going for it. It can happen, but usually it doesn’t.

• 14 lisoosh // Aug 19, 2007 at 8:50 pm

  Edie - ALL of the countries in the region are “artificially constructed”. The region has been under the control of different empires for centuries, Ottoman, Mamluk, Umayad, Byzantine, Roman, you name it. The French and the British are just the last in a long line of several thousand years of foreign control. Lebanon was created by the French, the civil wars there and ongoing unrest are in part the result of tying disparate peoples together under one flag. If Syria wasn’t a dictatorship they would probably have the same issues. The civil war in Iraq taking place now was probably just delayed by dictatorship. Iraq was never really a nation in the way Westerners think of nations. Saudi Arabia just a desert home to disparate tribes before oil.

  Israel was recognized in much the way that the rest of these countries was recognized - because the retreating empires didn’t have another solution to the burgeoning nationalism that existed in the region. People wanted self determination and presumably, the formation of different states appeared to be the better option at the time. Some jumped at the chance, others didn’t.

  You seem a bit hung up on 194 Article 11. One of the problems has always been that the language was ambiguous “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,” with Israel fairly obviously being pendantic about “live at peace”. And also the definition of refugee has been under contention, due to the fact that the Palestinians alone in the world have been given the right to pass refugeeship down through the generations - although I view that more as a function of UNWRA wanting to hold onto its budget and it beaurocratic power more than anything else.

  It seems to me you are arguing the events of 60 years ago, which is pointless and non productive.

• 15 Edie // Aug 20, 2007 at 5:39 pm

  Yaacov - I agree that the Palestinian refugee issue was not the only injustice perpetrated in history, nor will it be the last. Refugee issues arising from the U.S. war on Iraq are already desperate in some countries and they won’t be resolved easily. But, saying other refugees have existed/exist is no reason to not resolve the Palestinian refugee issue now. It has been well documented, the legal pathway to resolution outlined and the Palestinians are only asking for what is their right. Israel’s refusal to even put it on the table and negotiate this basic human right is the only obstacle at this point on this issue. Above, I was only suggesting one compromise that MAY lead to some progress. If Israel wants to maintain their Jewish majority and therefore will not allow the refugees to return, fine. Just admit it; don’t blame the Palestinians or say they’re being unreasonable.

  Lisoosh - of course the colonial powers carved up not only the M.E., but Africa and South America, etc… If we want to discuss how stupid the British, specifically, were when they carved up Asia or split the ethnic Kurds between four or five different nation states we could spend decades. But, we were speaking of Israel at this point in the conversation and it’s creation. There are also many differences between the carving up of Syria, Iraq, Jordan and the handing over to indigenous, colonial puppets and the giving of territory to foreign (’artificial’) immigrants.

  “It seems to me you are arguing the events of 60 years ago, which is pointless and non productive.”

  Au contraire mon ami. So-called ‘peace negotiations’ over the years have been pointless and non-productive, largely because these pertinent, vital, intrinsic ‘events’ and issues from 60 years ago have never been truly discussed and resolved.

  Listen. I don’t want any more Israeli children dying or mothers and fathers watching their children be buried. Nor, do I want any more Palestinian parents having to watch their children be buried. No parent should have to do that.

  And I know for a fact - there will be no security for Israel until these issues ‘from 60 years ago’ are resolved justly for all parties.

  It is what it is.

• 16 lisoosh // Aug 20, 2007 at 8:07 pm

  Edie - I tend to avoid responding to you because your posts jump around, require detailed dissection and frankly, I have a life. However your arrogance astounds me. Truly. The idea that you, an anonymous blog commenter, are entitled to dictate anything to the citizens (many of them 4th and 5th generation) of another nation is astounding. Maybe I should just assume that you have no idea how presumptuous you come across.

  So I’ll just address one arrogant statement of yours -” Israel needs to deal.”
  Lets rephrase that in the opposite. The British Mandate region known as Palestine (previously Greater Syria) was, due to a generation of fighting and bloodshed, split between the two main ethnic groups present at the time. One accepted it, the other didn’t. Unfortunately for those who didn’t, they went to war, with the assistance of many of their neighbours, and lost. Lots and lots of times. They got their behinds kicked repeatedly. They should just deal.

  Don’t like the sound of that? Deal.

  Oh and I am not your friend.

• 17 Edie // Aug 21, 2007 at 5:01 pm

  Well, if I respond to your points we will really get distracted with your version of history and the technicalities behind your definition of ‘main ethnic groups present at the time’.

  I’ll just state that I have every right afforded to a human being to comment on events affecting other human beings on this planet.

  Using your logic, great organizations like Amnesty International should just butt out and keep their mouths closed; I mean what right do they have to ask nation states to stop torturing their prisoners, they don’t live there.

  You’re right in that I haven’t lived in the Middle East for a few years now, I’m a long distance observer and activist (for over 25 years now) but sometimes it’s difficult for those ‘4th and 5th generation’ individuals to see the forest for the trees.

  My observation is there will be no peace until the core issues of Right of Return, status of Jerusalem and of course, the Occupation (final borders) is resolved. This is a given, all other efforts have failed.

  I guess to some this would be arrogance, to me it’s a fact. Anyone is free to disagree, but it seems these are the same people that then whine that the Palestinians and Arabs continue their hostility. Well, no shit Sherlock. It’s not anti-semitism; it’s unresolved, legitimate issues and current policies of … Israel. That’s why Israel needs to deal. And to be fair, the Palestinians need to deal as well.

  BTW: I can deal, can you?

• 18 yaacov // Aug 21, 2007 at 5:04 pm

  Edie -

  You suggest, and I quote: “If Israel wants to maintain their Jewish majority and therefore will not allow the refugees to return, fine. Just admit it; don’t blame the Palestinians or say they’re being unreasonable.”

  Actually, this is one of the very few things on which an enormous majority of Israelis agree, quite openly: No Right of Return, because that would mean the end of the Jewish state. You can of course dislike us for our insistence on having our own state, and many Palestinians are determined to fight us until we relinquish the insistence - but that’s exactly what they’re determined to do: fight. Not make peace. Making peace means that each side will have to determine the minimal things it’s not prepared to negotiate on, and the minimal claims of the other side, and then compromise accordnigly. If either side claims things the other side cannot accept, that means they’re putting their national interests higher than peace. Which is a legitimate position, as long as they understand that’s what they’re doing. The Jews in Israel prefer a Jewish state to no Jewish state, even if this means no peace. And the Palestinians seem to prefer no Jewish state (thru Right of Return, if needed) to peace with a Jewish state but no Right of Return.

• 19 Edie // Aug 21, 2007 at 5:54 pm

  “If Israel wants to maintain their Jewish majority and therefore will not allow the refugees to return, fine. Just admit it; don’t blame the Palestinians or say they’re being unreasonable.”

  Yaacov, you quote me then ignore the ‘fine’ part. I accept that each nation must do what they feel they must to protect their own self-interest, thus the ‘fine’. I don’t dislike Israel or Israelis for feeling insecure and not wanting the Right of Return implemented; it’s their perogative.

  My criticism is with the Israel Firster’s consistent policy in not just saying they want to protect their ethnic/race based majority, but instead say the Palestinian’s are being unreasonable in their demands and refuse to acknowledge Right of Return as a right and conduct negotiations. To acknowledge Right of Return as a right and negotiate doesn’t mean automatically all Palestinian refugees will then have the right to return to their homes in Israel proper - that’s the negotiation part - but the issue deserves to be acknowledged and given it’s due respect.

• 20 Lewis // Aug 21, 2007 at 8:55 pm

  My observation is there will be no peace until the core issues of Right of Return, status of Jerusalem and of course, the Occupation (final borders) is resolved.

  So, fighting is the only option? (As you say, “no peace”.) Also, I’m curious, does Israel offering peace to Palestinians mean anything?

• 21 lisoosh // Aug 21, 2007 at 9:39 pm

  Edie -
  “My observation is there will be no peace until the core issues of Right of Return, status of Jerusalem and of course, the Occupation (final borders) is resolved. This is a given, all other efforts have failed.”

  No Shit. In case you hadn’t noticed, these are the issues they are fighting about.

  “I’ll just state that I have every right afforded to a human being to comment on events affecting other human beings on this planet.”

  Correct. You have the right to an opinion. And you have the right to state that opinion.
  You don’t have the right to impose that opinion on anyone, nor to dictate terms, nor to make promises you can’t keep. Which is exactly what you are doing, whether you realize it or not.

  Let’s look at it another way. After the Nakba Arab Nations filled the ears of Palestinian refugees with promises - to take “care” of Israel, to resolve the issue. The constant refrain - Arab Unity, dignity, justice, blah, blah, blah. Where there may have been a window of opportunity for the Palestinians to exploit resolution 194 and return to their homes on an individual basis (”those who wish to live in peace”) they were sold down the river of Unity. They didn’t get what they were promised, they were encouraged to hold on to the dwindling hope of return and conquest and what they got for their trouble was 60 years in refugee camps.

  And now I listen to activists - the Rent-a-Cause crowd doing the same thing, promising Justice and Fairness and One Day You Will Return Home and a whole host of other things they have no ability to deliver on. With no skin in the game and nothing to lose, encouraging other people to hang on to a dream, a promise to go back and “fix” the events and mistakes of 60 years ago. Without ever being honest about the fact that you can never go back in time.

  What gives you the right to negotiate on behalf of Palestinians? Who are you to declare that “Israel will have to do X and then talk about compensation”? Do you think that your plan is acceptable to some poor soul sitting in a camp in Lebanon, no rights, no education, no citizenship? Are you going to go and tell him that you decided what was fair? Is your definition of “Justice” the same as his?

  25 years of activism. And what do you have to show for it? What have you, anonymous commenter done to positively and substantially help Palestinians? In what way have you helped them to set realistic and attainable goals and to deal with the situation on the ground as it stands now? Or is it just more fun to quibble about who is more indigenous now?

  That so many Palestinians lost their homes in 1948 is tragic. That they have been subject to becoming a political ping pong ball is a travesty.

• 22 Edie // Aug 22, 2007 at 1:28 am

  I agree Lisoosh, Palestinians are exploited and have become ‘a political ping pong ball’ by those with their own agenda which is a travesty.

  Our ping-ponging arguing is adding to this travesty.

  I stand by my opinions:

  - the fact that Right of Return is a basic human RIGHT and is not unreasonable for the Palestinians to demand that this issue be put on the table for serious negotiation

  - that Israel should just admit they want a state based on ethnicity/race/religion (Jewish State) and not equality for all

  - that there won’t be peace and security for Israel (not a threat, just a fact) until the core issues are resolved justly

  Lewis, I don’t know. Israel has never offered anything reasonable to the Palestinians except a lot of talk and talk is cheap. Any action they’ve taken, such as the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, was self-serving, not for the benefit of the Palestinians living there.

• 23 Eamonn McDonagh // Aug 24, 2007 at 2:27 am

  lisoosh, a small correction; all countries everywhere are artificially created. doubters should check out benedict anderson

Leave a Comment