Olmert Rejects Right of Return for Palestinians
Ehud Olmert has said that Israel will not accept the return of a single Palestinian refugee on Israeli soil and has presented his stance as, “a moral issue of the highest standard.” He went on, “I will not agree to accept any kind of Israeli responsibility for the refugees. Full stop.”
He then goes on to rewrite history with this astonishing piece of revisionism.Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in interviews published Friday that Israel would not allow a single Palestinian refugee to return to what is now Israel, and that the country bore no responsibility for the refugees because their plight resulted from an attack by Arab nations on Israel when it was a fledgling state.
The ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 has already been well documented by many Israeli historians like Ilan Pappe, so Olmert is either ignorant beyond belief or playing to an American lack of knowledge on the subject by making such an astonishingly untrue statement.
However, even if we were to assume for a moment that Olmert's false statement were true, and that the Arabs fled Palestine to avoid the ravages of war, why would that be a good reason to forbid their return? Why would that allow Israel to keep their houses, their farms and their businesses?
Why would the fact that any citizen had fled for safety at a time of war mean that they had somehow nullified their citizenship?
Olmert's argument, apart from being fundamentally untrue, makes absolutely no sense. Is he saying that the Israelis who left Haifa whilst it was under rocket attack from Hizbullah had somehow resigned their right to return? That the Lebanese who fled Beirut when Israeli jets were bombing it had somehow given up their Lebanese citizenship?
Olmert wouldn't argue any of these things because they are blatantly nonsensical, but this logic is one that he reserves for Palestinians who fled during Nakba, but would not apply to any other group of refugees anywhere else in the world.
Regular readers here will know that my sympathy in this dispute is with the Palestinians, however, I do accept that the return of every single Palestinian refugee to their former homes would result in the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. I have also always believed that it is on this issue that the Palestinians would have to relent at the final status negotiations, agreeing to accept the latter part of the gist of UN Resolution 194 which says that Israel must offer either repatriation or compensation.
The Palestinians who fled - or were ethnically cleansed - in 1948 have the right to be compensated for what they have lost. And Israel - and certainly her American backer - are rich enough to afford to pay this compensation.
The solution to the problem already exists in international law, but Olmert serves no purpose by making an argument that is as untrue as the conclusion it leads him to is nonsensical.
The Palestinian's refugee status is not dependent on one's view of what actually took place in 1948. Whether they were driven from their homes by Arabs or Israelis is hardly the point. The point is that Israel forbids them to return in order to preserve her status as a Jewish state whilst allowing Jews from all over the world access to the land that was formerly the property of these same Palestinians.
That is simply a fact no matter what historical revisionism Olmert may wish to indulge in.
He either has to let them back in - which he won't - or he has to compensate them for their loss.
It's really that simple. And Olmert is indulging in the worst sort of red herring debating techniques when he tries to lead us down this irrelevant dead end.
Click title for full article.
5 comments:
...or playing to an American lack of knowledge on the subject by making such an astonishingly untrue statement.
A bit of the old Euro-superiority complex methinks. You forget, the US has more Jewish citizens than Israel and certainly more than anywhere in Europe now. I would hedge my bets that the average American is far more aware of the situation over there than the average European. In any event, trying to push the popular Euro-myth that Americans are less informed than they are wouldn't seem like something that would boost one's argument.
The Jewish population of America consists of about 2% of your population. The average American is shockingly ignorant of Middle Eastern politics - having been fed Hasbara for most of their lives - and often believe things that are factually false. "The Arabs attacked in "1948, 1967 and 1973" to name just one commonly held American falsehood.
You forget, the US has more Jewish citizens than Israel.
Sorry, an obvious point I should have made. Why, when I spoke of American ignorance regarding the Middle East, did you bring up the number of Jews in America? Why didn't you mention the number of Arab Americans? If you were interested in an unbiased, well informed opinion you would surely have thought the opinions of both sides as relevant? Or are you confirming my point that Americans only want their information from one side of that dispute?
The average American is shockingly ignorant of Middle Eastern politics
The average American could generally care less about ME politics, but I'm not sure why you think the "average American" is any less informed than the "average European".
Why, when I spoke of American ignorance regarding the Middle East, did you bring up the number of Jews in America
Because you did not speak of "American ignorance regarding the Middle East". What you spoke of was "American lack of knowledge on the subject", the subject being Israel's wars with its Arab neighbors.
Also, pointing to a socialist website quoting an "anti-Zionist historian" doesn't seem like the most objective of sources. You might instead try OnWar.com, which is generally viewed as a reliable and objective resource.
The average American could generally care less about ME politics, but I'm not sure why you think the "average American" is any less informed than the "average European".
That's a fair point, I'll take that one on the chin. I suppose I mean that most Americans seem to come to this dispute from a pro-Israeli perspective, whilst the opposite appears to be true in Europe.
And many years ago, when I had the energy to argue on the newsgroups, I did find that many Americans made arguments that were factually false. I comment today on a New York Times article that perfectly illustrates why I think this to be the case.
Also, pointing to a socialist website quoting an "anti-Zionist historian" doesn't seem like the most objective of sources.
I quoted Ilan Pappe because he is an Israeli. Other commentators who express similar views to his (who are not Israeli) are sometimes written off as anti-Semites or, in the case of Jews, "self-hating Jews".
I think it's important to remember that there are Israelis who disgree with the Hasbara that Olmert was pushing.
And surely you would not take Olmert's word for what took place more seriously than Pappe's simply because Pappe is an acknowledged anti-Zionist?
And anyway, as I argued in the piece, whether Arabs or Israelis caused the people to flee is actually irrelevant, it is the Israelis who are banning their return. Olmert is engaging in a giant red herring.
Post a Comment