Doha Debate on the right of return

For those interested in Palestine and the right of return of Palestinians refugees, I highly recommend watching this debate and Q&A that aired this past weekend on BBC World.  It featured Bassem Eid and Yossi Beilin arguing against the right of return and Ali Abunimah and Ilan Pappe arguing for it. 

In my opinion, and in the opinion of the house, Abunimah and Pappe do a fantastic job while Eid  basically voices his surrender to the occupiers and Beilin can't fathom why Palestinians won't accept apartheid. An interesting post-debate exchange between Eid and Abunimah can be read here.

One of my favorite quotes:

Tim Sebastian, moderator:You don't think there should be compromise? 

Ali Abunimah: Of course there should be compromise.  The compromise is that I have no objection, in fact I'm very glad, that Yossi Beilin and his family and his ancestors live in the country. They're there.  The compromise is that they live there, with us, together in peace.  The thing I can't understand is why he finds it so horrifying that my mother should live in the country with him.

That illustrates an important point.  People are always saying that "both sides need to compromise" and "make difficult concessions for peace" and so on, but the failure of that line of thinking is that it ignores the concessions Palestinians have had forced upon them for the past sixty years.  78% of their country was stolen and they were expelled. The rest of it is slowly being colonized.  They've lived under military occupation for 40 years.  Palestinian citizens of Israel are treated as third class citizens.  Basic human rights of every imaginable kind are consistently denied to them.  And the list goes on.

Removing settlements, taking down the wall, ceding control of East Jerusalem, implementing the right of return - these are not concessions for Israel to make and for Palestinians to counter with concessions of their own.  They are obligations under international and humanitarian law.  Just as ending apartheid in South Africa was not a concession but an obligation.  You don't get points for dismantling structures that you knew were illegitimate, contrary to international law, and shouldn't have been constructed in the first place.

Comments

[daniel mendoza]

you clearly dont support the two state solution, as israel did in 1947,48. you clearly werent happy with the amount of land the arabs had prior to the 67 war. it wasnt enough.

too bad for you, israelis wont let you and your white guilt determine its own safety.

[Womble]

Reminds me of an old Soviet joke:

A grade-school teacher is telling the kids about how much Lenin loved children. "One beautiful summer morning," she says, "Grandpa Lenin was shaving outside his house. A small group of children walked by and shouted their greetings to him. 'Oh, go !@#$ yourselves, children!' Grandpa Lenin replied. He had a razor in his hand, he could've slit their throats, but he didn't. That's how fond Grandpa Lenin was of children!"

If the "generosity" of allowing the Jews to remain alive and in their current places of residence can pass for a Palestinian concession, I can easily propose a counter-concession on the part of Israel: the Palestinians, likewise, will remain alive and in their current places of residence.

Sounds like a deal.

[scott]

I think it is a generous concession to offer the European settlers who have stolen your land, destroyed your lives, ethnically cleansed you and militarily occupied you the opportunity to live side by side in peace.

Obviously, you, being one of those European settlers, support the project of ethnic cleansing and occupation and feel that somehow you are more entitled to live in Palestine than its indigenous inhabitants. With such a mindset, clearly you would not view this gesture with the magnanimity of which it is worthy. So your response is not surprising.

[lucia]

Excellent image and sound quality

[daniel mendoza]

thats very clever to call israelis "european settlers," but most israelis are indigenous to the middle east and north africa. most israelis came from arab lands.

theres european jews, and then theres sephardic and mizrahi jews. most israelis ARE NOT European by ethnicity.

get your facts straight. but then again why bother, when its so much more emotionally satisfying to blame the jews, who you incorrectly portray as rich euroepan colonialists.

[scott]

Unlike you, Daniel, for me it is not an issue of emotional satisfaction. Nowhere on this blog have I "blame[d] the jews", as my problem is not with Jews but with the actions of the government of Israel. That you seem unwilling or unable to understand that distinction is your problem. I imagine it is "much more emotionally satisfying" to try to paint me as anti-Jewish as opposed to engaging the arguments, but such attempts won't work.

As for your endeavor to enlighten me with "facts": the Zionist project and its original implementers came from Europe. It was they who settled the land and drove out the indigenous Palestinian population. It is completely accurate to call them European settlers.

The relevance of the current ethnic composition of Israel's Jewish population is insignificant. Even so, I believe your "facts" are incorrect. For example, at least according to Wikipedia, in Israel there are 3.7 million Ashkenazi Jews, 950,000 Sephardic Jews, and 2 million Mizrahi Jews. 2.95 million is less than 3.7 million.

So the majority are of European origin, and regardless of origin, I would argue that anyone who settles on stolen land is a settler.

[HD]

Hmmmm, stealing land? Thats a good one. I would like you to bring in the facts of how they STOLE the land.

>Removing settlements, taking down the wall, ceding control of East Jerusalem, implementing the right of return - these are not concessions for Israel to make and for Palestinians to counter with concessions of their own

Cedeing control of E. Jerusalem to the Palestinians is not a concession? Why not? Was it THEIRS before 48? Was Gaza not a concession? I dont recall Gaza being belonging to the Palestinians, neither was the West Bank. Israel has every right to build a wall to protect its citizens. You have a weird concept that before 48 or even 67, the Arabs were not attacking the Jews from the West Bank. So you should get your facts straight about that one. The right of return? Why? If they have their own country, which I am assuming you want, then have them go to their land, why Israel. Do you realize that would off balance the demographics and destroy Israel? Ya, Im sure the Palestinians wanting to return reeeeaaaaly want to live in harmony. Today Israeli Arabs are celebrating Naqba Day, the day of catastrophe, yet these same Arabs are given the same rights as any other Israeli.

Get the facts straight. Israeli taking control of the West Bank in 67 was totally according to Law. It was in a defensive battle against Jordon. JORDAN ATTACKED ISRAEL. Therefore any territory aquired is totally legal.

[scott]

I'm really curious as to where you trolls get your "facts" from, as I can't find them anywhere.

How did they steal the land?

They drove 750,000 Palestinians out of what became Israel, passed an absentee property law, and that was that. What was Palestinian land became Israel's land.

Re: Concessions

Apparently you failed to read the sentence that follows the one you quote: "They are obligations under international and humanitarian law."

Yes, Gaza and the West Bank belong to the indigenous population. The Land of Palestine belonged to the people who lived there, not the settlers who came with the express goal of usurping the land.

Palestinian citizens of Israel are subject to institutional and informal racism.

The UN Charter expressly forbids the acquisition of territory by war. Therefore Israel is NOT entitled to the West Bank. Sorry. Jordan only went to war with Israel because they had a mutual defense pact with Egypt. When Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan had to attack.