Right of Return

Brad Mayer bradley.mayer at sun.com
Thu Feb 20 12:59:31 PST 2003


Well, I think the American liberal antiwar constituancy is _well_ aware of the Palestinian issue and its connection to this war, and therefore is is a quite legitimate part of an antiwar platform that wants to stop war by addressing the roots of war in the Middle East. And, since American liberal opinion _in practice_ implicitly recognizes an unlimited Jewish right of return (by never discussing it, of course), it is racist to explicitly exclude mention of the Palestinian right of return.

But as a practical matter, we all should know that it is impossible that all Palestinians, like all Jews (not to mention both simultaneously!) could crowd into historic Palestine (aside from the probable fact that many Palestinian Arab-Americans, like American Jews, have little interest in "returning"). This opens the way for a "compromise" that I believe to have profound progressive political implications. In exchange for some practical limit on the Palestinian right of return (I leave the details aside here for now, to not distract from my point), why not put an end to citizens of Israel being White House Press Secretaries? That is, completely end the Jewish right of return, except in very well defined religious/cultural cases. This has mutiple advantages:

1) Draws a clear and necessary distinction between the Israelis, who are a nation, and world Jewry, who are emphatically _not_ a nation, but nationals of the US, Russia, etc., who just happen to share the same religious/cultural habits, just as do Buddhists of different nations (but nobody speaks of a 'Buddhist right of return' to their ancient Indian homeland);

2) On the Israel side, it "uproots the Likud Zionist infrastructure" by cutting off the endless flow of racist fanatics and Likud supporters, especially from Russia, immigrating to both Israel proper and as settlers to the Territories (now, if that is not progressive, I don't know what is);

3) On the US side, "uproot the Likud Zionist infrastructure" here, by pulling a crucial plug on the reactionary politics of the American Likud (AIPAC, JINSA, etc.) who, as we all should know by now, are in league with "Christian" fundies to play havoc with US foreign policy in the Middle East. This directly address a root of the war crisis we now face.

4) On the Russia side, breaks up a key Russian Mafia connection (with Sharon and Co.)

5) Best of all, this would amount to a profound political revolution for the Israelis. One of the ironies of the obvious progressive concern for stateless Palestinians has been to obscure the fact that the Israeli nation _also lacks a state that is truly ISRAELI_ - instead, they are governed by a "Jewish state" that proports to represent world Jewry, but in reality has devolved into an adjunct of US imperialist intervention in the Middle East.

Ending the Jewish right of return means ending the Zionist colonial settler apparatus, "uprooting" those institutions - at long last - that have embedded themselves in the State of Israel since its foundation in 1948. It's successor would be a true Israeli, and not Jewish, _and_ not Zionist, state.

In exchange for this great progressive gain, I'd happily restrict the Palestinian right of return to actual _refugees_ homeless in camps. I'd exclude Palestinians settled in Jordan, Europe or the US, with the same religious/cultural exceptions made as for Jews.

Of course, I favor "two state" as a transistion to a more economically progressive (and realistic) _multinational state_ of Israelis and Palestinians, long term, but I put that issue aside for focus on the above.

-Brad Mayer

At 09:48 PM 02/19/2003 -0500, Max wrote:
>Now a right of return equals denial of a Jewish state. Let's
>be real. There are arguments for such a position. Noam Chomsky
>had it once, but he discarded it eons ago. Such a position has
>NO PLACE in the platform of a broad anti-war coalition. It has
>no place not because of its jewish constituency, but because of
>its broader American liberal constituency. If you want to stop
>the war, you don't embed such a gratuitous position in your platform.
>It is not inherently racist. It is context that determines racism or
>its lack.

So, it's perfectly fine to eliminate 75% of the Palestinian population (1948), and it's perfectly fine for every Jew in the world to have the right to "return" to Palestine, but the inhabitants of Palestine can go fuck themselves because otherwise they are denying the jews their state? A state won on the coattails of the British empire and maintained through support of the U.S. empire? Self-determination my ass!

Who decided that the right of jews to their own state is the highest moral imperative?

Joanna



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list