If it is true that "no conceivable Israeli government" would ever agree to Palestinians' right to return -- i.e. abide by international law concerning the return of refugees -- we ought to, at least, demand that the state of Israel and its supporters _proclaim_ that it does not and will never comply with it, whenever they demand our recognition of "Israel's right to exist." Let everyone see that the state of Israel wants rights without responsibilities.
At 8:13 PM -0500 2/22/03, Seth Ackerman wrote:
>There's a war on, and people are dying, mostly Palestinians. If a
>peace agreement is made contingent on Israel's acceptance of the
>right of return, the war will never end and eventually the
>Palestinians will be transferred. That's not a fact to be gloated
>on, but it's true nonetheless.
Palestinian representatives might, for instance, conceivably trade renunciation of Palestinian refugees' right of return for speedier dismantlement of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territories in peace negotiation (in fact, Palestinian refugees have suspected that the PLO delegates would do just that, _if_ given a chance, and mistrusted them for this very reason), _if there were peace negotiation today_. As it is, there is _no_ peace negotiation, _no_ bargaining table, therefore there is _nothing_ that Palestinians -- especially Palestinian refugees -- can _possibly_ gain by renouncing the right of return.
At 8:13 PM -0500 2/22/03, Seth Ackerman wrote:
>When you try to equate the virtual impossibility of Israel ever
>agreeing to an unlimited refugee return with the current Israeli
>government's refusal to end the occupation, you're again glossing
>over the crucial point: There is considerable support in Israel for
>ending the occupation and returning to more or less the 1967
>borders. Key figures in the Barak government were for it, and Barak
>himself might have even agreed to it if the Taba talks had gone on
>long enough, and with enough pressure.
I don't agree that the Israeli governments were prepared to end the occupation during the so-called "peace process"; far from it, their deeds made clear to Palestinians that they were not only unwilling to end the occupation but busy expanding the settlements to perpetuate the occupation -- hence the al-Aqsa intifada. The Barak government in particular oversaw "the sharpest increase" in the growth of settlements during the Oslo Process, itself the period of "a policy leading to the dramatic growth of the settlements," according to B'Tselem:
***** ...The peace process between Israel and the Palestinians did not lead to the dismantling of even one settlement....
Overall, contrary to the expectations raised by the Oslo Process, the Israeli governments have implemented a policy leading to the dramatic growth of the settlements. Between September 1993, on the signing of the Declaration of Principles, and September 2001 (the time of the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifada), the number of housing units in the settlements in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip rose from 20,400 to 31,400 -- an increase of approximately fifty-four percent in just seven years. The sharpest increase during this period was recorded in 2000, under the government headed by Ehud Barak, when the construction of almost 4,800 new housing units was commenced. At the end of 1993, the population of the West Bank settlements (excluding East Jerusalem) totaled 100,500. By the end of 2000, this figure increased to 191,600, representing a growth rate of some ninety percent....
("Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank," May 2002, <http://www.btselem.org/Download/Land_Grab_Eng.pdf>, pp. 8, 15-16) *****
The total area under the control of the settlements came to 41.9% of the West Bank ("Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank," May 2002, <http://www.btselem.org/Download/Land_Grab_Eng.pdf>, p. 112, Table 9).
One must conclude that Palestinians should expect nothing from Labor, not just from Likud.
At 8:13 PM -0500 2/22/03, Seth Ackerman wrote:
>Not to mention the political forces to the left of labor. But not
>only has no Israeli government been willing even to consider
>unlimited refugee return, no Israeli political party would either.
>(Not sure if Hadash has taken a concrete position on it, but if it
>came out in favor, it would quickly stop being, for all practical
>purposes, a "Jewish-Arab" party and would lose most of its small
>Jewish contingent.)
In that case, the Jewish-Israeli left have an obligation to tell the truth -- the truth of where they stand -- clearly to Palestinians and the rest of the world.
At 8:13 PM -0500 2/22/03, Seth Ackerman wrote:
>What kind of scenario do you envision leading to mass return?
>(Two-state solution--->>peace--->>resumption of war over refugee
>return--->>international solidarity with Palestinians--->>victory
>for Palestinians--->>return? What?)
The so-called "peace process" showed that neither Labor nor Likud would bargain in good faith for any kind of "two-state solution" when Palestinians were reduced to the position of supplicants. Each day of "peace" only made "a Palestinian state" less likely than the day before. Oslo was, in one sense, a collective punishment for Palestinians, who became collateral damage of the Gulf War and could not but enter into "negotiation" -- rather, a process of surrender -- from a powerless position of isolation, bereft of support from the Arab world and the vanished Socialist bloc.
The fledgling international movement for solidarity with Palestinians would have to increase in size and militancy to an unprecedented level, the level required to put tangible political pressures on the USG and the state of Israel, and an argument for the right of return has an important role to play here, as Israel's lack of legitimacy in the eyes of the world is the main bargaining chip in the hands of Palestinians now. We need to create an international political context in which Palestinians can enter into negotiation as equals to Israeli Jews, not as helpless supplicants. Reminding the world that Israel has failed to abide by international law -- including the fact that it has refused to even consider Palestinian refugees' right to return -- is a necessary tactic in the war of positions, especially when the other side keep insisting that Israel has already made a "generous offer."
We have to put the onus back on the state of Israel (especially when its supporters ask us to affirm its "right to exist" as a Jewish state), by asking when and how it intends to earn our recognition by beginning to live up to its obligations to Palestinians -- in Israel, the occupied territories, and diaspora. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://solidarity.igc.org/>