One should always demand adherance of parties to the best of the current and agreed upon practical solutions, while at the same time attempting to lay the philosophical/ideologica/practical groundwork for a solution that better fits one's idea of fair/just/moral and having long-term practicality.
This meant critiquing Israel for the fact that it was not adhering to its side of the agreements in Oslo I and II (redeployments, settlement building, transfer of funding, moving towards final-status) while at the same time being open and critical about the duplicity and long-term impracticality inherent in those same agreements. There is no contradiction here. Hold them to what they did agree to and try to push them towards more.
In the case of the present situation, this means constantly demanding an end to the settlement-building, an end to military occupation, telling soldiers that they have an obligation to objection when they are asked to serve in any capacity in the territories, etc. But this doesn't mean that one should stop questioning publically, the morality/oxymoron status/long term-practicality of having a Jewish Democratic State. A Jewish Democratic State is ONLY possible in a situation where 100 % of the population is Jewish. We, on the other hand, have a large and growing non-jewish minority who are legally kept out (on an individual and collective basis) from holding equal legal status (this includes not only the Palestinians but also the foreign workers who stay for years and have even fewer rights than the Palestinians). Having a One state (Jewish) or two state (Palestinian and Jewish) solution does not solve this issue. A two-state solution (which in practical terms I am defending everytime I go to a protest against Israeli occupation in the WB/Gaza...which is relatively often) only puts these long term issues on the backburner. One, therefore, has to act on both fronts, demanding what is possible in the present configurations, while at the same time working to change the very configurations of what is a possible solution...and to remind people that the present 'solution' still doesn't solve some big issues which are presently recognized.
Andie:
> In the real world, sorry, yes, the sell-by date is
> passed. That doesn't mean that the Indians don't have
> legitimate claims, but it does mean that it's not on
> the table to discuss restoring the prairies (etc.) and
> having the whote (and Black! and Hispanic! and Asian!)
> people move "back" where they came from. Me, I "came
> from" Columbus, Ohio.
Personally, I disagree with Max's separation of the moral and political in the situation of the right of return. Any political solution has to be moral. Further, I didn't find his moral solution so great (I know it was imaginary, but there are some inherent problems with it).
On the one hand, even if ONLY talking on the moral level and not on the political level, any solution of the Palestinian/Israeli problem which starts from a standpoint which says that morally, no Jews have the right to be here (I am sure that is not what he thinks, but that is what the statement implies) is to say the least, problematic. The problem with Jewish immigration was in its aim at exclusivity from the beginning (the first aliah to Petah Tikva in 1878 and 1882 to Rishon LeZion and Nes Tsiona, Gedera, etc.). They were attempting to usurp control of those who were living here before, not to live with them and work with them as equals. I have some good friends from Bethlehem...their family is Assyrian Christian and they moved to Palestine from Turkey after the Armenian/Assyrian genocide...they consider themselves Palestinian and they are considered the same by the other Palestinians, even though they have only been here for 3-4 or so generations. I reject equally the claim of any right to exclusivity from any group, be it Jewish exclusivity, Muslim exclusivity, Christian exclusivity, or Palestinian National (Christian/Muslim) exclusivity.
Going back to andie's statement, I do not think that the sell-by date has passed, either for the Palestinian refugees or the Native Americans. Their legitimate claim (not exclusive claim) must be recognized and taken into consideration in any practical political solution, while at the same time, recognizing the changing/changed situation that exists in the present. We cannot go back to the praries and remove the existing population, but we also cannot say that BECAUSE of the changed circumstances, your claim is null and void.
Interestingly, a good friend of my wife and I, who is a Palestinian from Jordan, is visiting for four or so days. Her grandparents are originally from Lod and became refugees in 1948 (her parents were very small children at the time), moved to Gaza and then shortly thereafter made their way to Amman. This was her first time ever to visit here, and my wife and her went this morning to visit Ramle/Lod (I have lots of reading/writing work to do, so I stayed home) so she could see where her family are from (of which, very little is left the same). Last evening, we were talking about the right of return. She said that her parents long to come back, and that if they were given the right of return, they would immediately pack everything and move back to Lod. I asked, what would they come back to, the Lod they knew doesn't exist anymore. She said that they would never accept monetary compensation in exchange for giving up their right to come back home. I asked her also about her brothers and sisters and herself...if they would want to move here. She said, some yes, some probably would be happy staying where they are...she said she didn't know herself what she would want.
It is very difficult to sit with real people in front of you (who you know and have emotional relations with) and hold to the idea they need to just face reality, the sell-date has passed, and it just wouldn't be practical or politically expedient to hold onto their idea that they have the right to live here, and as equals.
I don't know what the solution is, but it STARTS with Israel taking responsibility for the fact that their actions and push for exclusivity over this territory led to the refugee situation. Any long-term solution obviously needs to take into consideration present changed circumstances, but they must also take into consideration the legitimate claims of these really existing people...
Bryan