>Nathan Newman wrote:
>-I think a Pal right of return is pretty phantasmic. israel exists,
>-isn't going anywhere, and really shouldn't be undone at this point.
>-But you're referring to a right of return to countries that more or
>-less existed in their present form. Israel was created less than 60
>-years ago mainly to accommodate Europeans, and a language was revived
>-that hadn't been spoken in over a thousand years. There's really not
>-much else like it in the handbook of nationalisms.
>
>What do you mean? Most nation-states in the world date back no more than to
>World War I when the great empires began being divided up. India and
>Pakistan were divided at roughly the same time as Israel, with
>ethnic-religious displacements on an even larger scale -- and continuing
>demands for rights of return in places like Kashmir.
Yes there were tremendous population movements involved in the creation of a lot of nation-states, and they're not historically inspiring examples. Even so, there were people living in the area that's now Germany who were speaking some variety of German when that country was created in its modern form. You can't say the same for Israel.
In any case, I'm not particularly fond of nationalism of any kind, so appeal to other nationalisms as a justification for Israel's (a problematic concept in itself, as Seth Kulick just pointed out) won't cut much ice with me.
>Yes, Israel has its own history but so do all countries. There is almost
>nothing about Israel's nationalism that is not shared with some other
>nation. And I think Palestinians in Brooklyn expect a full right of return
>to the West Bank and Gaza, if not to within the Green lines, so there is
>little phantasmic about it.
Yes to the West Bank and Gaza, but not within the Green Line. I don't see any justice in undoing a vast displacement with another vast displacement.
>-How many states in the world consider religion as relevant to one's
>-fitness to own property?
>
>Historically? Most. Jews were prohibited from owning many kinds of
>property throughout Europe until very recent times. Austria-Hungary didn't
>end religious restrictions on land ownership until 1864. And note my
>comments on the religious aspects of Serbian versus Croatian nationalism
>that has translated into fights over control of property.
Wow, so Israeli policy can be justified by historic prohibitions against Jews? I don't think that's what you're saying, but the invocation of the example is weird. In 2006, most people who profess to be democrats would find religious restrictions on property ownership to be deeply offensive.
>Within Israel, Palestinians can own property in Israel. Israeli bias comes
>out in a whole range of economic development schemes and handing out
>quasi-public property (even if stolen from previous owners, but nothing
>strange there).
Over 90% of Israel is quasi-public property. Here's an excerpt from an entry on About.com <http://experts.about.com/q/Israeli-Law-936/Laws-regarding-property-ownership.htm> written by an Israeli lawyer:
>With State owned real-estate, whether residential or
>non-residential, the situation is far more complicated:
>1. According to a basic (constitutional) Law called The Basic Law of
>the Lands of Israel, The State may not sell the ownership in it's
>lands to anyone, not even citizens of Israel and/or Israeli
>corporations. This rule has some exceptions, which I believe are not
>relevant for you. Nevertheless, the state may and does rent (lease)
>it's real-estate, keeping the ownership always to itself. The rent
>(lease) is usually for a period of 49 years that automatically
>renews itself for another 49 years, so in total - 98 years. The long
>period of the rent makes the leaser almost an owner, yet the state,
>as formal owner, may intervene and/or veto requested actions in the
>real-estate (such as building on it, as any owner would). If you
>need more information in this area, please send me another question,
>with the specific circumstances/questions that you would want me to
>relate to. A big part of the residential property in Israel is owned
>by the State and leased to the residents in the above way.
>2. The State of Israel has rules restricting the possibility of
>foreign people and foreign corporations to lease State owned
>residential property. In general, these limitations do not allow
>foreigners to acquire State owned property. There are several
>exceptions, one of which is that foreigners that are entitled to
>Israeli Citizenship according to the Israeli Law of Return would
>recieve permission to buy (actually - as said above - rent) such
>State owned property. The above Law gives this privilege to any
>Jewish person, man or woman, anywhere around the Globe. Non-Jewish
>persons would have grave difficulties to own (actually - as said
>above - rent) state owned real-estate. The above situation is both
>when renting the real-estate from the State itself ("first hand"
>property, that is new property/apartment) and when buying the rights
>from a former renter ("second hand" property/apartment)
>3. In addition to the above, special problems may rise if the
>desired residential property is not in one of the cities but in a
>Kibbutz or other social-corporated village, usually integrating
>residential usage and agronomical usage of the lands. Not only that
>these lands are owned by the State, therefore the above rules in
>art. 1-2 apply, but these social-corporations have inner rules
>restricting who may become a member in them. These inner rules
>usually do not allow foreigners and non-citizens to become their
>members.