Skip to main content

The Palestinians and Israelis are yet to engage in peace discussions.  

On the Israeli side all negotiations have effectively been about finding a compromise between the Israeli right and the Israeli left over the extent of the sovereignty to be conceded to the various Palestinian refugee camps, villages, and cities controlled by the Israeli Army.  

The US has traditionally accepted that the peace process is exclusively an Israeli issue, something to be negotiated between the right and left of Israel. In this view, Palestinians are peripheral in these negotiations and should at the very least accept in advance the Israeli left's proposals uncompromized by the views of the Israeli right.  

Daily Kos is a place where a genuine Palestinian and Israeli conversation is emerging, shielded by a progressive environment.  To Palestinians and their friends Daily Kos is emerging as a place to present a Palestinian view to a wide audience, to engage in conversation with progressive friends of Israel, and to hope that some of our ideas, cries, and wailings will reach people closer than us to the Obama administration.  

This, however, motivates a nascent and ongoing campaign of vilification against the forum and its participants.

To some the very notion of a Palestinian perspective, a Palestinian voice, is dangerous.

To a few it is so dangerous that it warrants an external as well as an internal campaign of vilification against the Daily Kos forum.  According to this campaign, DailyKos is emerging as an uncomfortable forum for Jews and unwelcoming of Jews. According to this campaign DailyKos is emerging as a forum for haters of Israel. According to this campaign DailyKos is driving Jews away from the Democratic Party. According to this campaign Obama will lose the 2012 elections because of the dominance of Israel haters on DailyKos.

According to the campaign administrators overseeing the Israeli Palestinian conversation here want to see Israel destroyed and are contributing to the erosion of the traditional Jewish support for the Democratic Party.

Of course, all  of this is nonsense. Daily Kos nurtures a progressive environment where unmitigated leftist discourse is welcomed.

The truth in fact is that the presence of the very slight Palestinian advocacy in this environment scares some to the core.   It seems to me that nothing scares these people more than the articulation of Palestinian concerns, which do not conform to the small spectrum of views held by Israel's leftist and rightist parties. This small spectrum ranges from defining borders based on demographic exigency around the refugee camps and cities and giving the new entity a measure of sovereignty, or even full sovereignty, to allowing for a local administration of some Palestinian population centres, creating Palestinian Bantustans. Moderation in this setting involves the Israeli left  making some concessions to meet the concerns for security of the Israeli right and the Israeli right meeting the Israeli left halfway in addressing demographic concerns.

On the Palestinian side, the dominant issue is civil rights. Most Palestinians live in areas controlled by Israel without a modicum of civil rights. They are registered as residents of Eretz Yisrael (Israel and Palestine) but are not afforded any of the extensive rights afforded to Israeli citizens, who in many cases are their Jewish neighbours.  

In this struggle for civil rights the dominant Palestinian issue is the individual right of return of refugees to their homes. It is not local authority or sovereignty within and around refugee camps.  Amongst the Palestinians the return of the refugees is fundamental. It is not an issue generated or actively promoted by any real leadership-Palestinians have no effective institutions to do this.  It is a pervasive individual demand. Both Intifadas were right of return intifadas. It is the ideological driving force of hostility between the Palestinian population and the various western funded mercenaries like the Dahlan Palestinian militias.

The demand for the individual right of return of refugees to their homes cannot be ignored. It is regularly heard here on Daily Kos because it is the central Palestinian concern.

It confronted the late Yasser Arafat who rendered himself helpless at Camp David by accepting to restrict himself to discussing the peace process from an Israeli perspective: rough boundaries around refugee camps and certain towns. Indeed around the time of the Camp David meetings Arafat and his cohorts faced an existential crises when Laila Khaled expressed a desire to return home to Haifa.  This existential threat is now being realized and it is likely that Fateh will not survive the present crises and will not be forgiven for a leadership that ignored the right of return.

Recently, it confronted Mustapha Barghouti. He is a signatory to the Geneva Accords, which articulate the Israeli left's position in its debate with the Israeli right. His inability and unwillingness to give a coherent view on the right of return has rendered him completely irrelevant: a popular joke in Palestine.

It confronted, according to a narrative in Haifa, my very own Israeli Communist Party when in the early 1950's the Palestinian members at a meeting in Haifa demanded the return of  the recently transferred refugees. The demand was rejected by the leadership who could not fathom reversing the "miraculous clearing of the land" of the Arab citizens of Palestine. It recently confronted Meretz in the US who are regularly surprised that their Palestinian counterparts, Palestinian peace activists, insist on discussing the right of return.

Daily Kos is emerging as a place were discourse with the bearers of the Palestinian refugee narrative can happen.  

Let's not shut this down.

Let's recognize  the campaign against the Daily Kos Israel-Palestine community for what it is: a rightwing campaign aimed at silencing Palestinians and their friends.

Let's deal with this campaign in the same way that we deal with other right wing campaigns that worm their way into this forum.  

Originally posted to simone daud on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:07 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  A few general comments (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JNEREBEL, Karmafish, MBNYC
      1. This is a comment, not a diary.  Fine.
      1. This so-called right of return you speak of is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians.  Yet there still has never been a single Israeli politician in a governing coalition support this pipedream.  There isn't a single member of Congress in the US that supports this pipedream.  There hasn't been a single US administration that has supported this pipedream.  Its just never going to happen.  So the real question for me is how many more thousands of Israelis and Palestinians need to die before this pipedream is abandoned as an ideological force?  Even the most progressive members of Congress don't support the return pipedream because they know that it would eliminate the Jewish state as a Jewish state--a concept firmly entrenched in international law.
      1. If Israel will never support the pipedream.  And America will never support the pipedream.  How, exactly, do you intend to effectuate the pipedream?  Do you think BDS will force such economic pressure on Israel that they'll one day change their minds and say "you know whwat--we really need IKEA in Israel--lets stop having Jewish sovereignty in the only country in the world where it exists?"  I mean, really.  You can't think that would actually happen, do you?
      1. Great progressive Congressman like Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson are firmly pro-Israel.  There is nothing right-wing about being pro-Israel.  In fact, if you look at the most pro-Israel congresspeople, they are, in every case, liberal Democrats.  To shut out the progressive pro-Israel wing of the Democratic party out of some self-censorship goal is just silly.

      "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." --Barack Obama, June, 2008

      by oldskooldem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:18:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (16+ / 0-)

        "it would eliminate the Jewish state as a Jewish state--a concept firmly entrenched in international law"

        Er, come again?

        •  The right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MBNYC

          of self-determination is contained in the UN charter, and very specific mention of the "Jewish state" is in the original partition resolution of the UN in 1947 and in numerous other UN resolutions.

          "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." --Barack Obama, June, 2008

          by oldskooldem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:23:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It doesn't follow from the right of (7+ / 0-)

            self-determination that any group of people is entitled to an ethnic supremacist state in whatever land they choose.

            Obviously.

            •  Tell that (0+ / 0-)

              to Germany or Luxembourg or Saudi Arabia...

              "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." --Barack Obama, June, 2008

              by oldskooldem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:39:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  is that (15+ / 0-)

                Luxembourg, the well-known "ethnic supremacist state" that is a glorified fort, which people today use primarily for its money-laundering facilities?

                I seem to remember that Germany got into some deep, deep trouble when it tried to define itself as an "ethnic supremacist state."

                Saudi Arabia is a family operation: it's a "progeny of King Abd Al Aziz Al Saud supremacist state."

                Do you argue like the Inspector Clouseau of the intertubes on purpose, or does it come naturally?

                •  "You Fuel, Cato!" (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mattman, blueness

                  Someone has a minkee on their back.

                  The prodigious use of labels, and gross generalizations make discussions so easy and cooperative, don't they?

                  What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

                  by agnostic on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:01:28 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Try to build a church in saudi arabia (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Karmafish

                  It's an islamic-supremacist state.

                  Certainly much easier to build a mosque in Israel (or to renovate a Jewish historical site in Hebron).

                  •  who would want to? They have too much (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mattman, capelza

                    religion there already. Why add fool to the pyre?

                    What the Sauds need is LESS religion, not competing ones. Hell, that applies to the world at large.

                    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

                    by agnostic on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:17:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  It is, but it's also an indigineous supremacist (7+ / 0-)

                    state, which we also hypocritically and unconditionally support - to our great discredit.

                    The lowest common denominator arguments (not as bad as...) really obscure the positive avenues of discussion and potential resolution of this conflict, imho.

                    Better to include, acknowledge, address, and resolve the heretofore dismissed, but nonetheless legitimate, Palestinian issues if mutually beneficial and viable peace is to be had.  Some acceptance of Israel's role in the cause and perpetuation of those complaints is necessary, and again, imho, not to be feared.  The long-term results would only be beneficial to all parties.

                    "Dega dega dega dega. Break up the concrete..." The Pretenders

                    by Terra Mystica on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:25:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  UGH (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Karmafish

                      Let me explain:

                      1.  There are many mosques in Israel, even on the Mediterranean in the heart of Tel Aviv.
                      1.  There are no churches in Saudi Arabia, and they are not permitted to be built.
                      1.  If you believe in human rights, it's a shame you're focusing on Israel rather than some of the real human rights offending nations.
                      1.  As a result, you are a hypocrite.
                      •  This is the sort of non-sensical (10+ / 0-)

                        talking points that simone is talking about.

                        For someone to care about the plight of the Palestinian people and focus on that, they must necessarily be a hypocrite because there is "worse" suffering in the world.

                        First of all, who are you to decide which form of suffering is worse? You do not get to tell the Palestinians of Hebron who are under siege or their supporters to stop complaining because others have it worse.

                        Have you ever told someone who fights hunger in the US that they're a hypocrite because they're ignoring starvation plagues in Africa which are much more widespread? I doubt you have. But when it comes to Palestinians, so many people are shocked and appalled that anyone would give them aid or comfort.

                        Mosque is indeed easier to build in Israel than a church is in Saudi Arabia. But try being a Palestinian building a house in Jerusalem. See how much luck you get there, and come back to me.

                        •  Don't you get it? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Karmafish

                          But when it comes to Palestinians, so many people are shocked and appalled that anyone would give them aid or comfort.

                          Of course, a gross overstatement.  

                          However, most of the world has given billions of dollars.

                          Most of the world is bending over backwards to give the Palestinians a Palestinian state where they can build all of the houses they want, but they won't take a Palestinian state unless they can also eliminate the Jewish state.

                          If you're starving, don't be surprised if people tell you to fuck off when you insist on caviar.  You're asking for too much, and you're never going to get it from most people who want a better world.

                          That's really the point.  Many Americans are less sympathetic to the Palestinians because they ask themselves whether, if the Palestinians had everything they want, would the world be a better place?  Too often, the answer to that question is a clear "no," for many reasons:

                          1.  The corruption of their leaders.
                          1.  The lack of support among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza for free speech, free press, religious tolerance, the rights of women, etc.
                          1.  The actual support among Palestinians for violence against Jews, and the fact that suicide bombers who kill innocent Israelis in discos and pizza parlors are praised as "martyrs" rather than condemned as murderers.
                          1.  The non-rejection of radical Islamist groups who do not want to co-exist with Jews but declare Israel to be "Muslim land" which cannot be controlled by anyone other than Muslims. The fact that Palestinians actually voted for Hamas, who clearly preaches those views.
                          1.  Support for America's enemies, including Iran.

                          I could go on, but I'll stop there.

                          •  asdf (11+ / 0-)

                            Most of the world is bending over backwards to give the Palestinians a Palestinian state where they can build all of the houses they want, but they won't take a Palestinian state unless they can also eliminate the Jewish state.

                            This is patently false. You write these words as settlement of Palestinian land is ongoing. Palestinians long ago accepted a two-state solution, which was in large part the surrender that Israel had been demanding for years. Of course, Israel always adds more and more demands and conditions: it demands to be recognized as a "Jewish" state while settling more land and making unviable the two state solution. Hard to see how any sane person could describe these concrete facts on the ground as "bending over backwards." If anything, they are dramatic, material (as opposed to the rhetoric of the powerless which characterize the Palestinian leadership's responses) gestures of ill-will by Israel.

                            If you're starving, don't be surprised if people tell you to fuck off when you insist on caviar.

                            Who's the party asking for the caviar? Israel is the occupier, not vice versa, and it's Israel that wants more and more (West Bank water, land, East Jerusalem). Palestinians ask simply to live in dignity as equals on their land. Is that caviar to you?

                            Many Americans are less sympathetic to the Palestinians because they ask themselves whether, if the Palestinians had everything they want,

                            Ummmm, no. Most Americans are in fact clueless about the rest of the world and likely couldn't find Palestine or Israel on a map. They are also subject to a steady diet of vile anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism from the media (both right and left). So the opinions of most Americans are not really guided by an informed appraisal of the conflict.
                            As to your list, it is frankly too silly to respond to, and indicates a very shallow understanding of Palestinian politics and society.

                          •  Misleading comment (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm quite surprised and encouraged by this:

                            Palestinians long ago accepted a two-state solution, which was in large part the surrender that Israel had been demanding for years.

                            The world is asking the Palestinians to accept the principle of "two states for two peoples," a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza where all Palestinian refugees could return, and a state with a Jewish majority in Israel.

                            Perhaps I missed this wonderful news, but I don't recall the Palestinians ever accepting that.  

                            Can you give me some additional details of that acceptance?

                            Thanks!

                          •  where have you been? (4+ / 0-)

                            it strikes me that you are seriously unqualified to discuss this issue if you're so completely unaware of what has happened in the past 20 years.

                            Perhaps I missed this wonderful news, but I don't recall the Palestinians ever accepting that.  

                            Yes, apparently, you've missed a lot. But, not even considering Oslo and post-Oslo,  perhaps you have you heard of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002? Some aspects of it:
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                            (a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon; (b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194. (c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. In return the Arab states will do the following: (a) Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region; (b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace.[2]

                            and:

                            The initiative refers to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, which emphasizes the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.[15][17] In a compromise wording, it states that the League supports any negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestinians and does not mention the term "right of return".[15][17]

                            Interestingly enough, Israel barred Arafat from even going to Beirut to the conference. Gee, I wonder, if they were so interested allowing Palestinians a state, why they would do that? Any answers?

                            And by the way, Netanyahu has explicitly rejected it:

                            Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flatly rejected the initiative after the 2007 summit meeting (at a time when he was leader of the Israeli opposition).[36] He told visiting Arab foreign ministers that "The withdrawal from Gaza two years ago proved that any Israeli withdrawal – particularly a unilateral one – does not advance peace, but rather establishes a terror base for radical Islam."[36] Meanwhile, Israeli Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on April 21, 2009 that the plan is "a dangerous proposal, a recipe for the destruction of Israel."[37]

                            So let's get this straight: Israel refuses to share Jerusalem; Israel continues to settle the West Bank. Israel rejects the Arab Peace Initiative. And you want us to believe that its the Palestinians who have not accepted two states for two peoples?

                            Try again buddy. Fail.

                          •  Arab peace initiative (0+ / 0-)

                            Explicitly provides for a right of return to Israel, not just to the new Palestinian state, not "two states for two peoples."

                          •  perhaps (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Aunt Martha, unspeakable

                            you missed this part:

                            In a compromise wording, it states that the League supports any negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestinians and does not mention the term "right of return".

                            Anyway, you obviously would rather support Netanyahu's rejectionist position than embrace a comprehensive peace with the Arab world. Sad. But from now on, at least it's clear who here is against peace.

                      •  On hypocrisy... (7+ / 0-)

                        Look over there! (too easy)

                        I want Israel to begin to be the modern western democracy to which it aspires.  The fact is that it isn't and is heading in the wrong direction to achieve that goal.  (I'm pretty sure the US is regressing as well, but that's an aside.)  I think that's central to this debate, and rebuts your contention.

                        As it stands, with the continued colonization of the WB and all the supporting oppression needed to do so, Israel is not the western democracy people think it is.

                        I think that if you subscribe to the notion that Israel is a western style democracy you have to seriously address, and act on that, the issues of inequality and civil rights presented in the diary.  Not dismiss them with a hypocrisy charge.

                        "Dega dega dega dega. Break up the concrete..." The Pretenders

                        by Terra Mystica on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:01:47 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Let's examine that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            capelza, Terra Mystica
            1.  The boundaries of the Jewish state were established by the UN in the partition resolution. As well as establishment of an Arab state.  What are the current boundaries of the Jewish state and the Arab state? Where are the lands allocated for the Arab State?  Who occupies those lands?
            1.  Establishment of a Jewish state ab initio, where is the basis for claiming such a state be Jewish in perpetuity?  Any precedents there?

            Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

            by Eiron on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:24:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  See, e.g. (0+ / 0-)

          page 133, et all of this UN resolution 181 that speaks specifically of an "Independent Jewish State"

          "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." --Barack Obama, June, 2008

          by oldskooldem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:25:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  even though the majority of people in that state (9+ / 0-)

            where not Jewish.

            Thus, israel can  remain Jewish and the homeland of the Jews even if its Arabs are allowed to return to their homes.

            The people that will be returning to their homes are the families that where envisioned as living in the Jewish state.

            A Jewish state does not mean the expulsion or discrimination against the non-Jewish residents of that state.

            Resolution 181 did not call for the elimination of the non-Jewish presence in the Jewish state. It envisioned a Jewish state with a majority Palestinian non-Jewish population.

            Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

            by simone daud on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:34:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But Simone (4+ / 0-)

              I mean you know Israel well... Do you know any Israelis who would vote for a concept where Israel has a majority non-Jewish population and wouldn't fight against such concept militarily to the death?  

              I know members of my very liberal Reform Jewish congregation would go to Israel to fight for her to stay a Jewish state.  Who exactly do you think you're going to convince of this?

              "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." --Barack Obama, June, 2008

              by oldskooldem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:38:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  one issue with this... (0+ / 0-)

              How are you going to know who the "families that where envisioned as living in the Jewish state" are?

              They have been outside of Israel for over 60 years. The married people who are not part of those families. You will have an influx of possible the vast majority of Palestinians. You are talking about adding 5 million people to Israel.

              Also even people who were not there in 48 would love to come to Israel, better economically, more opportunity just better for their families. How are you going to make them prove it?

      •  when people say "it will never happen" (5+ / 0-)

        I wonder if those same people agree with "centrist" "Democrats" who say "we don't have the votes".

        Whatever happened to standing up for what is right and trying to move the debate in the right direction?

        Since when did "it won't happen" become a way to decide a debate about what is right?

        When people said slavery would never end? When people said that kings would always rule? When people said that women should not vote? When people said that the "races" should be segregated?

      •  strawman (0+ / 0-)

        you conflate the internationaly sanctioned right of return with being responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians. and launch off your speel from there evading the truth that tidy little factoids like the ethnic cleansing of palestinians from their land and  homes proceeded any demand for right of return and the brutal occupation that exists today and israels war on gaza certainly play their role in those deaths over the decades.

        •  The diarist (0+ / 0-)

          does--not me.  He said the right of return is responsible for the first two intifadas.  I don't know whether I agree or disagree, but if he's right, then he's saying the right of return is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths--already.

          "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." --Barack Obama, June, 2008

          by oldskooldem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:17:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  put up or shut up (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mattman, capelza

            This so-called right of return you speak of is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians......he's saying the right of return is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths--already.

            either the diariest claimed this or he did not.

            A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

            or in this case agreeing with your own fallacy but being to cowardly to own it, trying to pander it off on simone. at least i have the courage to own my convictions..that it is the theft of palestine that caused the death of thousands, for obviously there would have been no call for return, nor any intifadas had it not been for the original implementation of the ethnic cleansing that took place.

          •  you should be HR'd if you continue lying about (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mattman, Peacenick

            the words of the diariest.

  •  I was willing to tip on title alone, until (21+ / 0-)

    I read the whole thing.

    Thank you for this, Simone.

    now, if only a few reactionaries took the time to read it, think about it, and think some more, before the concoct some anti Israeli or anti Palestinian taint out of what should be a very interesting, timely and necessary discourse.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:14:34 AM PST

  •  Good luck with this (13+ / 0-)

    But as someone who's been following the latest Andrew Sullivan "controversy", I am losing hope that this topic can ever be discussed rationally, let alone solved.

  •  Trying to see Others as they see themselves. (7+ / 0-)

    Buried within Simone Daud's polemic is the germ of a good idea:  engaging in a serious conversation about achieving a lasting peace settlement between Palestinians and Israelis.

    As it happens, I disagree with the notion that the obstacle is a "campaign against the Daily Kos Israel-Palestine community."  I must admit, however, that my dissatisfaction with the nature of the conversation has distanced me from it for the last several months.  Hence I am not at all informed about the current meta-situation.

    That said, this diary illustrates one major obstacle to the kind of conversation or dialogue of which I speak, namely, the unfortunate failure to to take seriously the other side.  In this case, the other side happens to be Israel, but that is not always the case.

    What do I mean?  The diarist begins, as follows:

    On the Israeli side all negotiations have effectively been about finding a compromise between the Israeli right and the Israeli left over the extent of the sovereignty to be conceded to the various Palestinian refugee camps, villages, and cities controlled by the Israeli Army.

    Not so.  At least since the Oslo days, the Israeli left has supported a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel, with its capital in (east) Jerusalem, with a border based on the "Greeen Line," that is, the pre-June 1967 War borders, subject to mutually agreed modifications.  The Israeli center has been less enthusiastic, but has generally been willing to accept such a peace settlement.  The debate between the Israeli left and right has been over the desirability of, on the one hand, a democratic Jewish state, only possible within the Green Line, or Greater Israel.

    As an engaged, veteran opponent of the settlement project and supporter of Peace Now, I am of the view that the decline of the Israeli left and the Israeli center's increasing emphasis on its security fears largely has been due to such things as the decision of Yasir Arafat and the PLO to reject President Bill Clinton's December 2000 parameters as a basis for negotiating a settlement, which, combined with the second intifada, led a substantial majority of Israelis to conclude that peace with the Palestinians is a utopian dream.

    Were I writing my own diary, I also would discuss how various Israeli actions, and governmental failures to act, have weakened Palestinian moderates and strengthened Palestinian revanchism.  But that's not my present meta point.  For newcomers unacquainted with my own thoughts, I respectfully refer you to, e.g.,

    Where I'm Coming From . . .

    End U.S. tax subsidies for buying up East Jerusalem

    •  Hey you (0+ / 0-)

      Long time, no see.

      "You can be a real prick, Red Sox, and this time you have been a real prick." - Celtic Merlin Carlinist

      by Red Sox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:39:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So what? (10+ / 0-)

      you still ignore the Palestinians. and you entirely and wilfully ignored
      the "Geneva Accords" paragraph.

      read the diary and we can have a conversation.

      I am entirely aware that you have never had one with a Palestinian.

      Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

      by simone daud on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:02:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (12+ / 0-)

      "At least since the Oslo days, the Israeli left has supported a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel, with its capital in (east) Jerusalem, with a border based on the "Greeen Line," that is, the pre-June 1967 War borders, subject to mutually agreed modifications"

      This is true of a certain section of the Israeli left - what we might call the fringe left. But if we're talking about the mainstream "left" - i.e. the Labor party - then simone's characterisation is precisely accurate.

      "The Israeli center has been less enthusiastic, but has generally been willing to accept such a peace settlement"

      That's just flatly false - Labor and Kadima have actively opposed any two-state settlement of the kind you describe, both in words and in deed. Sorry, but this attempt to restrict Israeli rejectionism to the Right simply doesn't wash - the entire political is complicit:

      "such things as the decision of Yasir Arafat and the PLO to reject President Bill Clinton's December 2000 parameters as a basis for negotiating a settlement"

      A view undermined by a) the fact that Israeli rejectionism was no less pronounced before 2000 than after it, and b) Arafat's didn't "reject" the parameters, but rather followed the Israeli side in accepting them while entering in a series of reservations. As I'm sure you know.

      •  By the "Israeli left," I mean (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        livosh1, JNEREBEL

        the mainstream peace camp comprised of supporters of Peace Now, Meretz, the dovish part of Labor, etc.  I don't have in mind the, numerically and politically insignificant, anti-Zionist, Jewish Israeli far left.

        By "Israeli center" I mean most of Kadima, most of the rest of Labor, and the many free-floating voters who prioritize their fears over their hopes.

        By the "Israel right" I mean that part of Likud and the parties to its right, in terms of the I-P conflict, who prefer Greater Israel to a peace settlement.

        In those terms, which, I suggest, find support over the years of Israeli public opinion research, I think my statements are correct.

        In all events, I've no desire to engage in a slanging match with you.

        •  asdf (8+ / 0-)

          "the mainstream peace camp comprised of supporters of Peace Now, Meretz, the dovish part of Labor, etc."

          Sure - but this "mainstream peace camp" is "politically insignificant", and has been for quite a while now.

          "In those terms, which, I suggest, find support over the years of Israeli public opinion research, I think my statements are correct."

          No, it isn't - see my comment above. The "Israeli center" was no less supportive of and complicit in the expansion of the occupation before 2000 than after it.

        •  it's so 'mainstream' (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mattman

          there's a campaign to squash all funding thru legislation in the knesset, or haven't you heard. there is nothing 'mainstream' about the jewish left in israel, according to the left they only represent a trickle in israeli society and have been pleading with the diaspora for support. maybe you should get out more often. unless you consider support for the gaza massacre 'left'.

  •  To me the reason that it scares so many people (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, zannie, Terra Mystica, lenzy1000

    is the fact that Israel has dominated the conversation for so long. It is about the Israeli concerns and for their to be other concerns is change that scares them.

    That being said a lot of people consider the right of return a non-starter issue because a lot of Israelis see the whole point of the UN resolutions like 242 to create a Jewish and Arab state. Letting the Palestinians have the return, would greatly decrease the Jewish population domination within Israel itself and the west bank and gaza would have way less people living in it.

  •  This campaign you speak of (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    livosh1, JNEREBEL, MBNYC, VirginiaJeff

    sounds awfully nefarious. Could you give some more specifics? I would think that I'd have heard of it by now, since I regularly participate in I-P, and generally come down on the pro-I side.

    "You can be a real prick, Red Sox, and this time you have been a real prick." - Celtic Merlin Carlinist

    by Red Sox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:39:06 AM PST

    •  I think the diarist is saying (6+ / 0-)

      that in the heated discussions that ensue during these diaries, people sometimes say things like oh you are an anti-semite for criticizing this Israeli policy or that. Or people get upset and say if this is the democratic parties view on the issue I am leaving the party and wont support Obama.

      I have seen these types of comments. They happen in lots of I/P diaries.

    •  Of course you've heard of it (11+ / 0-)

      Karmafish posts the theme on almost a daily basis.  Russell posted a diary in this line last night.

      Playing the naif doesn't really suit you.

      •  but it suites his disruption theme (6+ / 0-)

        well.

        Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

        by simone daud on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:51:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I look forward to your (4+ / 0-)

          diaries and comments.  And I'm sure you have something legitimate to say today.  But your defensiveness is overwhelming it.  Just because people don't see what you see doesn't make them malicious.

          If you think it's important to talk about a problem you're seeing, then have patience with people who question your conclusions.

          Political liberal / Bible believing Christian / Lousy at litmus tests

          by VirginiaJeff on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:42:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And just because you disagree with simone (5+ / 0-)

            doesn't mean that he's being defensive.

            •  Certainly not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              livosh1

              though Simone's behavior is downright bizarre, regardless of what VirginiaJeff thinks or doesn't think about it.

              "You can be a real prick, Red Sox, and this time you have been a real prick." - Celtic Merlin Carlinist

              by Red Sox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:26:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Red, (5+ / 0-)

                you said a similar thing about me a few months ago when I got on someone's case for repeating the "there will be peace when Palestinians love their children" vile.  I believe you called me "overly sensitive".  

                Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                by Dexter on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:29:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I said "hyper-sensitivity" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  livosh1

                  and it was in the broader context of a series of posts unrelated to the Golda Meir quote where you interpreted a couple of posts as attacks on you when they weren't. If you're going to quote or reference me, I'd certainly appreciate you doing so accurately.

                  "You can be a real prick, Red Sox, and this time you have been a real prick." - Celtic Merlin Carlinist

                  by Red Sox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:34:15 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Here it is then (3+ / 0-)

                    You said something I considered and racist gave you hell for it.  A few days later, someone else said the crap about Palestinians loving their children and gave him/her hell for it, and your response was the say that I was being hyper-sensitive lately.  

                    It had nothing to do with any personal attacks on me.

                    Is that how you remember it?  Does that really put you in any better light?  

                    Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                    by Dexter on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:52:45 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You ought to do a little research here (0+ / 0-)

                      It wasn't that hard to go find the actual post:

                      I disagree with the quote and the quoting (2+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                         Paul in Berkeley, csquared

                      of otherwise respectable people who repeat it. But the ordinarily reasonable Dexter is on this bizarre kick of hyper-sensitivity. I'd drop it if I were you, because it's going to accomplish nothing.

                      Emphasis added. I wasn't referring to your reaction to the comment, I was referring to your overall posting around that time. We had been discussing the natural inclination of Jewish posters to trust Palestinian pro-P posters moreso than non-Palestinian sources, and you had a pretty visceral reaction to that, repeatedly insisting that you had been smeared by association. That was the hyper-sensitivity. I made it clear in my comment to OSD that I disapproved of quoting that statement by Meir.

                      "You can be a real prick, Red Sox, and this time you have been a real prick." - Celtic Merlin Carlinist

                      by Red Sox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:58:39 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If you're not refering to my reaction (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        mattman, Terra Mystica, unspeakable

                        to the racist comment, why would you post it in that thread?  

                        Also, I remember it differently.  The debate I wasn'treacting to wasn't about a trust issue, it was about calling all Pro-P posters anti-Semitic.  

                        Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                        by Dexter on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:11:52 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Dammit (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          unspeakable

                          didn't mean to post that yet.  

                          I wanted to add that we seem to remember this very differently, and interpret it differently as well.  So I say we should let it lie.  

                          Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                          by Dexter on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:12:37 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  OK (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dexter

                            I wanted to add that we seem to remember this very differently, and interpret it differently as well.  So I say we should let it lie.  

                            Fair enough, but I never even came close to "calling all Pro-P posters anti-Semitic," because I suspect very few of them are.

                            "You can be a real prick, Red Sox, and this time you have been a real prick." - Celtic Merlin Carlinist

                            by Red Sox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:14:30 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Red Sox

                            :)

                            Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                            by Dexter on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:15:38 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't disagree with Simone. I've been (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              capelza, Conure

              reading the exchanges and trying to learn from what's being said.

              Political liberal / Bible believing Christian / Lousy at litmus tests

              by VirginiaJeff on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:48:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Who's disrupting (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          livosh1, JNEREBEL

          I'm asking you to provide some specifics. You've basically crafted a "Woe, is me" diary out of vague attacks. The request is hardly unreasonable.

          "You can be a real prick, Red Sox, and this time you have been a real prick." - Celtic Merlin Carlinist

          by Red Sox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:53:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  So two marginalized posters (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        livosh1, JNEREBEL

        suggest that Daily Kos isn't big enough for a progressive Palestinian-Israeli conversation? I don't deny that they've gone pretty extreme, but that they're "campaign administrators" of some wide-scale effort to shut down Palestinian discourse is patently absurd.

        "You can be a real prick, Red Sox, and this time you have been a real prick." - Celtic Merlin Carlinist

        by Red Sox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:55:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is getting better, but these threads are rife (8+ / 0-)

          with dismissiveness of the Palestinian perspective.  A couple of years ago it used to be outright derision.

          Perhaps that's unintentional, perhaps not.  On the unintentional (or borne of the traditional media narrative in the US) shpilk (whom I respect greatly elsewhere here) said the US and Israel were terrorized as a lead in to a comment.  He simply left out Palestinians.  That omission is indicative of the "overlooking" problem simone daud outlines in the diary.

          On the intentional part, I was just looking at some historical (2001) characterizations of the American Jewish Committee's position on Muslim political power in the US to support a rebuttal of Russell's diatribe.  The stated goal is to counter any ascendancy of that power.  This org, though hopefully it may be a fringe outfit, has commissioned studies to refute estimates of the Muslim population in the US in support of that goal.

          In the past, [David]Harris [still head of the AJC] has warned that the increasingly visible American Muslim lobby posed a challenge to U.S.-Israel relations.

          http://www.adherents.com/...

          Tom Smith (AJC funded) study: http://www.ajc.org/...

          A search where the top hits are mostly about this effort:  http://www.google.com/...

          You can argue that simone daud may have overstated (I don't think he did), but there is a real background effort, by some, to minimize the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim perspective (of US citizens) out of fear that it would diminish the historical "pro-Israel" (whatever that means anymore) clout, politically or otherwise.  I think it's safe to say that these views are reflected here.

          So whether it's intentional or not, the Palestinian view is routinely dismissed here and elsewhere.  I agree with simone daud that this is a little tiny toehold of broadly viewed Palestinian peace advocacy.  But the counters to that toehold of "I/P should be banned at dKos," "fracture the Democratic Party," "not in the Platform," or worse, arguments here are hardly isolated or narrowly held.

          Sorry to be so long.  This is hard to explain in a potentially positive way.  Progress is being made.

          "Dega dega dega dega. Break up the concrete..." The Pretenders

          by Terra Mystica on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:17:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Oh Jesus. (9+ / 0-)

    To a few it is so dangerous that it warrants an external as well as an internal campaign of vilification against the Daily Kos forum.  According to this campaign, DailyKos is emerging as an uncomfortable forum for Jews and unwelcoming of Jews. According to this campaign DailyKos is emerging as a forum for haters of Israel. According to this campaign DailyKos is driving Jews away from the Democratic Party. According to this campaign Obama will lose the 2012 elections because of the dominance of Israel haters on DailyKos.

    According to the campaign administrators overseeing the Israeli Palestinian conversation here want to see Israel destroyed and are contributing to the erosion of the traditional Jewish support for the Democratic Party.

    What campaign? Where is it being played out? A campaign so powerful it will cause the President to lose in 2012, but you can't actually describe it?

    I'm all in favor of hyperbole, but this diary reaches to the rafters.

    It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

    by MBNYC on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:43:43 AM PST

    •  I've asked him to explain this further (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JNEREBEL, MBNYC

      I'm interested in some specifics about this campaign.

      "You can be a real prick, Red Sox, and this time you have been a real prick." - Celtic Merlin Carlinist

      by Red Sox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:46:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed. (5+ / 0-)

        I like the idea that we Kossacks have this much power, but I'd reach a conclusion diametrically opposed to his: that it's the pro-Israel posters here who are pretty constantly vilified, which I find somewhat un-Progressive.

        It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

        by MBNYC on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:04:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  With American support for Israel (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MBNYC

        at near record highs, one likely result of tarring President Obama as anti-Israel would be a loss of support in 2012.  Given the success of swift-boating and the death panel lies, one can't dismiss that possibility, even though it has no basis in fact.

        This background fact should not preclude anyone who opposes Israel's continued existence from saying so.  But it might influence some Democratic supporters who are unhappy with various Israeli policies, for which, unfortunately, there are many good grounds, but who do not seek its elimination, to try to avoid language that evokes historically antisemitic tropes, or that, indeed, contextualizes the often deserved criticism within a framework of support for two states for two peoples.

        •  Those near record levels.. (10+ / 0-)

          ....are based on gallup polling only, as far as I can tell, and Gallup notes that the increase in support is statistically insignificant when compared to polling from 2006 through 2009.  

          There have been polls showing significantly greater support for repealing DADT, including majority support among conservative Republicans, yet that has not prevented people from arguing that there are political risks to the administration pursuing a repeal.  Our discussions are not limited by an appeal to polling, nor should they be.

          Policy, Peace and Progress Before Party

          by Alec82 on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:16:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did I suggest limiting our discussion? No, (0+ / 0-)

            I did not.  Indeed, I defended the right of those who oppose Israel's continued existence to say so.

            What I did suggest is that those who do not oppose Israel's continued existence, but who do have -- too often legitimate -- criticisms to make of particular Israeli policies, actions, or failures to act, should try to avoid using language that evokes historically antisemitic tropes, or that, indeed, contextualizes the often deserved criticism within a framework of support for two states for two peoples."  Is there something wrong with this suggestion?

            •  would you also defend (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mattman

              of those who wish to ethnically cleanse (violently or otherwise including starvation/ genocide) all palestinians from eretz israel to say so?

              would you suggest those who do not oppose the genocide of palestinians, but who do have -- too often legitimate -- criticisms to make of particular palestinian policies, actions, or failures to act, should try to avoid using language that evokes historically confirmed ethnic cleansing?

              i thought if we were going to set parameters of the extremes of both sides (not implying they exist here on dkos althought you did not make that distinction) we could include those who promote the  gentile baby killing stuff and transfer freaks etc.

              •  Let me try be clear . . . (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                livosh1, Karmafish

                Clearer than, perhaps, I was in my original comment.

                In public fora outside Daily Kos, I defend free speech.  For example, I would defend the right of a student group to bring David Irving or Norman Finkelstein to a campus to speak.

                Inside Daily Kos, I defer to Kos's requirements.  Unless things have changed in the last few months, it's his private forum, which he makes available to us according to his rules.

                Personally, I would prefer that Daily Kos not by open to expressions of racism, including antisemitism, sexism, etc.

                Politically, I was trying to suggest that, wherever one speaks, if one wants to be critical of Israel, or Palestine, for that matter, without giving aid or comfort to those who oppose its existence (or who oppose its existence on antisemitic grounds, in the case of Israel), then one should be careful to avoid classic antisemitic tropes.

                •  you were clear (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mattman

                  Indeed, I defended the right of those who oppose Israel's continued existence to say so.

                  so i just wondered if the same applied to the extremists of the rightwing (you know, the ones who had lots of power within israel, as opposed to the 'eliminate israel' people who don't post here anyway)

                  What I did suggest is that those who do not oppose Israel's continued existence, but who do have -- too often legitimate -- criticisms to make of particular Israeli policies, actions, or failures to act, should try to avoid using language that evokes historically antisemitic tropes, or that, indeed, contextualizes the often deserved criticism within a framework of support for two states for two peoples."  Is there something wrong with this suggestion?

                  so in light of this 'defense' you speak of and the 'suggestion to avoid' i ask you again:

                  would you also defend those who wish to ethnically cleanse (violently or otherwise including starvation/ genocide) all palestinians from eretz israel to say so?

                  would you suggest those who do not oppose the genocide of palestinians, but who do have -- too often legitimate -- criticisms to make of particular palestinian policies, actions, or failures to act, should try to avoid using language that evokes historically confirmed ethnic cleansing?

                  just answer me please. you think this topic is important i assume, this freedom of speech. for me it sounds like another opportunity to hump the elimination rhetoric but if you are sincere just answer me please. would you also suggest that those who wish to promote genocide of palestinians speak in such a way that does not give comfort to racists and the promoters of killing non jews?

                  iow, when one wants to be critical of palestinians should they try to steer clear of sounding, you know...racist or genocidal?

          •  Those near-record levels (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            livosh1, JNEREBEL

            are historically consistent with American public opinion. I agree that people can and should talk about whatever the hell they want, but some points of view are more widely held than others.

            It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

            by MBNYC on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:57:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's true that some views are more widely held (4+ / 0-)

              than others, and America's favorability toward Israel is one of them. But things change.

              While the favorability rating of Israel remained the same statistically from last year to this year, the favorability toward the Palestinian Authority changed statistically, going from 15% last year to 20% this year.

              Gallup's analysis:

              However, there was a slight improvement in views over the past year, from 15% viewing the Palestinian Authority favorably in 2009 (and just 11% after the Hamas group won the Palestinian elections in 2006) to 20% today.

              and

              Most countries' ratings are essentially unchanged, while favorability toward Russia and the Palestinian Authority is up slightly.

              Additionally, the highest support for Israel comes from Americans 55 years and older, and from republicans. Wonder what that means for the future?

              Significant age gaps exist in favorability toward Cuba, Yemen, Pakistan, North Korea, the Palestinian Authority, and Iran, although most members of all age groups still view these countries negatively.
              France, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, the Palestinian Authority, and Yemen are all viewed more favorably by Democrats than by Republicans. Israel is the only country rated this year that is viewed more favorably by Republicans.

          •  I'm also curious as to how pollsters intend (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MBNYC, Terra Mystica

            to define "pro-Israel." My idea of being pro-Israel probably differs significantly from the Sheldon Adelsons and Rick Warrens of the world.

            "You can be a real prick, Red Sox, and this time you have been a real prick." - Celtic Merlin Carlinist

            by Red Sox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:29:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here are the Gallup Poll question and link. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MBNYC, Red Sox

              In U.S., Canada Places First in Image Contest; Iran Last

              Next, I'd like your overall opinion of some foreign countries.  What is your overall opinion of . . .?  Is it very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable?

              The rank order for the top five countries was:  Canada, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and Israel.  The rank order for the bottom five, beginning with the most unfavorable, was:  Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, The Palestinian Authority, Yemen.

              •  And that's why I think polls like these (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                livosh1

                are useful insofar as they provide general sentiments, but are pretty useless beyond that. To a good number of right-wingers, being pro-Israel amounts to being little more than anti-Palestinian/Palestine. To me, it means a just and peaceful solution to the conflict where there is both an Israel and a Palestine.

                "You can be a real prick, Red Sox, and this time you have been a real prick." - Celtic Merlin Carlinist

                by Red Sox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:43:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  IMHO, one can be pro-Israel without being (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  livosh1, Captain C

                  anti-Palestine, and one can be pro-Palestine without being anti-Israel.

                  Unfortunately, it's also all too possible to be both pro-I and anti-P, or pro-P and anti-I.

                  I wouldn't try to argue, for example, that supporters of a Greater Israel are not pro-Israel on the basis that their policy, IMHO, is destructive of Israel's best interests.  I'd rather argue over the the political substance.

                •  How can you say (8+ / 0-)

                  "just" solution?

                  Everyone here recognizes that at this point, the most that will happen is that Israel will withdraw from some settlements. The settlements that Israel wants to keep are the ones around Jerusalem, where they say many Jews lived pre-1948. Fine, but there were West Jerusalem neighborhoods that many Palestinians lived in. Nobody is using that same logic to argue that those lands be part of a Palestinian state.

                  And simone is right when he says that one of the top three Palestinian concerns is the right of return. Israel is not likely to budge on this issue.

                  The main reason I rec'd this diary is because of what he said here:

                  The US has traditionally accepted that the peace process is exclusively an Israeli issue, something to be negotiated between the right and left of Israel. In this view, Palestinians are peripheral in these negotiations and should at the very least accept in advance the Israeli left's proposals uncompromized by the views of the Israeli right.  

                  This is absolutely true. Israeli leftists want to get rid of all the settlements. Israeli rightists none. The compromise: some will be gone, others won't be. Israeli leftists would have no problem with allowing the Palestinians alive pre-1948 to return, the right is absolutely opposed. The compromise: allowing a small number in, which has in the past been proposed by the left, but never accepted by the right.

                  On the major issues, Palestinians are not a part of the conversation. The Palestinian Authority, the members of which have made themselves quite rich laundering foreign aid, is then asked to accept this, which it promptly does. How is this process just? How will a result of this process be just?

                  •  Quite easily, actually (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    livosh1, Terra Mystica, Alec82

                    To me, a just solution involves Israel and Palestine, side by side, in two viable states roughly configured around the 1967 borders. That desire is, to me, the heart of being pro-Israel. You might not see it as just, and that's fine, but Jerusalem's current intransigence on the peace process doesn't somehow negate the presence of a just solution, however unrealistic it may bay at this very moment.

                    "You can be a real prick, Red Sox, and this time you have been a real prick." - Celtic Merlin Carlinist

                    by Red Sox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:44:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  do you mean (3+ / 0-)

                those that seek the elimination of Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, The Palestinian Authority, Yemen?

                or those that do not support the existence of Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, The Palestinian Authority, Yemen?

                does gallup really ask those questions?

                •  The question, as I posted and linked, was (0+ / 0-)

                  Next, I'd like your overall opinion of some foreign countries.  What is your overall opinion of . . .?  Is it very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable?

                  •  the parent of this (4+ / 0-)

                    here

                    With American support for Israel
                    at near record highs, one likely result of tarring President Obama as anti-Israel would be a loss of support in 2012. ......

                    This background fact should not preclude anyone who opposes Israel's continued existence from saying so.

                    sooo, when you set the barometer of israel support between those who do vs those who oppose israel's existence and then segue into the support or non support for other countries i just wondered if that non support encompassed ending their existence. more importantly i just wondered if you were aware this inflammatory lingo for the 'favorite victim status' people like yourself frequently thrive off of is a red flag to others. kinda like 'death panels' and 'entitlements'.

        •  whom are you referring? (3+ / 0-)

          opposes Israel's continued existence ...... those who oppose Israel's continued existence

          on dkos? who talks about supporting an end to israels existence? to me this is exactly the kind of lingo these campaigners use. it essentially accuses those who support a palestinian voice or narrative of (at a minimum) being affiliated with those wishing to end israel's existence. you are not alone. i was recently reading another thread somewhere on the blogisphere and this one poster, every comment he made he referenced ' those who support israel's existence..as if the entire conversation were between those who do support israel's existence and the others. i don't think that is who ths diary is about. you have repeated this meme, whom are you referencing on dkos?

        •  Please tell me you didn't mean this: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mattman, zannie, isabelle hayes

          This background fact should not preclude anyone who opposes Israel's continued existence from saying so.

          You've made some very thoughtful comments.  But do you really think opposing Israel's existence is a legitimate opinion for to be expressed here?  I thought the DK community did not tolerate calls for death against anyone ever.  And that's what a call for the end of Israel's existence would amount to.

          Political liberal / Bible believing Christian / Lousy at litmus tests

          by VirginiaJeff on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:50:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  As I hope is obvious, I strongly support (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karmafish

            Israel's continued existence.

            I'm not trying to invite participation by those who oppose it.  But I do believe in free speech.

            That said, I was thinking about speech in the U.S. generally, not speech at Daily Kos, which, of course, is a private forum owned by Kos himself.  He is free to prohibit advocacy of the destruction of Israel just as he is free to prohibit 9/11 truthers,etc.

            •  He should prohibit advocacy (0+ / 0-)

              for the elimination of Israel.

              I don't know about you, but I sure as hell am not going back to a time when Jews must live entirely under the rule of non-Jews.

              Do these people have any sense of history?

              •  maybe he should also prohibit (8+ / 0-)

                the advocacy of palestinian genocide while were at it.

                oh wait..we don't advocate either the destruction of israel OR genocide on kos..so why bother! but its a great diary highjack we can thank another american and you for.

                and it certainly provides an excellent example of the 'campaign' simone references. why have a progressive palestinian-israel discussion when we can play diversion tactics about the destruction of israel.
                yada yada

                •  How do you convert defending free speech (0+ / 0-)

                  into "an excellent example of the 'campaign' simone references"?

                  Also, I'be been away for some months, as I wrote earlier, who here has advocated Palestinian genocide?  Links?

                  •  good catch (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mattman, Fire bad tree pretty

                    but i asked you first

                    whom are you referring?

                       opposes Israel's continued existence ...... those who oppose Israel's continued existence

                    on dkos? who talks about supporting an end to israels existence?

                    you ignored it, as you did here

                    seeking israel's elimination is not really part of the american dialogue or the dkos dialogue or a palestinian narrative that has exposure here. this term of 'elimination' is inflammatory. it is a rhetorical device that can be used to set the parameters of any discussion or debate as an extreme identifier on ones ideological opponent.

                    how very astute of you to notice genocide is not advocated here while peddling the 'elimination of israel' meme/crutch pro israelites embrace like a dog w/their favorite bone.

                    How do you convert defending free speech
                    into "an excellent example of the 'campaign' simone references"?

                    so...would hypothosizing about advocating genocide on kos be defined as 'defending free speech', or would you be referencing advocating for the destruction, elimination or otherwise end of israels existence?

                    how about we address the diariest points instead of these inflammatory talking pts because 2 can play those games. of course in the name of 'free speech' you can peddle that crap all you want but you will remain an excellent example of what/who the diariest refers.

            •  i noticed you ignored my queries (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mattman

              are you acknowledging you evading the topic of the diary and referencing speech in the U.S. generally.

              advocacy of the destruction of Israel

              could you perhaps site some examples of this advocacy here in the US that you have chosen to divert the conversation towards, repeatedly.

              actually i think you are a perfect example of what simone addresses in his diary.

              According to the campaign administrators overseeing the Israeli Palestinian conversation here want to see Israel destroyed

              so now you are claiming you weren't speaking about speech at dkos, but koss could prohibit this speeech if he wanted.

              apparently you are unfamiliar w/the hide rate system. why would kos bother to prohibit speech the community would blast out of here in a seconds notice?

              destruction of israel, elimination of israel, end israel's existence. bloviate a little why don't you!

        •  here it is again (4+ / 0-)

          who do not seek its elimination

          seeking israel's elimination is not really part of the american dialogue or the dkos dialogue or a palestinian narrative that has exposure here. this term of 'elimination' is inflammatory. it is a rhetorical device that can be used to set the parameters of any discussion or debate as an extreme identifier on ones ideological opponent.

      •  Why do you want specifics? (9+ / 0-)

        It's not like it'll convince you.

        I think simone has overstated the claim because for it to be a campaign, there would have to be organization. I don't think it's organized but there is a group of people, whom some of the non-hardline members of the pro-I side support, have been after Palestinian members of this website is pretty clear to me.

        When we're told that we are responsible for terrorism, that we are anti-peace, that our culture is worthless, and when we have to explain and defend why those comments are offensive to us as if it isn't apparent, this place gets hostile.

        I can point you further to comments by the likes of JPhurst, who has repeated the lie that Palestinians are for the most part recent immigrants, including in this diary where he says Palestinian claims are a "malicious attempt to rewrite history."   I can point to AmbroseBurnside, who after writing a diary saying that Palestinians fuck children, remained a member in good standing, who people welcomed back after his suspension, and who created a sockpuppet who was defended by many people, until he too was banned.

        I can point to Keith Moon, another guy defended by some and who went down in flames when he sexually harassed another kossack, who was practically giddy with the idea civil war among Palestinians, which anyone knows would include a lot of noncombatant casualties.

        At one point, I had a list of anti-Arab and Islamophobic comments  that I came across. Only about a quarter were ever hidden.

        There is plenty of bigotry directed our way that is meant solely to drive us away. I don't think it's controversial to point that out.

    •  Here are the few (8+ / 0-)

      You do realize that simone said 'To a few it is so dangerous'. Here are the few:

      1. DemocraticLuntz's spreadsheets
      1. Dailykoswatch
      1. jpac's naughty list
      1. Karmafish's repeated accusations of being terrorists
      1. Posters like vb and others accusing Arab Kossacks of supporting terrorist organisations
      1. Posters like you accusing Arab kossacks of supporting Arab regimes. After being proven wrong, you don't even retract the accusations.
      1. Posters like you using links that are racist - filled anti-Arab and anti-Muslim essentialism that you are so unaware of because these are just so normal to you
      1. Accusations that those who support equality and democracy in historic Palestine want the elimination of Israel - used by karma, jphurst, nos, etc as well as the canard about Palestinians supporters wanting to 'eliminate' Israel
      1. Several commenters who repeatedly post the Democratic Party platform on I/P and try to tell us that if we were real democrats then we'd support it.

      Those are the few. And that is not even an exhaustive list.

      I don't see the hyperbole in simone's comments. I can remember instances that support everything he wrote in that blockquote. The only contention appears to be whether it is an organized campaign or whether it is a bunch of individuals who are true believers. I happen to think the latter but it doessn't stop it from being an effort that many people are behind, both in dailykos and outside it.

      And you should know, you are one of the individuals who is a part of it.

      Corporations are not persons and money is not speech.

      by Fire bad tree pretty on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:15:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We can talk about this issue all we want (11+ / 0-)

    in a way that is rational, there are a lot of good people on this site. It's not just a Jewish vs. Arab, Israeli vs. Palestinian, or even a Zionist vs. Anti-Zionist issue either. There are people from all of these ethnic, national, and ideological backgrounds who are sincere and honest in their beliefs, and willing to engage in useful in the conversation about the conflict. And that's all I'd like to see here, more sincerity, and more intellectual honesty.

  •  Rec'd (14+ / 0-)

    I am from Europe and one of the things I miss most is being able to discuss I/P issues. As one who has spent over 2 years in Israel, and been welcomed by people on both sides of the divide I would really enjoy an ongoing dialogue that went beyond insult and black and whiting of the issues.

    I have known many on both sides, who live in Israel who have risked a lot including their lives in various attempts to start a dialog and to sek a just peace.

    The ignorant flamers here are fundamentally clueless and the fact that they can operate a tyranny of a minority is infuriating.

    It is the hard discussions that we should be having, not tip toeing around.  

    Harry Reid's lack of backbone is an act, his obstructionism isn't.

    by stevej on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:47:59 AM PST

    •  I mean you simply have to look at the tag (9+ / 0-)

      Israel to see the anti-Dailykos campaign to silence Palestinians.

      the diary yesterday

      So to the hate mongers out there: Your nonsense, viciousness, and lies is basically turning off Americans.  Perhaps a different strategy?

      the http://dailykoswatch.blogspot.com/ forum which has now moved on to a number of other forums as well as almost daily diaries here

      the various diaries that explicitly say that Jews have become uncomfortable with the Democratic Party because of the Palestine Israel conversation here by a person called karmafish who should have been banned a long time ago.

      This is different from simple vilification of Arab posters here.

      for instance further the ongoing attack on Islam and ridicule of islam by redsox is not part of the campaign.

      the ridicule of Arabic culture by MBNYC  is not part of the campaign

      the the vicious attacks of anyone who is an Arab here by people who seek
      to silence them is also not part of the campaign.

      that's part of being an Arab here. it is part of our experience.

      Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

      by simone daud on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:59:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, this is certainly predictable (4+ / 0-)

        the various diaries that explicitly say that Jews have become uncomfortable with the Democratic Party because of the Palestine Israel conversation here by a person called karmafish who should have been banned a long time ago.

        This is different from simple vilification of Arab posters here.

        for instance further the ongoing attack on Islam and ridicule of islam by redsox is not part of the campaign.

        the ridicule of Arabic culture by MBNYC  is not part of the campaign

        the the vicious attacks of anyone who is an Arab here by people who seek
        to silence them is also not part of the campaign.

        that's part of being an Arab here. it is part of our experience.

        I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but it's pretty clear that you were never interested in dialogue--this is just a way of you continuing to lash out after you disgraced yourself by screaming "Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!" in an earlier diary. Now you're just looking to attack users you don't like--in this case, karmafish, me, and MBNYC. And you apparently have no problem resorting to lies to do it.

        You've made valuable contributions in the past, and I'm hopeful you'll do so in the future. But this isn't your finest hour. Your determination that anyone who doesn't buy into your narrative is either Islamophobic or anrti-Arab would put some of AIPAC's farthest right-wingers to shame in terms of misusing accusations of bigotry as a club. Congratulations--you've jumped into bed with the Martin Kramers of the world, only on the opposite side of the coin. This is a rather startling turn of events for anyone familiar with your formerly reasonable outlook. I do hope it's simply a momentary descent and you'll be back to normal soon.

        "You can be a real prick, Red Sox, and this time you have been a real prick." - Celtic Merlin Carlinist

        by Red Sox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:14:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wow. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        livosh1, JNEREBEL, Red Sox, VirginiaJeff

        Shorter you:

        There's a campaign to silence me! And you're anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, anti-my hiney! Waah!

        It really is the height of irony that someone who wails about 'silencing' then can't make any arguments other than base vilification.

        It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

        by MBNYC on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:30:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Simone, I'd Like Some Clarification (5+ / 0-)

        on this.  First, let me say, on your points about karmafish, I totally agree - dude is toxic and just plain weird. RedSox is just ridiculous and ignorable.

        But, I've not seen ridicule of Arabic culture by MBNYC whom I HAVE seen be strongly partisan but not ugly in being so like karmafish. So, unless I've missed some important stuff, don't think he belongs in the karmafish dumpster.

        BTW, I think we're damned lucky to have you here, Sincerely. And, anything I can do to make your experience here and every other Arabic posters, less painful - I WILL do.  Promise.

        You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can always be honest.

        by mattman on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:50:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  he tried to teach (5+ / 0-)

          us

          kerya eleison

          the other day trying to put some real Greek culture in us. All of us being basically Greek Orthodox ethnically. just ignorant.

          Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

          by simone daud on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:07:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Red Sox is not (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          livosh1, Karmafish, Red Sox

          ridiculous or ignorable.

          And as to myself, while I tend to ignore Daud and his ceaseless wailing - ban this person, ban that person, this is unacceptable, blah blah blah, and this all from a noob with a UID above 230K, no less - I can't help but point out that if you do a content search for the word 'racist' in his comments, you'll find 144 instances of same.

          Maybe it's just me - and I know it's not - but I find that remarkable. Either Daily Kos is a cesspit of racism, which is somewhat unlikely, or Daud is a shit-stirrer who equates racism with disagreement.

          It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

          by MBNYC on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:04:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  A Progressive Palestinian-Israeli conversation... (4+ / 0-)

    ...starts with a) the Israeli acceptance of a Palestinian state, b) the Palestinian acceptance of the Israeli state.

    None of the advocates who claim to take up the cause for the Palestinians have been willing to accept this paradigm.  As such, any Israeli or Israel supporter, whether progressive, moderate or conservative, will be understandably, and justifiably, opposed to such advocacy.  Progressive Israelis will be particularly offended that such an anti-peace position is couched in "progressive" terms.

    The problem with talk of the "Palestinan right of return" is that its position is based on a malicious rewriting of factual history combined with a deliberate misinterpretation of international law.  This combination of racism and dishonesty cannot be considered "progressive."

    Ultimately, the Arab position on Israel has not changed in material terms over the past century.  There is a steadfast refusal to accept the fact that there is is a tiny sliver of land in the Middle East that was not placed under Arab hegemony.

    The rejectionism has taken various forms, whether the Pan-Arab nationalism of Nasser and his ilk, or fundamentalist Islam.  The attempt to now cloak this in the guise of "civil rights" is no different, except that it is particularly disturbing in its cynical use of western progressive language for something quite different.

    Nevertheless, I welcome a call for the progressive dialogue.  I would note that every supporter of Israel in these discussions, including those considered "hardcore" has accepted the concept of a Palestinian state in a part of the historic land of Israel.  By contrast, very few of the pro-Palestinian diarists accept the existence of Israel.

    Even more disturbing is the tendency of those diarists to attack those brave Palestinians who have spoken out for coexistence.  Palestinians like Mustapha Barghouti, Sari Nusseibeh have never pulled their punches when it comes to criticizing Israeli actions that they perceived as wrong.  Yet they are attacked and marginalized because they have made the brave decision to go against the rejectionist (reactionary) line and support a true progressive Palestinian position.

    It's one thing to say that, in one's personal opinion, there should not be a state of Israel.  That's bad enough.  It's even worse, however, to oppose the efforts of those who are willing to compromise and recognize the need for coexistence.  That is outright reactionary and anti-peace.

    If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

    by JPhurst on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:49:30 AM PST

    •  I disagree with your first premise (5+ / 0-)

      conversations don't have to begin with anybody recognizing the legitimacy of anyone else's state.

      Hell, I don't even recognize the legitimacy of my own state! And there are many others on this site who feel the same.

      •  If the conversation aims at peace, then (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        livosh1, JPhurst, MBNYC, annapaxis

        the participants' end-in-view needs to be two states for two peoples.

          •  Because... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            yank2351

            ...to make peace with your neighbor, you have to accept that he has a right to exist.

            If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

            by JPhurst on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:20:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Also... many people like to cite the UN (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mattman

              that was the point of resolution 181. So if we want to respect international law, the point was to create 2 states. One for Jews one for Arabs.

            •  I don't think.. (6+ / 0-)

              ....anyone contests the right of Israelis to exist; no more than pan-European supporters of the EU contest the right of the French "to exist."  So I'm not sure what you refer to.

              Policy, Peace and Progress Before Party

              by Alec82 on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:50:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Our diarist claims that . . . (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                livosh1, JPhurst

                "the dominant Palestinian issue is the individual right of return".  This demand is inconsistent with a two states for two peoples peace settlement.  Please see my diary, On the Palestinian Right of Return and Israel's Right to Exist.

                •  This is part of my problem (4+ / 0-)

                  How is this demographic claim consistent with the claim that Israel is a modern democracy with respect for human rights?  

                  Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                  by Dexter on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:11:11 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The same way... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...that America can claim to be a democracy with respect for human rights even though it doesn't want to open up the border with a neighbor and grant everyone citizenship in "CanAmerica" or "MexAmerica."

                    If you haven't accepted Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, then you are part of the problem.

                    If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

                    by JPhurst on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:20:25 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But those people (4+ / 0-)

                      that we aren't opening the border to don't have a legal, international recognized claim to the land here.  

                      Your comparison isn't accurate.  

                      Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                      by Dexter on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:38:27 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And the residents of the territories... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...do not have a legal, international recognized claim to the land in Israel.

                        They may think so, but that's the cause of the underlying conflict.

                        If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

                        by JPhurst on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:40:19 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes, they do (5+ / 0-)

                          At least all those Palestinians living in refugee camps.  Article 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution states:

                          Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

                          Israel accepted this resolution at the Lusanne Conference.  

                          Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                          by Dexter on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:24:06 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You are.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Karmafish

                            ...grossly overstating the meaning and effect of UNGA 194.

                            Israel, from the moment the conflict concluded, made clear that it would not accept back everyone from the communities that had declared war upon it.  And nothing in international law requires this.

                            I could parse through the entire above quoted text and explain why it doesn't grant a right to return, and the conditions upon it.  But it would be akin to President Obama trying to explain his Health Care Reform plans yesterday to a group of Republicans who a) are too obtuse to get it, or b) just don't want to get it.

                            If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

                            by JPhurst on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:58:37 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  On UNGA 194 (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            livosh1

                            The relevant portion of Resolution 194, adopted in December 1948, concerning refugees reads:

                            1. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date

                            The attentive reader will notice that Resolution 194 does not confer an unqualified legal right of return.  The right of return is limited to "refugees willing to . . . live at peace with their neighbours."  Implicit in this qualification is UN recognition that the Israelis have a right which must be balanced against the right of return.  The refugees' right is to be able to live at peace within the Jewish state that was created pursuant to UN General Assembly Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution of 1947.

                            The historically-minded reader will realize that Resolution 194 was not adopted in a vacuum.  The resolution dealt with one of the results of the rejection of Resolution 181 by the Palestinians and the Arab states, and their unsuccessful attempt to prevent Israel from successfully coming into existence.  Hence Resolution 194 was not speaking about something abstract, for example, the willingness of refugees to live at peace with Jews in a non-Jewish, say largely Islamic, state.  No.  The legal right of return created, or recognized, by Resolution 194 was only for those refugees willing to live at peace within the Jewish state created earlier that same year in accordance with Resolution 181.

                          •  source? (0+ / 0-)

                            The legal right of return created, or recognized, by Resolution 194 was only for those refugees willing to live at peace within the Jewish state created earlier that same year in accordance with Resolution 181.

                            source? your point?

                             Implicit in this qualification is UN recognition that the Israelis have a right which must be balanced against the right of return.  The refugees' right is to be able to live at peace within the Jewish state that was created pursuant to UN General Assembly Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution of 1947.

                            source?

                            cut to the chase. are you asserting if israel doesn't feel safe there is no right of return? sounds like lawfare to me. do you have any sources or is this your theory or something you learned off the internet?

                          •  your 'proposed construction' (0+ / 0-)

                            my proposed construction of the right of return.

                            from your exchange w/soysauce @ your own diary on the topic.

                            I will not be persuaded that the (11+ / 0-)
                            children and grandchildren of refugees will be asked to say goodbye to their grandparents so that they can die alone in the place they were born.  So no, I do not accept your interpretation of 194.

                            Palestinian society is family- and tribal-based.  The great tragedy of the refugee story is the destruction  of every structure of Palestinian life.  Our narrative is about return because it is about cultural survival.  It is very similar to the Jewish narrative, but you are giving more credence to one over the other.

                            We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may be unjust. -MLK Jr.

                            by soysauce on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 01:42:53 PM PST
                            [ Parent ]

                            i found this exchange w/assaf clarifying.

                            Yes, but U (10+ / 0-)
                            placed no qualifications, limitations, etc. on the Jewish-Israeli side of historical memory.

                            You went to great lengths limiting the Palestinian side.

                            In that, you really pander to the current power structure, rather than address the basic problems.

                            by Assaf on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 12:38:46 PM PST
                            [ Parent ]

                            .........

                            Well, I'm not advocating (1+ / 0-)
                            conversionary outreach, which has not been a Jewish thing for nearly two thousand years.  But immigration policy, it seems to me, is quintessentially a domestic affair.

                            Shalom v' salaam

                            by another American on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 02:03:18 PM PST
                            [ Parent ]

                            And THAT, my friend, brings us full circle (10+ / 0-)
                            You can't pry into the other side's children, grandchildren, etc., and decide who is allowed to exercise a right to return and who not -

                            while retaining for yourself the full right to bring whomever from wherever, and call it "a domestic affair".

                            I mean, obviously you can for a while, due to geopolitics etc. - but it costs everyone a lot in the long run.

                            At bottom line, your approach is too asymmetric, as I said in the comment that started this thread.

                            by Assaf on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 02:46:58 PM PST
                            [ Parent ]

                            (my bold)

                •  A negotiated political settlement... (7+ / 0-)

                  ....along ethnoreligious lines has been endangered by the intransigence of the parties.  The de facto outcome is a single state ruled by the Israelis with one menu of rights and obligations for the population within "Israel proper" and another menu of rights and obligations (few of the former, more of the latter) within the occupied territories.  Many people, myself included, are not ethnic nationalists and do not support the presuppositions of "two states for two peoples" if that is taken to mean an endorsement of ethnic nationalism.  We have no obligation to limit our discussion to the increasingly fanciful construct that has eluded the most interested actors for generations.

                  Policy, Peace and Progress Before Party

                  by Alec82 on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:11:50 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What "construct" is less "fanciful," and why? nt (0+ / 0-)
                  •  But that's the point (8+ / 0-)

                    the Israeli Zionist left demands that we accept its prescriptions, even though the Palestinians have other concerns.

                    This insistence by the Israeli left is basically an insistence that they represent the Palestinians and that the Palestinians do not represent themselves.  

                    It is insidious.

                    Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

                    by simone daud on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:40:36 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not quite... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...the Israeli left, and for that matter the Israeli center and at least part of the Israeli right, does not purport to speak for Palestinians.

                      They have drawn their line, however, which is that their country remain in existence, and that they not be forced into confederation with a hostile and belligerent population.

                      If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

                      by JPhurst on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:54:13 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  And no one contest the notion of israel (7+ / 0-)

                as the Jewish homeland.

                The priority however from a leftist Palestinian point of view is civil rights.
                We are already a majority of the people registered in Israel's population registry.

                Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

                by simone daud on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  There is no civil right... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...for non Israelis to acquire citizenship in a country that they failed to destroy in multiple attempts.

                  And please drop the sophistry with the "population registry."

                  If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

                  by JPhurst on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:18:01 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  that's certainly the majority view (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mattman

          but I don't think a two-state solution is viable, for a number of reasons.

          •  What are your most important reasons? (0+ / 0-)

            Do you propose an alternative "solution"?  If so, what your main reasons for thinking that solution viable?

            •  The reasons I don't think a two-state solution (5+ / 0-)

              is viable:

              1. Israel is far stronger militarily and economically, and that makes any negotiation between a nascent Palestinian state and Israel extremely difficult, since Israelis cannot be held to account in any meaningful way. If Israelis want to pursue a two-state solution, they must do so unilaterally. So, for example, in every two-state solution that I have seen offered, Israelis control the West Bank's border with Jordan, water resources under the West Bank, and West Bank airspace. In addition, they require the Palestinians to disarm. Does this sound like an equitable deal between two equal parties, or terms of surrender?
              1. Israel and Palestine have already merged, to a meaningful extent, especially in the "Greater Jerusalem" area, but also throughout the West Bank. Israel has been successful in creating "facts on the ground" in the West Bank, that the Israeli citizenry will not easily give up. I think people who have not visited the area have a hard time imagining the extent to which Palestinians and Israelis are living on top of one another.
              1. The way out of this conundrum, in my view, and this is the minority view of Israelis and Palestinians as well, is a bi-national one-state solution. One can imagine a special provision in a new Israeli charter that would affirm the right of Jews to immigrate to Israel, so such a solution needn't mean the death of the Zionist idea all together, but it would mean the end of the end of Israel as a state of fundamental Jewish character. In other words, a new bi-national state might be a refuge for global Jewry, but not an absolute Zionist state per se.

              This is my perspective, briefly, and I can elaborate.

              •  Your number 3 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                another American

                would never be accepted by Israel. As someone who lived there for a short period of time, they will never give up the idea of having a Jewish state.

                There is actually a debate in Israel over which is better to try and be democratic and a Jewish state or not worry about being democratic and instead make sure you stay a Jewish state.

                •  It is my perspective that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mattman

                  unless the Israelis unilaterally declare their own "two-state solution" then a bi-national state is a historical inevitability. Basically, because I don't see the end result of bi-lateral or multi-lateral negotiations producing a reasonable disengagement or separation of the Israelis from the Palestinians. Only a unilateral move on Israel's part (like their withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza) could do that.

                  •  How, if it wanted to, could Israel "uniltarally (0+ / 0-)

                    declare their own 'two-state solution'"?  Doesn't a peace settlement require the engagement of the party with whom one wants to make peace?

                    •  maybe only the terms of their surrender... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mattman
                    •  to make peace yes (0+ / 0-)

                      But if Israel tomorrow left the west bank completely took down every check point and said we are done. We have the seperation fence and if there are cross border hostilities we will deal with it when we have to, but this is our state and that is yours. Thats how it would be unilateral.

                      •  How will you persuade (0+ / 0-)

                        Israelis to agree to such a unilateral step in the absence of a comprehensive peace settlement?

                        •  I am not saying it will happen soon (0+ / 0-)

                          but if things get to a point where there are rare attacks, they have no partner for peace, no negotiations are on going or coming in the near future, I think you will see Israelis just want to be done with the issue. They do not like being occupiers.

                          Also, Israel will reserve the right to deal with any type of cross border attack. So the first time something happens you could have a military presence in there.

                          I am not saying it is soon but to me this looks more likely now than achieving a comprehensive peace settlement.

                          •  In the circumstances you imagine (0+ / 0-)

                            in your first paragraph (may they come about soon, in our days), I shouldn't think unilateralism would be necessary.

                          •  Well I would argue things are getting close (0+ / 0-)

                            suicide bombings have all but stopped in Israel because of the wall. There a rare if any attacks coming from the west bank lately. There is no real partner for peace, Abbas is a mess, and no one else will step up, especially with Hamas controlling Gaza and I dont see it changing in the near future.

                            Yet here we are with everyone pushing for negotiations, where the 2 sides are as far apart as ever. It might be time for that unilateral move...

                •  who is winning the debate? (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Honestly its hard to say (0+ / 0-)

                    people like lieberamn would rather have a jewish state regardless if it is democratic or not, while I think the left is very committeed to democracy, as are most on in the center, so i guess the Left and "center" in Israel. But its hard to say.

              •  I forgot to mention the issue with number 3 also (0+ / 0-)

                is that Jews are not reproducing as fast as the Palestinians. They know that and Israelis know that. Over a period of time Israel would become an Arab majority state. Killing the idea of zionism.

                •  Right. But that's more of a reason (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mattman, capelza

                  to accept number 3 than to reject it. If demographic patterns in Israel indicate that Arab-Israelis will eventually become the majority, then I think the moral choice is to make the society pluralistic. But then, it's not up to me.

                  •  I think in the end Israel will be forced (0+ / 0-)

                    to do something unilaterally. I do agree negotiations and coming to a settlement agreement are close to nill right now. But as you point out there precedent for Israel doing things unilaterally.

                    In the end the same thing will happen here.

                    For the same reason you say a 2 state solution will not happen, lack of negotiations and ability to agree is the same reason a 1 state solution is just as unlikely if not more so. If they can't agree to seperate, you think they can agree to merge?

              •  Let me begin with your first point. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                livosh1

                Israel is far stronger militarily and economically, and that makes any negotiation between a nascent Palestinian state and Israel extremely difficult, since Israelis cannot be held to account in any meaningful way. If Israelis want to pursue a two-state solution, they must do so unilaterally. So, for example, in every two-state solution that I have seen offered, Israelis control the West Bank's border with Jordan, water resources under the West Bank, and West Bank airspace. In addition, they require the Palestinians to disarm. Does this sound like an equitable deal between two equal parties, or terms of surrender?

                Israel is far stronger militarily and economically, and that makes any negotiation between a nascent Palestinian state and Israel extremely difficult, since Israelis cannot be held to account in any meaningful way.

                The Palestinians have something most Israelis want, but too many despair of being able to obtain:  the ability to make a peace treaty that settles all outstanding claims between the two parties.

                If Israelis want to pursue a two-state solution, they must do so unilaterally.

                How can Israel unilaterally make a lasting peace treaty with the Palestinians?  It cannot.

                This is not to say that Israel cannot, and should not, unilaterally act in ways that may help persuade more Palestinians of the desirability and possibility of coming to terms with Israel.  You want examples?  Here are two:  A comprehensive settlement freeze and evacuation of settlements that are illegal even under Israeli law.

                So, for example, in every two-state solution that I have seen offered, Israelis control the West Bank's border with Jordan, water resources under the West Bank, and West Bank airspace.

                To which "two-state solution[s]" do you refer?

                In addition, they require the Palestinians to disarm.

                Not to my knowledge.  The expectation is that Palestine will be a nonmilitarized state.  Not disarmed, but without the military capability, in combination with other neighboring states, to pose a threat to Israel's continued existence within its (rightly) diminished borders.

                Why should this be a non-starter?

                Does this sound like an equitable deal between two equal parties, or terms of surrender?

                Not accepting your description of the "facts," there's no point in my answering the question as you posed it.  Instead, I would say that a two states for two peoples peace settlement along the lines of, for example, the (President) Clinton Parameters or the Geneva Accords is both equitable and, under proper conditions that the Obama Administration should seek to help bring about, attainable.

                •  OK, when do negotiations begin? (0+ / 0-)
                  •  I'd prefer the courtesy of a substantive (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    livosh1

                    response to my substantive comments.

                    So far as I know, neither of us either speaks for or can commit any party to enter negotiations.

                    •  Broadly speaking (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mattman

                      I don't think that a state without absolute control of its territorial integrity, resources, and the the ability to defend itself militarily is viable in the long term, and no agreement that I have seen would give Palestinians this level of sovereignty and autonomy. If they had a much stronger hand, economically and militarily, they could force such an agreement, but as the situation stands today, the Palestinians do not have such power.

                      Israel could have withdrawn from the territories in 1967, and chose not to. This, I think, was their mistake, a mistake that could lead to the end of the Zionist idea, since the dismantlement of settlements and infrastructure built beyond the Green Line after 1967 is a non-starter for many Israelis who maintain a belief in the establishment of a Greater Israel that would include the territories.  

                      Palestinians want autonomy, control of their resources, and territorial integrity within the 1967 borders, or thereabouts. Many also advocate a right of return. The creation of settlements and infrastructure within these borders is a fact "on the ground" and relinquishing these facts is politically unfeasible for a significant number of Israelis. So, we have an impasse.

                      In my view, that impasse can only be resolved by unilateral Israeli action, otherwise, the two populations will become so integrated that the land west of the Jordan River will become more or less an apartheid regime (and some would argue that it is already.) In the words of Ehud Barak: "As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."

                      Barak said this is reference to re-starting negotiations between the two sides, but I think these negotiations are bound to fail, and I have 62 years of history that lend credence to this idea. The fundamental imbalance of power between the Israelis and Palestinians is a structural problem that cannot be obviated by negotiation, in my view.

          •  Yes and these reasons are? (0+ / 0-)

            Also are you implying it would be easier to be one single state? Because I feel like that is way MORE impossible.

        •  No I'm israeli (10+ / 0-)

          does two states for two people make me and the majority of people in the north of Israel who are Palestinian  Jewish?

          The two state solution is the progressive Israeli point of view.  It is not the starting point from my point of view. The starting point from my point of view is civil rights, it is equality, it is secularism, it is freedom for all, it is the end of oppression.

          I say this because I am a leftist Israeli, a leftist Palestinian, and  have an overall leftist perspective.

          Two states for two peoples is your proposal to maintain my country Israel, Jewish. The aim of two states for two people is to sideline me in my own country israel.

          My perspective as an Israeli leftist, and a genuine one, is that the priority is ending the indignity of the way Palestinians live under Israel rule.

          Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

          by simone daud on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:49:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, all Israelis, obviously including (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            livosh1, sustainable

            non-Jewish Israelis, as well as Israelis who identify as Jews but not with the norms of one or another particular form of "orthodoxy," should enjoy fully equal civil rights.

            Borrowing from Ben Gurion, one indeed should strive for equal rights as though there were no Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and strive for Israeli-Palestinian peace as though there were no internal Israeli civil rights problems.

            That said, I respectfully suggest that one is unlikely to advance either cause by speaking or acting in ways that tend to persuade the Jewish Israeli majority that by agreeing to a two states for two peoples peace settlement with an adjoining State of Palestine entails jeopardizing Israeli society.

    •  For any who cares, (6+ / 0-)

      what he means by "malicious rewriting of history" is that the Palestinians are not native to their land. He means they are recent immigrants from other countries.

      To the people who uprated this comment you have perhaps unknowingly associated yourselves with the denial of Palestinian identity and history. I hope that you remove your uprates.

  •  Please pardon my ignorance... (4+ / 0-)

    I am neither Jewish nor Palestinian. I am trying to understand the positions.

    How is this demand for the right of return not a precondition to negotiations?

    Some historic injustices cannot be justly righted by a right of return. If native americans in north america demanded the right of return, the U.S. and Canada would be in a huge mess. The fact that Jews have more historic claim to Palestine than euro-americans have claim to North America just accentuates the point.

    I understand the right of return as a bargaining point in the I/P discussions, but if they are a precondition, Israel also faces an existential threat. Do we have two completely contradictory existential threats? How do we get past this? What are practical paths to agreement?

    Please pardon my ignorance.

    I remember more hopeful times when Israelis and Palestinians were talking about attracting mutually beneficial foreign investment in industries in the Palestinian territories. Is that just a dream that has died?

      •  Looks like an interesting reading list... (0+ / 0-)

        You mention above:

        I must admit, however, that my dissatisfaction with the nature of the conversation has distanced me from it for the last several months.  Hence I am not at all informed about the current meta-situation.

        You, we, are probably better of for this. My own vacation definitely brought some much needed perspective.

        Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

        by borkitekt on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:30:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thank You (0+ / 0-)

        I was hoping for a response from the diarist.

        You have helped me understand some of the technical approaches that have been proposed. That has helped me understand better some of the history since 1948.

        However, the diarist said:

        It confronted the late Yasser Arafat who rendered himself helpless at Camp David by accepting to restrict himself to discussing the peace process from an Israeli perspective: rough boundaries around refugee camps and certain towns. Indeed around the time of the Camp David meetings Arafat and his cohorts faced an existential crises when Laila Khaled expressed a desire to return home to Haifa.  This existential threat is now being realized and it is likely that Fateh will not survive the present crises and will not be forgiven for a leadership that ignored the right of return.

        Recently, it confronted Mustapha Barghouti. He is a signatory to the Geneva Accords, which articulate the Israeli left's position in its debate with the Israeli right. His inability and unwillingness to give a coherent view on the right of return has rendered him completely irrelevant: a popular joke in Palestine.

        I am trying to dialog with the diarist about these points.

        Incidentally, I was not saying anything absolute about the historic claims of ethnic Jews to land in Palestine. I was merely saying (badly apparently) that ethnic Jews have more historic connection to Palestine than euro-Americans like me have to territory within the border of the U.S. (some historic connection vs. none).

        To answer ThinkFirst (down thread), I would gladly contribute to a fund for any 235-year-old British loyalists in Canada, if you can find them (however this offer does not extend to descendents for obvious reasons :) ). My wife wryly comments that she could claim membership in the DAR, but she can't stomach their politics. Me, I'm a Euro-mutt.

    •  I think the points are still questionable, (5+ / 0-)

      as to whom has a historic claim to the land- does it justify the cleansing of the other, in either case.

      As to "existential" threats, multi cultural societies are possible, (and preferable I'd think) and whole idea to keep Palestinians from returning to the land that was taken from them, while allowing people with a Jewish grandparent to be able to vote and have some sort of status in Israel- it smacks of racism.

      To the last part of your question, this was in the news today;

      EU: Goods made at Jewish settlements are not Israeli

      The European Court of Justice has ruled that Israeli goods made in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank cannot be considered Israeli.

      This means goods made by Israelis or Jews in the West Bank cannot benefit from a trade deal giving Israel preferential access to EU markets.

      EU import duties on Israeli goods from the settlements may now be imposed, making them less competitive.

      Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law.

      This is part of a long story, on one end at this moment Palestinians are boycotting (burning) Israeli products entering into Gaza and the West Bank (have to check my math on that, it might not be the WB) and there has been a drive in some places in Europe for some time to halt business with companies operating on cleansed or confiscated land. This gained a bit of steam after the Gaza war and increasing calls for BDS- boycott, divestment and sanctions.

      Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

      by borkitekt on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:44:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do Canadians have a right of return? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      borkitekt

      During the American revolution, British loyalists were forced to flee to Canada leaving behind all their property.

      But now, Canadians have a "right of return" anytime they want (assuming they are not terrorists, etc.)

      The Palestinians could have the same status with the addition of compensation for their lost real estate paid for by an international fund to which all interested parties would contribute.

      Problem solved.  Anything else?

    •  oh please (6+ / 0-)

      I remember more hopeful times when Israelis and Palestinians were talking about attracting mutually beneficial foreign investment in industries in the Palestinian territories. Is that just a dream that has died?

      how about we strip all israelis of their citizenship and call settling on attracting foreign investment 'hopeful'. and this 'fact of a historical claim' is a non starter when you ignore the 'historical claim' of the majority who've been there for centuries.

      •  Please see my explanation in thanking another Am. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        another American

        You took this out of context:

        The fact that Jews have more historic claim to Palestine than euro-americans have claim to North America

        In my "Thank You" comment to another American, I admit to botching the above point I was trying to make. I am not asserting an absolute claim, merely that Jews have more historic connection to Palestine than I have to North America.

        Incidentally, I was born here. Where would you suggest I go back to? 1/2 to German ethnic colonies that no longer exist in the Volga region because Stalin dispersed kin that I have never met to Siberia. 1/4 to the Netherlands, which I have not had the pleasure of visiting (my Grandfather came from there as a 15-year-old orphan in late 1890s). Or the 1/4 that came from God-knows-where-but-I-don't. My claim to land here is based on the current government authority of the U.S. only. Any injustice that led to the current situation is part of the justice of me owning land here. Compared to me here, Jews have more historical connection there. Sorry, I messed up this point I was trying to make in the reference above.

        In this context, any tiny variation in wording has huge implications. I am sorry for messing up.

        I am not ignoring

        the 'historical claim' of the majority who've been there for centuries.

        I am trying to give a comparison between how I arrived here and how Israelis arrived there. I was not alive in 1948, were you? Even if you and a Palestinian and Jewish Israeli were alive then, who has the ability to change 62 years of history? There must be another way to peace with justice.

        "And that's all I have to say about that."

        •  who has the ability to change 62 years of history (4+ / 0-)

          ?

          people

        •  asdf (5+ / 0-)

          I am trying to give a comparison between how I arrived here and how Israelis arrived there. I was not alive in 1948, were you? Even if you and a Palestinian and Jewish Israeli were alive then, who has the ability to change 62 years of history? There must be another way to peace with justice.

          peace and justice for who, because without returning individual property to its rightful (and legal) owners (or providing some appropriate form of compensation), there can be no peace and justice for Palestinians.  

          In addition, I would say that your argument is exactly why the Oslo process was bullshit.  It gave breathing room to Israel to create facts on the ground and giving Israel the ability to say, "its been so long, its too hard for us to do the right thing".  

          Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

          by Dexter on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:36:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Precisely, there should be compensation (0+ / 0-)

            peace and justice for who, because without returning individual property to its rightful (and legal) owners (or providing some appropriate form of compensation), there can be no peace and justice for Palestinians.

            If you are allowing for compensation (presumably monetary), then we are largely in agreement. If I am reading another American's reading list correctly, this has been on the table.

            I don't claim to be an authority, but everyone is an interested party.

            •  yeah, i get it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mattman

              I am trying to give a comparison between how I arrived here and how Israelis arrived there.

              nothing new. you are peddling the 2000 year 'historic claim' we've all heard ad nauseum. plus you are trying to elevate the concept somebody's lineage to ancestors from the biblical days has more validity in terms of a 'historic claim' than people we actually knew personally. or our grandparents or whatever. so no i absolutely reject your hypothesis. anyone can create a narrative to stake out their position and you are using the 'historic claim'. i could as easily argue if jews were so interested in getting back to jerusalem why they didn't start walking a 1000 years ago.

              the world is changing and people are adapting. had israel not acted like a rude invading oppressive entity since it's founding this would likely be a done deal but that is not the case. this has not been solved and because of that the solutions will be achieved with the global community that exists now. not 2000 years ago, not 300 years ago and not 62 years ago. we are ready for a post apartheid age so whatever blood you want to squeeze out of israels 62/2000 year historical claim turnip just doesn't matter that much compared to issues people care about today like human rights, international law,  democracy and freedom. if you think these issues will find resolution in allowing for compensation (presumably monetary), then we are largely in disagreement and i would go so far as calling you delusional. you just are not listening to the diariest. apparently you are not ready for a progressive palestinian-israeli conversation.

              what on earth would give you the impression palestinians would just give up their right of return? you may as well suggest most jewish israelis  would return to europe or russia if they were offered monetary compensation. it's crazy. (actually, considering the current israeli policy of offering a financial incentive to move to the settlements, maybe it isn't so crazy for some people)

              •  No, you don't get it (0+ / 0-)

                You are still hanging on to the "historical claim" wording, which I have said was wrong. I have been careful to change wording from that to "historical connection". The difference is that "claim" implies a presumed right, which is not my intended point at all. If you do not recognize that Jews feel a "connection" to Palestine, then I don't know what else to say about that. My point is not about who has the greater claim to Palestine, but that Jews feel more connection to the land there than I could understand from my family's experience and history here. You are pursuing something that I have already apologized for. It was a one-word mistake. I'm sorry. I messed up. I do not intend to say claim.

                With respect to

                the world is changing and people are adapting. had israel not acted like a rude invading oppressive entity since it's founding this would likely be a done deal but that is not the case. this has not been solved and because of that the solutions will be achieved with the global community that exists now. not 2000 years ago, not 300 years ago and not 62 years ago. we are ready for a post apartheid age so whatever blood you want to squeeze out of israels 62/2000 year historical claim turnip just doesn't matter that much compared to issues people care about today like human rights, international law,  democracy and freedom.

                You are making my point: the issue is human rights now, international law now, democracy now, freedom now. The tone and approach that you are taking makes a fella almost regret stepping into this mess. I largely agree with Jimmy Carter in his Palestine Peace not Apartheid. He is much more articulate and knowledgable than me. I have said before and now again, this is not my expertise; I am trying to educate myself. You are giving me a baptism by fire, if I can survive this with a reputation for listening. Please consider me an ignorant layperson with interest in the justice of this situation, as I believe all people should be.

                As far as the "right of return", people can't exist in the same spot. So, if you are asserting that in order for Palestinians to exercise their right of return, Jews must move out of places like Haifa (locations within the internationally recognized borders) and no amount of monetary compensation will suffice, then where is the room for dialog? What is the solution?

                •  If I may, (8+ / 0-)

                  the right of return from the Palestinian perspective is not about dislocation of Jewish families from their homes.  The right of return is a peasant issue since these are the people who largely make up the refugee population that would return to their lands in Palestine.  This would mean the rebuilding of their villages in the Galilee and the right to access their agricultural lands.  Returnees to Haifa and Jaffa would have to be compensated for their properties and then would compete in the open market for new properties.  

                  Anyone who suggests that the right of return is a movement to displace Jews or a movement to destroy the Jewish people is simply engaging in vilification of the Palestinian will to simply live on their land in peace.  Our culture depends on the return of the peasants to till their land.  We are a farming people that organizes around family and village affiliation.  Without right of return, Palestinian culture simply disappears from the earth and is the victim of cultural genocide.  

                  We become like the indigenous peoples of Canada dancing at the Olympics opening ceremony-an historical artifact.

                  We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may be unjust. -MLK Jr.

                  by soysauce on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:35:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thank you for the explanation (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mattman, capelza

                    The right of return is a peasant issue since these are the people who largely make up the refugee population that would return to their lands in Palestine.  This would mean the rebuilding of their villages in the Galilee and the right to access their agricultural lands.  Returnees to Haifa and Jaffa would have to be compensated for their properties and then would compete in the open market for new properties.  

                    Hopefully, I get it now. Of course, Palestinians who want to return to the "occupied territories" should be able if the future sovereign Palestinian government issued passports to an individual. The areas within whatever Israeli borders are agreed on are another matter and something that I don't understand any solution for except compensation.

                    I understand that Palestinians were among the most educated people in the world before the effects of occupation. One tragedy of the occupation is the lack of hope among youth and restrictions on education and movement. During my lifetime, decades of potential were lost due to the lack of a negotiated agreement. At some point both sides must think like Gandhi that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Of course, the Israelis are currently in the militarily stronger position, so their actions in this regard are critical. The intifada has shown that an occupation becomes untenable in the absence of justice, no matter the disparity of power. Desperation and hopelessness lead to terrible consequences.

                •  sorry (4+ / 0-)

                  perhaps i over reacted to the claim issue. i need to address something tho

                  My point is not about who has the greater claim to Palestine, but that Jews feel more connection to the land there than I could understand from my family's experience and history here.

                  great, so no greater claim than palestinians, that is my point to. i have an attachment to this place where i live (my families been here centuries). i think because jews feel an attachment or connection to palestine doesn't mean that attachment is more than palestinians feel or is even more than i feel for my home or my history. for me to believe this i would have to believe jews have more of a capacity to feel than others. or more of a capacity to feel connection to a place than others, and that is simply impossible for me. all people everywhere feel connections, or not. you can always condition people or brainwash people or abuse people or any number of things to try to regulate their ability to grow attached or have emotional connections. so while one can speak for oneself or one's own family and say 'more connection to the land there than I could understand from my family's experience and history here.' one cannot speak for others can one? one cannot elevate the value of jews 'historical connection' in terms of how it relates to the topic (right of return) international rights. especially in terms of how it relates to palestinians. there is simply no value in israels favor in terms of arguing about a jewish vs palestinian 'connection'. it presupposes some ability to value an importance of history (whether we call it claim of connection is irrelevant) vs a more tangible value of real life experience. at least that is how it seems to me.

                  As far as the "right of return", people can't exist in the same spot. So, if you are asserting that in order for Palestinians to exercise their right of return, Jews must move out of places like Haifa (locations within the internationally recognized borders) and no amount of monetary compensation will suffice, then where is the room for dialog? What is the solution?

                  this whole idea of moving people out of one place is very israeli centric thinking. it is continually introduced into conversations by israel supporters  (read some of an americas comments if you don't believe me) and perpetuated by them. i'm not sure why you say if you are asserting that in order for Palestinians to exercise their right of return, Jews must move out. i've said so much, please blockquote whatever could possibly have given you this impression. i have spent a good portion of time as an activist for palestinian rights, plus traveled to gaza. i'm just not familiar w/palestinian activists or even regular people talking about jews moving out of israel. it seems delusional. again, it is israeli/jewish centric. the jews moved the palestinians out, NOT the other way around. many jews today are still actively moving them out. so since you are new at this, or it is not your expertise could you do me the favor of not carry on w/the israeli centric obsession w/claiming anyone is pushing jews out of israel? thanks, i would really appreciate it. i don't mean to be fire and brimstone but it really urks me when people accuse the victims who have been 'moved out' of harboring the intent of their oppressors who are still moving them out. it's almost orwellian.

                  re people can't exist in the same spot...
                  no but they can exist on the same block and in the same apartment complex. it happens all over he world. people can live in the same neighborhood. i do it. i live in a mixed neighborhood. i not only get along w/my neighbors we are actually friends. so i think there is lots of room for dialogue, i do not think jews should move out of israel (unless they want to) and i think people can live together like lots of civilized people all over the planet. recognizing of course that both jews and palestinians have attachments. i think we are just so conditioned to accepting an israeli centric narrative we sometimes forget there are others narratives like ones that incorporate international law.

                  re no amount of monetary compensation will suffice. you might be interested in some history i read recently What do Palestinians and Arab-Jews Have in Common? Nationalism and Ethnicity Examined Through the Compensation Question

                  i'd guess monetary compensation is about as popular w/palestinians as it would be for jews. have you asked any lately if they would like to sell israel?

                  •  Your comment gives me hope (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't believe that I wrote about any comparison of Jewish Israeli rights vs. Palestinian rights.

                    Thank you for pointing out where I was using Israeli-centric language. I have no interest in using a fine comb to find fault in your writing or anyone's writing. My interest is in understanding the opportunity for a structural solution. I am sure that there will always be tension, but if dialog exists, there is hope.

                    As to the current unacceptable situation in the Palestinian territories, there must be a negotiated permanent solution. As an American, I see fault with both sides in the history of this issue. There have been a few hopeful times in the past 32 years. The loss of opportunity has taken a devastating toll. In that time, Viet Nam has gone from bitter enemy of the U.S. to trading partner with great economic growth. Being enemies today does not mean being enemies forever, even with a long history of conflict.

                    re people can't exist in the same spot...
                    no but they can exist on the same block and in the same apartment complex. it happens all over he world. people can live in the same neighborhood. i do it. i live in a mixed neighborhood. i not only get along w/my neighbors we are actually friends. so i think there is lots of room for dialogue, i do not think jews should move out of israel (unless they want to) and i think people can live together like lots of civilized people all over the planet. recognizing of course that both jews and palestinians have attachments. i think we are just so conditioned to accepting an israeli centric narrative we sometimes forget there are others narratives like ones that incorporate international law.

                    I agree. One problem is who governs where. Your statement allows me to see opportunity for dialog between us. I have no governmental role, no professional training in International Relations, no standing in the discussion. However, the resolution of this conflict may lie in the support of people like me for a negotiated solution.

                    While I have no training in International Relations, I do understand a bit abouut negotiation. Each side must determine their Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). The Israelis have been under the impression that their BATNA was partition and control. Palestinians are in a poor negotiating position, but they need people in the U.S., Israel, Europe, and worldwide to weigh in and pressure the Israeli public to influence their government to feel compelled to negotiate.

                    This is my understanding of how Gandhi worked in India: if the British public were confronted with what was being done in their name, the British government would have to change. In South Africa, Mandela succeeded after 27 years in prison and 4 years of transition to universal popular sufferage. Mandela succeeded because of his own character and because, starting in the early 1980's, little people like me in places like the midwest (and all over the world) supported ever-increasing economic pressure on the Apartheid government. I became involved in student government because of this issue. Good white people in South Africa could not tolerate having a mirror held up to what their government was doing in their name. Other whites in South Africa found the economic pressure to be too much. Eventually a tipping point was reached. Nirvana was not attained, but conditions are better there now than ever before. The best parallel to the P/I situation may be Northern Ireland. Even there, years of war have given way to a civil solution. I am not saying that the Catholic living conditions in NI were as terrible as in Palestinian territories today, but the religious animosities and history of bloodshed were there. A militarized situation gave way to a civil situation.

                    This is the strongest BATNA position I see for Palestinians in this situation. The best allies of the Palestinian position must be some in the Israeli public and the conflict they feel with their belief system when they see the terrible conditions imposed in their name. Other Israelis will only care about their "enemies" when forced to by economics or some other lever. The next best allies of the Palestinian negotiating position must be people like me the world over. We may be ignorant but we are not stupid. The process of education and dialog are endless and necessary.

                    You object to Israeli centric thinking, which is understandable. However, both sides must see glimmers of the world view of the other side or there will never be progress in negotiation. I'm sure you object to American-centric thinking, too, but that's what I am stuck with until dialog informs my view. Daily Kos is about U.S. Democratic Party politics, which is a narrower focus than even my narrow thinking. This is a massive audience capable of mobilizing many people and influencing the Democratic Party. I'm just a little peasant in that process, but there is a need to reach people like me in order to change policy. Better yet, reach those Israelis who will dialog with Palestinians. Isn't that the focus of this diary?

                    In the 60's, 70's, and 80's, there were many cultural exchanges between the USSR (my middle school teacher and mother's cousin went) and the U.S., between China and the U.S., and in the 90's between Cuba and the U.S. (my son went to Cuba twice with a church group). I believe that these have a cumulative effect on policy. People who make these contacts never forget and never let people they know forget. One problem with international law is that the U.S. can effectively ignore it and those allied with the U.S. can ignore it, until the public demands revisiting the issues and a move towards international peace.

                    I understand limits to compensation, but check out Gerry Spence and How to Argue and Win Every Time. Some situations do not lend themselves to a restoration of the status quo ante. Death and lost time come to mind. Past and current misery is another. Youth starved for education is another. Compensation is a forward-looking strategy. The time for progress is always now.

                    Thank you for the link.

                    Sorry for the long response, but I take you very seriously.

                    •  hmm (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sustainable

                      You object to Israeli centric thinking, which is understandable. However, both sides must see glimmers of the world view of the other side or there will never be progress in negotiation. I'm sure you object to American-centric thinking, too, but that's what I am stuck with until dialog informs my view. Daily Kos is about U.S. Democratic Party politics, which is a narrower focus than even my narrow thinking. This is a massive audience capable of mobilizing many people and influencing the Democratic Party. I'm just a little peasant in that process, but there is a need to reach people like me in order to change policy. Better yet, reach those Israelis who will dialog with Palestinians. Isn't that the focus of this diary?

                      hmm, actually i read it a little differently. as an american i am frequently exposed to much more than a 'glimmer' of the israeli side of the narrative. wrt the focus of the diary let's review

                      The US has traditionally accepted that the peace process is exclusively an Israeli issue, something to be negotiated between the right and left of Israel. In this view, Palestinians are peripheral in these negotiations and should at the very least accept in advance the Israeli left's proposals uncompromized by the views of the Israeli right.

                      of course it is important to 'reach those israelis' however i think the focus on the diary was more around understanding the palestinian narrative, the ones americans are not so exposed to. for example, for you to be positioning yourself as a potential facilitator of negotiation and be unfamiliar w/the palestinian and international perspective of the international right of return is very telling and i applaud you for inquiring.

                      what may seem to you as using a fine comb to find fault looked more to me like some big red flags. please realize the issues of i/p have been discussed and argued about for so long that there are main issues that have been repeated ad nauseum. unintended or not your emphasis of jewish claim/connection to the land sans any mention of a palestinina connection is one of those red flags (for me) as is framing Israel as facing an existential threat sans even mentioning the threat israel poses to palestinians is continually ongoing and brutal. red flag.

                      there are certain proposals that have been suggested by israel to palestinian that delay soveriengty. one is the idea of economic peace (google it). this is a complete non starter and you suggested it as 'hopeful'. red flag. the other is the idea of a monetary settlement san any right of return. red flag.  the point of the diary was the palestinian perspective. repeating or encouraging israels talking pts doesn't really facilitate that but then perhaps you're not that familiar w/israels talking pts so they were 'original' for you. for a better understanding of other red flags check out this comment section.

                      it is important for any negotiator to at least have the appearance of neutrality and one of the ways to NOT do that is to dismiss outright the single one main claim the palestinians do have. yes, it will take lots of dialogue.

                      The next best allies of the Palestinian negotiating position must be people like me the world over.

                      is there anything in particular that sets you apart, in your mind. or were you speaking of yourself in general. iow, what would distinguish you from a person such as myself?

                      I don't believe that I wrote about any comparison of Jewish Israeli rights vs. Palestinian rights.

                      i know, you were speaking solely of the jewish claims, i just thought since the diary was about hearing palestinian perspectives i would recognize the parity of both. you don't disagree there is at a minimum a parity in terms of palestinian claims/connection do you?

                      •  Thank you for your continued patience (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        zannie

                        for example, for you to be positioning yourself as a potential facilitator of negotiation

                        I am not positioning myself as a facilitator of negotiation other than in a "people to people exchange" sense. That is why I mentioned the USSR and Cuba exchanges. I have no official position or pertinent training. I am truly an ignorant layperson in this endeavor. I am a part of the great middle, but I see this position as ultimately critical to public opinion and understanding.

                        what may seem to you as using a fine comb to find fault looked more to me like some big red flags.

                        What I was referring to was my reluctance to look for fault in your writings. I am claiming no special skills, except in business and engineering.

                        unintended or not your emphasis of jewish claim/connection to the land sans any mention of a palestinina connection is one of those red flags (for me) as is framing Israel as facing an existential threat sans even mentioning the threat israel poses to palestinians is continually ongoing and brutal. red flag.

                        Please believe me, if I were in a diary for the Jewish Israeli perspective, I would want to emphasize the Palestinian side. I would probably be unable to articulate anything cogent because of my ignorance, which is why I am here and delighted you are taking this time to present a perspective I see too little of.

                        there are certain proposals that have been suggested by israel to palestinian that delay soveriengty. one is the idea of economic peace (google it). this is a complete non starter and you suggested it as 'hopeful'. red flag. the other is the idea of a monetary settlement san any right of return. red flag.  the point of the diary was the palestinian perspective. repeating or encouraging israels talking pts doesn't really facilitate that but then perhaps you're not that familiar w/israels talking pts so they were 'original' for you.

                        The reference you linked above addresses the Israeli government's disengenuous handling of compensation for Arab Jews immigrating from Iraq and the opening they took to deny Palestinian claims for compensation. I would suggest that in the Camp David approach, the U.S. government provided compensation to both sides independently. When I think of compensation, that is the model in my mind. Any money would come from an outside source not otherwise available to either side. As to Israeli talking points, if it's not on CNN or CNBC, it is safest to assume I am ignorant. From the time since the Camp David Accords, some of my favorite interviews were those with Hanan Ashrawi, who I recognize to be a Palestinian Christian (making her a female minority member within a minority, but still she was an elected member of the Palestinian Parliament). She has always explained things in ways that I could understand. I understand that she cannot speak for all Palestinians, but I find her tone and logic helpful.

                        is there anything in particular that sets you apart, in your mind. or were you speaking of yourself in general. iow, what would distinguish you from a person such as myself?

                        In this setting, there is nothing to distinguish me from anyone else from middle America. I claim no authority and no special knowledge.

                        i know, you were speaking solely of the jewish claims, i just thought since the diary was about hearing palestinian perspectives i would recognize the parity of both. you don't disagree there is at a minimum a parity in terms of palestinian claims/connection do you?

                        Yes, I recognize parity of all people. I have not heard enough of Palestinian perspectives. In a call for dialog, I hope for some balance point that I can find. Thank you for explaining part of your perspective briefly and patiently.

                        •  hmmm (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          sustainable

                          I would suggest that in the Camp David approach, the U.S. government provided compensation to both sides independently.

                          i'm not clear as to why the american public should be paying israel for their 'loss'.

                          •  In the Camp David Accords (0+ / 0-)

                            According to Wikipedia:

                            The agreement also resulted in the United States committing to several billion dollars worth of annual subsidies to the governments of both Israel and Egypt, subsidies which continue to this day, and are given as a mixture of grants and aid packages committed to purchasing U.S. materiel. From 1979 (the year of the peace agreement) to 1997, Egypt received military aid of US$1.3 billion annually, which also helped modernize the Egyptian military.[11] (This is beyond economic, humanitarian, and other aid, which has totaled more than US$25 billion.) Eastern-supplied until 1979, Egypt now received American weaponry such as the M1A1 Abrams Tank, AH-64 Apache gunship and the F-16 fighter jet. In comparison, Israel has received $3 billion annually since 1985 in grants and military aid packages.

                            So, the U.S. provided Billions to the Egyptian military and more Billions to the Israeli military. And that was back when a Billion Dollars seemed like a lot. Remember that the first rule of governing is to preserve the power of government. The Israeli (and the U.S. and Egyptian, etc.) government really is primarily concerned with self-preservation. As a pacifist, I find this offensive, but there it is. As far as I am concerned, once money is spent on bombs and military hardware, the best result to to have to spend more on dismantling them. The next best result is to use them up in target practice. The worst use of all is to use bombs for what they are designed to do: destroy infrastructure and kill people. I see very few things in black and white terms, but kinetic bombs of any kind are a clear evil in my eyes. Nuclear bombs are even worse. Why build something that would destroy humanity if used? As Daniel Ellsberg says, if you use even a small nuclear weapon, you have set a precedent that can't be reversed. But I digress.

                            In the current instance, providing Billions in humanitarian aid to help a nascient Palestinian government and help resettle returning refugees would seem to me like a bargain, if it meant peace. As to the Israeli government, they are already getting Billions in U.S. military aid. It is a fact that I have no say in (believe me I have tried).

                            People who sense danger and governments that can find an exterior threat will do anything to create the impression of security. Ostensible external threats are always useful to preserving political power. Real people breathing actual verbal threats are the most useful to the government being threatened. The Churchill government stayed in power until WW2 was won, then people wanted a new government. This is kind of like the jiu jitsu politics that President Obama talks about. Get your opponent leaning on you and then remove the opposition and watch them fall.  

                          •  thank you for this thoughtful response. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sustainable

                            i promise i will respond further in the morning, i am signing off now. i wanted to further respond to your earlier post also and will.

                            ciao

                          •  on the money (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sustainable

                            yes i agree with you here

                            In the current instance, providing Billions in humanitarian aid to help a nascient Palestinian government and help resettle returning refugees would seem to me like a bargain, if it meant peace.

                            i spent a long time pondering what to say in this post sort of as a wrap on my concept of the gist of the matter. if offering anyone money to solve this would do the trick, it would have happened by now, imho.

                            i wanted to get back to simone's point and something you said early on. so let's review the idea he presents in his diary 'the very notion of a Palestinian perspective, a Palestinian voice, is dangerous......scares some to the core'  what are the 'Palestinian concerns, which do not conform to the small spectrum of views held by Israel's leftist and rightist parties.' ?

                            In this struggle for civil rights the dominant Palestinian issue is the individual right of return of refugees to their homes. It is not local authority or sovereignty within and around refugee camps.  Amongst the Palestinians the return of the refugees is fundamental.

                            this lies at the very heart of the matter. the very suggestion any amount of money to either israelis or palestinians will solve this is hard to fathom. this is the core issue.

                            you said you wanted to find a point of balance and i commend you for that. however i'm wondering how that comes to pass for anyone by choosing a starting position that accepts a zionists priority as sacrosanct yet do not equate the same value on that palestinian claim?

                            early on in our discussion you misunderstood me and somehow construed my positioning as to include jews leaving israel which soysauce graciously explained was not the intention. but during your earlier response when you thought that was my suggestion you said

                            no amount of monetary compensation will suffice, then where is the room for dialog? What is the solution?

                            i don't know! but i do think finding a balance from which to open a dialogue one must strive to value the desires and rights of both parties equally regardless of any imbalance of power.

                            understanding and respecting the palestinian perspective of the right of return is fundamental. draining the meaning, manipulating the meaning, whitewashing that meaning has likely consumed tens of thousands of zionist hrs (here is one such 'proposed construction') and remains to this day a terrific burden/thorn in the side of israel and israel supporters. it simply will not go away. all the lawfare you throw at it won't diminish that right in the eyes of palestinians, the global community, or any layman reading the geneva convention and applying common understanding into the intent.

                             You need to hear your Palestinian contacts better (9+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                               zannie, capelza, blueness, Aunt Martha, Assaf, Terra Mystica, unspeakable, sortalikenathan, Fire bad tree pretty

                            The issue is not Israel or Jews.  The issue is the exclusionary state policies of the state.  I think Aunt Martha has done a good job summarizing my issues with your position. The right to return is enshrined in international law, specifically in the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49.  Human rights activists the world over recognize that denying the Palestinians right of return creates a terrible precedent.

                            You can argue about prior agreements and semantics, but the real issue for Israel is that peace and security will be elusive until the plight of the refugees is dealt with.  I have argued that I cannot speak for the refugees and that I think it is absolutely vital that their voices be heard in any negotiations about their final settlement.  That is the problem with the proposals put forth so far.

                            We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may be unjust. -MLK Jr.

                            by soysauce on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 01:19:24 PM PST

                            source (my bold). note specifically: 'denying the Palestinians right of return creates a terrible precedent'.

                            do we all understand the implications of that terrible precendent? for myself personally and many others i imagine..this is more than 'palestine'. 'palestine' embodies the future of our humanity, our global community..so much more. how this issue is resolved is vital and it isn't something money can buy imho.

                            i truly hope in your quest for balance our brief exchange has been of assistance.

                            ciao

                          •  Thank you for your reply (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie

                            understanding and respecting the palestinian perspective of the right of return is fundamental. draining the meaning, manipulating the meaning, whitewashing that meaning has likely consumed tens of thousands of zionist hrs (here is one such 'proposed construction') and remains to this day a terrific burden/thorn in the side of israel and israel supporters. it simply will not go away. all the lawfare you throw at it won't diminish that right in the eyes of palestinians, the global community, or any layman reading the geneva convention and applying common understanding into the intent.

                            note specifically: 'denying the Palestinians right of return creates a terrible precedent'.

                            OK. So, now we get to what this means.

                            As you quoted from Simone Daud:

                            In this struggle for civil rights the dominant Palestinian issue is the individual right of return of refugees to their homes. It is not local authority or sovereignty within and around refugee camps.  Amongst the Palestinians the return of the refugees is fundamental.

                            Now for some hypothetical but surely realistic instances of what this would mean.

                            In the case of a Palestinian person and family who fled from their home (or were threatened by some third party) within the current internationally recognized boundaries of Israel and the home is now still intact after 73 years or 37 years. It would now be occupied by an Israeli family, who has a certificate of occupation from the Israeli government. If the original person is still alive, what is the just answer?

                            If the home has been torn down and reconstructed on the same lot as the original home. Then what is the just answer?

                            If the home has been torn down and the lot reconfigured to a completely different lot and is now used for whatever purpose is recognized by the Israeli government. Then what is the just answer?

                            The above questions are realistic and are no more my responsibility than yours, but these issues stand in the way of a just solution.

                            And this does not even touch the issue of who would have standing in the Palestinian family, the oldest child? The oldest son? All direct descendents equally? What about indirect next of kin?

                            The answers to these questions could provide perverted incentives to people today to attempt to protect what they see as their rights. These perverted incentives are not your resposibility or mine, but could impact the practical result of any solution proposed. This situation is infinitely complex. How do we get to a solution that allows the Palestinian people to move forward from today?

                          •  i wish i knew (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sustainable

                            that thread i linked to, i would suggest reading more of the comments for ideas.

                            i thought i would clarify one thing, depending on ones interpretation.

                            'denying the Palestinians right of return creates a terrible precedent'

                            to deny someone has a right vs to acknowledge that right. (note that acknowledging a right is different than exercising that right) by acknowledging that right is to place value on that right. not to be confused with money. but the value is certainly be a lot and is worth a lot in any negotiation. here's the thing, by not acknowledging that right and pretending palestinians do not have any bargaining power, or less bargaining power than israel would be foolish for israel. israel is sitting on lots of land belonging to palestinians, they owe them an incredible debt they will never be able to pay in full, ever. simply by the fact that years have been robbed.

                            so, when we view the right of return as a 'precondition' we pretend it is something palestinians don't have, we are in denial. that would be akin to setting a precondition that israel clear out all of the illegal settlements prior to negotiation and we know we can't do that because they are already there, just like the right of return is already there.

                            now, it is very very likely many palestinians will choose to live in a palestinian state if there were two states. but frankly the reason i think there may not ever be two is not merely a matter of how to value the right of return. israel doesn't value it. they have shown disrespect for it from the get go and that is demonstrated by the abysmal backhanded trickery by trying to get around it by attaching it to the possessions of iraqi jews which have NOTHING to do palestinians. it is as if they are treated as chattle and their goods bargained away thru some deal w/a colonial state (at the time iraq/britan). so, my opinion for 'balance'..throw whatever wheelings and dealings israel plans to do wrt iraqi jews and this 'compensation' and throw it out the window. it is a distraction. deal with it separately for at this time israel should not be focusing on how it can get more out of this deal, they need to focus on removing their own obstacles.
                            second, israel needs to be prepared to GIVE SOMETHING UP because they owe a debt to palestinians. before asking where israel would put refugees lets focus on israel.

                            is israel willing to give up some of these large settlements in the west bank? are they willing to give up there control of resources in the west bank and make a deal w/this new state by offering to buy resources from them? making a treaty whereby israel is guarenteed a certain amount of water but doesn't control water sources outside its borders?

                            is israel willing to get the f out of EJ, palestines future capitol?

                            is israel willing to relinquish its control on borders that doesn't belong to it...jordan? can  israel walks into a negotiation and acknowledge  right of return in a VALUE that it is truly worth (notice in the ''proposed construction' he devalues instead of values)?

                            i think this is an equally difficult obstacle on israels end also. How do we get to a solution that allows israel to move forward from today? really, i wish i knew. i think the best hope is for them to become friends! i suspect the longer they put this off the more likely one state will occur. one advantage as i see it is palestinians seem to be so adept at withstanding this onslaught that is becomes increasingly likely they will not go for any deal that is not worth the value of what they lost and the world is becoming more impatient w/israel, the continued expansion does not indicate israel plans on giving anything up.

                            i actually think israel will be a harder nut to crack. i suspect if israel offers them a truly equitable deal the palesatinians will go for it. have they ever really done that? a real state w/control of more that the picture on the flag and naming the street signs?

                            this whole thing has been fraught w/perverted incentives from the get go and i don't have any answers, i really don't. but my take on it is israel is more inflexible and greedy. if israel stuck to their side of the 67 borders you might see some bargaining going on but i don't think that will happen.
                            get israel to budge. they need to come to the table w/an  offer as valuable as the right of return, then you will get some action.

                          •  The issue of opportunity cost is huge on both (0+ / 0-)

                            sides.

                            In terms of time lost, it is human to want to put a value on it, but if there is to be a future there must be an effort to treat the past as a sunk cost. What is lost is lost. How do we create friends now? That is the important question to me.

                            Groups such as the Society of Friends (through American Friends Service Committee) and Mennonites (through Mennonite Central Committee) attempt to create understanding through "presence". Presence is befriending people in conflict zones, trying to understand and offer themselves as neutral parties (as neutral as feasible- one always has emotional connections with one's freinds). Believe it or not, the American Jewish World Service (AJWS) is very effective at this kind of service in places like Central America and Africa. The Presbyterian Church USA has been against the military occupation since 1967, against separation walls being consructed on Palestinian-owned land, against "Christian Zionism", and for a phased selective divestment from U.S. companies that are working in the West Bank and Gaza. This divestment does not affect companies doing business in Israel proper.

                            These are attempts that I support to focus attention on a just solution.  Any negotiated solution would be better than the status quo, assuming that the majority of Israelis and the majority of Palestinians would support a particular solution.

                          •  one more thing (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sustainable

                            about those questions, my guess is it is the land more than the individual houses. the longer you deny refugees a home the more of them there are, waiting til they are all dead is a non starter.

    •  i'll try (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, Terra Mystica, sustainable

      answering this question even tho i am not as well informed as others here

      How is this demand for the right of return not a precondition to negotiations?

      the right of return is enshrined in international law, it is a right palestinians already have, one that is being denied by israel. palestinians are not demanding this right be enforced as a precondition to negotiations. a better question to ask might be 'why are palestinians being asked to give up their right of return as a precondition.'

      the right of return is the most valuable possession  palestinians have in terms of negotiation value in any settlement. therefore it makes no sense for them to abandon this right prior to negotiations. therefore it behooves israel come to the table willing to make some kind concessions wrt palestinians to augment the value of this possession they would like palestinians to relinquish..

      this is different than say any alleged jewish/israeli claim on all of jerusalem. while israel occupies all of jerusalem this is not recognized as legitimate by the international community therefore israel's 'right' to jerusalem is not enshrined in international law or recognition. however, the palestinian right of return is.

      so the right of return is not considered a precondition, i don't think. however if they demanded it be implemented prior to negotiations then it would be, but that is not happening as far as i know.

      also the framing of your question this demand for the right of return is a little skewed. it is their international right. they do not have to demand the right because it already exists and israelis know it or else we wouldn't be discussing it and it would be a total non issue. they can only demand it be fulfilled or exercised. they can also bargain it away if they want to which seems highly unlikely. they can agree to modify it by varying degrees if they choose to do so during a negotiation process. your question presupposes a scenario in which they didn't have the international right already and we're trying to acquire it prior to negotiations, that is simply not the case.

      •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

        for helping me understand an outline of some of the issues. Obviously, this is very complex, but I think I am learning a bit.

        The diary was written with a dialog history that I have not followed. I feel like I am jumping in to the deep end before I know how to swim. Of course, I could go back through the previous diaries and comments by all of the players here, but that does not ensure I will get it then either. However, if this website is going to serve a general function, there needs to be room for a breathing space for "ask a Palestinian" as someone mentions down thread. At some point, it may be useful for ignorant folks like me to have "ask a Jewish Israeli", "ask a Muslim Israeli", "ask a Muslim Palestinian", and perhaps "ask a Christian Palestinian", too.

  •  I was thinking about this meta (13+ / 0-)

    when I read Stephen Walt's piece on the top ten ways to deal with controversial issues when debating in public.

    The More Compelling Your Arguments Are, The Nastier the Attacks Will Be If critics can refute your evidence or your logic, then that's what they will do and it will be very effective. However, if you have made a powerful case and there aren't any obvious weaknesses in it, your adversaries are likely to misrepresent what you have said and throw lots of mud at you. What else are they going to do when the evidence is against them?  

    This is exactly what is happening with Palestine debates on Kos.  The simple fact is that the idea of Palestinians even being in the game is a threat to many.

    We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may be unjust. -MLK Jr.

    by soysauce on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:34:52 AM PST

    •  Unfortunately, Simone Daud's replies (0+ / 0-)

      top my comments contain too many -- actually, one would be too many -- examples of the "However" kind of responses.

      •  And you are misrepresenting (12+ / 0-)

        the right of refugees to return home as a call for the destruction of Israel.  That is absolutely nothing short of misrepresenting the Palestinian position to suggest that we seek the annihilation of the Jewish people.  Perhaps when you begin to be honest about your motives, we will be able to have real discussions.  Until then, no Palestinian here will engage you seriously.  

        Ask yourself, would you seriously engage an antisemite?  Why would we seriously engage someone who hates Palestinians and sees us as inherently violent?

        We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may be unjust. -MLK Jr.

        by soysauce on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:44:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The right of return (3+ / 2-)
          Recommended by:
          Karmafish, Nospinicus, VirginiaJeff
          Hidden by:
          mattman, borkitekt

          is a call for the destruction of Israel.  It is not a call for the annihilation of the Jewish people.  There's a big difference there.  The first deals with the fundamental right of Jews to self-determination and self-governance, a right that is firmly enshrined in international law.  

          Destruction of Israel deals with the desire by some to eliminate a civil right for Jews.  Destruction of the Jewish people deals with the desire by very very to engage in genocide against the Jews.  The first is supported by many Palestinians.  The second is supported by very few.

          "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." --Barack Obama, June, 2008

          by oldskooldem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:58:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Where's the right of Palestinians to (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mattman, capelza, Terra Mystica

            both self-government and ownership?  Why is it that Israeli Jews have rights that supersede the rights of Palestinians?  Where is their right to live in their own homes and have their own government on their own territory?

            I don't agree with Boritekt's donut, but I do think you are really off base with that comment.  

            Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

            by Dexter on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:17:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Palestinains most certainly (0+ / 0-)

              have the right of self-determination over the properties they live on.  I hope to see a Palestinian state in my lifetime that governs those lands--and governs them just as well or better than other countries in the region govern their lands.

              What the Palestinians don't have a right to is determination over the lands where Jews live.

              "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." --Barack Obama, June, 2008

              by oldskooldem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:20:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  But it is (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                capelza, soysauce, Conure

                land that legally belongs to Palestinians.  This is what people seem to ignore.  This isn't a discussion about a nation, rather its about individual people who had their land stolen and their livelihoods destroyed.  

                Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                by Dexter on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:22:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Are you saying that land in the West Bank (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                livosh1

                (Judea and Samaria, if you insist) occupied by Jews after the Six Day War should remain under Jewish sovereignty?

                If so, what is your justification?  Do you think Palestinian authorities ever would agree?  If you do, what are the grounds for your belief?

                •  I believe in self-determination (0+ / 0-)

                  It is a concept firmly entrenched in international law.  I think lands that are held by Israel for security should be given to the Palestinians as part of a peace agreement.  I think lands where people live (in both current Israel and the territories) should be subject to the self-determination of the people that live in those areas, unless otherwise part of a negotiated settlement, in which case the negotiated settlement should govern.

                  "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." --Barack Obama, June, 2008

                  by oldskooldem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:30:12 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Israel seems to be willing to create (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Karmafish, MBNYC

              a Palestinian state, as long as it's a peaceful neighbor and the result is an end of the conflict.

              Most everyone seems to agree with the idea of Palestinan self-government and ownership and a Palestinian state of their own.  

              •  No, they don't (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                capelza, Terra Mystica, soysauce

                Because Palestinians can't have self-government unless they have their land back.  There are millions of Palestinians who are likely to be left out of any deal, who get no compensation for their loss and no ability to govern themselves.  

                This is part of Simone's point here, there are millions of individuals whose rights are totally ignored.  

                Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                by Dexter on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:30:36 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I thought Simone's point (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MBNYC

                  was that there is a vast overwhelming conspiracy on dKos to eliminate discussion of I/P issues.

                  If Simone can help point to any details of that conspiracy, I'm here to help him make it go away.

                  •  That's why I said part of his point (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    capelza, Terra Mystica, Conure

                    I do think Simone is, uncharacteristically, exaggerating the threat posed to the discussion as a whole.  But he is also trying to get across the point that there is a group of people who are left out of the conversation - that we seem to take the Israeli left as the progressive vision and ignore the Palestinian voice and the problems that many Palestinians face.

                    Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                    by Dexter on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:41:13 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Who the hell wants to eliminate (0+ / 0-)

                    I-P discussion?

                    I notice that my name has come up several times, but all I said is that talk of eliminating Israel as a Jewish state is highly offensive to most Jewish people, bad for this blog, and perhaps should be banned.

                    I fail to understand why Jewish people opposing the idea of eliminating the Jewish state should be so surprising to anyone.

          •  Uprated to offset HR abuse. (0+ / 0-)

            I'm not sure where oldskooldem was going with his comment.  But if borkitek does, he should say so rather than issue a drive-by HR.  The point of this diary is to talk.

            Political liberal / Bible believing Christian / Lousy at litmus tests

            by VirginiaJeff on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:02:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  "a call for the destruction of Israel" (0+ / 0-)

            Not necessarily.

            Palestinians could live in Israel just like Canadians live in the U.S. - as resident aliens without voting rights but with all other rights of Israelis.  Likewise, the settlers could live in Palestine.

        •  Please forgive the length of this reply . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Captain C

          This comment is indebted to the writings of Jerome Segal.  See, e.g., Palestinians’Right of Return and Israel’s Right to Exist as a Jewish State (pdf).  Naturally he is not responsible for what I have written.

          It is taken from a diary dedicated to the memory of Yehoshua Arieli, one of the wisest, most humane individuals it has ever been my privilege to know.  An accessible example of Yehoshua's views on the I-P conflict may be found in his New York Review of Books Article from August 1972, The Price Israel Is Paying.  Here, I'll quote only his concluding paragraph:

          The continuation of the status quo has not been forced upon us. Instead of insisting on negotiating for the quality of peace, for exact guarantees to preserve a peace agreement, for ways to demilitarize the evacuated territories, we have insisted on negotiating the quantity of border changes. For the sake of annexation of the territories we occupy we are sacrificing, unintentionally, our true security, the quality of our society, our free progressive spirit, our internal integrity and unity, and economic, social, and spiritual well-being.


          In connection with the signing of the 1993 Declaration of Principles between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Yasir Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin exchanged letters of mutual recognition.  Among other things, Arafat wrote Rabin:

          The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

          This recognition of Israel by the Palestine Liberation Organization was intended to clear away one of the stumbling blocks to entering into peace negotiations, namely, Israel's insistence that the Palestinians recognize its "right to exist."  In 1975, for example, under President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger, the U.S. had promised Israel not to negotiate with the PLO unless it recognized Israel's "right to exist."  More recently, in 2006, shortly after Hamas's success in Palestinian parliamentary elections, the Quartet (the United States, European Union, Russia, and United Nations), called on the new Palestinian government to "be committed to nonviolence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap."

          What does it mean, however, to recognize Israel's right to exist:

          * Israel's right to have come into existence?

          * Israel's right to continue to exist?

          Affirming Israel's right to have come into existence entails accepting the morality of the Zionist (I do not use that word pejoratively) project.

          Affirming Israel's right to continue to exist, that is, to live in peace and security, does not require acceptance of Zionist claims, only acceptance of Israel's legal right to live in peace and security.

          Plainly, demanding that Palestinians become Zionists is a non-starter.  But the second interpretation requires only agreement with (what should be) the non-controversial proposition that, under international law, all existing states enjoy the right to live in peace and security, a right to which the (future) state of Palestine also will be entitled.

          With this example in mind, we can understand that the Palestinian right of return also can be understood in different ways:

          * that Israel affirm, at least in principle, that all Palestinian refugees, perhaps as defined by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), have an absolute right to live in Israel within its pre-Six-Day War borders (the balance of Mandatory Palestine/Eretz Israel comprising the territory of the Arab (Palestinian) state called for by the 1947 UN partition resoluton.

          * that Palestinian refugees have a legal right of return as provided in UN Resolution 194 and as consistent with other rights applicable to the situation.

          As I hope to show, these two "versions" of the right to return are not the same.  The first version is inconsistent with Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state.  (I'll come in a moment to what it means, under the partition resolution, for Israel to be a "Jewish state.")  The second version provides a reasonable basis for mutual accommodation and a two states for two peoples peace settlement.

          The partition resolution - UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 181 - provided for the creation of "[i]ndependent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem."  In the context of Resolution 181, "Jewish state" did not mean a theocracy, nor a state in which Judaism was the state religion.  (Neither of which accurately describes Israel at any time since its creation.)  "Rather," as Jerome Segal writes, it meant

          "a democratic state, with equal rights for all its citizens[,] and "a homeland for the Jewish people, and as a place where the Jewish people exercise their right of self-determination.  Because it is also a democracy, in which the majority rules, implicitly, the Jewish state is intended to be a state in which the majority of its citizens are Jews."


          This is the context in which UNGA Resolution 194 was adopted.

          The relevant portion of Resolution 194, adopted in December 1948, concerning refugees reads:

          1. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date

          The attentive reader will notice that Resolution 194 does not confer an unqualified legal right of return.  The right of return is limited to "refugees willing to . . . live at peace with their neighbours."  Jerome Segal maintains that implicit in this qualification is UN recognition "that the Israelis have a right which must be balanced against the right of return.  Their [the refugees'] right is to be able to live at peace within the Jewish state that was created pursuant to UN General Assembly Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution of 1947."

          The historically-minded reader will realize that Resolution 194 was not adopted in a vacuum.  The resolution dealt with one of the results of the rejection of Resolution 181 by the Palestinians and the Arab states, and their unsuccessful attempt to prevent Israel from successfully coming into existence.  Hence Resolution 194 was not speaking about something abstract, for example, the willingness of refugees to live at peace with Jews in a non-Jewish, say largely Islamic, state.  No.  The legal right of return created, or recognized, by Resolution 194 was only for those refugees willing to live at peace within the Jewish state created earlier that same year in accordance with Resolution 181.

          The Arab Peace Initiative, can be read as accepting this point, which is one reason the mainstream Israeli Peace Camp, its supporters, and indeed other, non-Greater Israel, Israelis, have regarded it as a suitable basis for negotiating a two states for two peoples peace settlement.  The Arab Peace Initiative does not demand that Israel accept an unqualified right of all Palestinians with the status of refugee to live in Israel.  Rather, it calls for:

          Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.


          A Palestinian refugee born in 1948 within Israel today would be 61 years of age.  It seems safe to say that only a few of the refugees who were adults in 1948 are still alive, and only a minority of all the 1948 refugees. Most Palestinian refugees living today are the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of refugees who once lived in the land that became Israel after the 1948 war.

          With this and our analysis of Resolution 194 in mind, we can consider the different moral rights that a Palestinian refugee might claim:

          * the right to return to an actual former home in Israel.

          * the right to return to an actual home in which one never lived, but in which one's parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents lived.

          * the right to legal ownership of such an actual home, even if one cannot actually live in it.

          * the right to live someplace in Israel as an Israeli citizen.

          * the right to live someplace in Israel as a citizen of Palestine.

          * the right to financial compensation for property that belonged to a 1948 refugee or such a refugee's parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents.



          In light of the foregoing, when considering the case of the surviving 1948 refugees, we can suggest the possibility of Israel agreeing to a final peace settlement that recognizes the legal right of surviving 1948 refugees, who so choose and who affirm their willingness to live at peace within the Jewish state, to return to Israel with appropriate compensation for not being able to return to their actual homes.

          As to the remaining refugees, the Geneva Accord may provide appropriate terms for a peace settlement.  I quote from the official summary:

          The agreement provides for the permanent and complete resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem, under which refugees will be entitled to compensation for their refugee status and for loss of property, and will have the right to return to the State of Palestine. The refugees could also elect to remain in their present host countries, or relocate to third countries, among them Israel, at the sovereign discretion of third countries.


          Making peace requires, in my view, mutual accommodation.  No side should be required to accept either the immorality of its own side on core issues or the morality of another side's.  IMHO, peace between Israel and Palestine is worth striving for.  Indeed, it is possible, but only a basis that fully takes on board the idea of a definitive, final, comprehensive peace settlement based on the principle of two states for two peoples.

          At least in a February 2002, New York Times op-ed, Yasir Arafat accepted this fundamental point:

          [W]e seek a fair and just solution to the plight of Palestinian refugees who for 54 years have not been permitted to return to their homes. We understand Israel's demographic concerns and understand that the right of return of Palestinian refugees, a right guaranteed under international law and United Nations Resolution 194, must be implemented in a way that takes into account such concerns.


          P.S.  I've been trying without success to remove from my signature the the link to the diary from which this comment is taken.  Can someone help?

  •  The U.S. needs to settle this (0+ / 0-)

    Obviously, the Israelis and Palestinians cannot negotiate a settlement themselves, so the only solution is for the U.S. to formulate  the solution.  This has the added advantage that both sides can then blame the U.S. for "selling them out" while accepting the solution.

    We have all heard enough from both sides for the past 60+ years and now it is time for a resolution.  It won't be that hard.

    •  Problem is that they won't accept it (0+ / 0-)
      •  He who pays the piper (0+ / 0-)

        Israel can't survive without the U.S. and the Palestinians have no other way forward.

        We and our allies could throw a lot of money on the table which should make both sides more reasonable.

        •  I meant (0+ / 0-)

          that I expect that some Palestinians would not accept it, and many would keep fighting.

          In particular, there is the Hamas ideology, followed by some other Muslim groups, that says that Israel is "Muslim land," and can't be allowed to be controlled by non-Muslims.  A "solution" imposed by the US would not end the conflict.

          •  The "Rejectionists" would get nothing (0+ / 0-)

            Those who accept our deal would get tons of money, peace and security.  Those who reject it would be cut off and we would actively work against them.

            Palestinians could live and work in Israel and enjoy all rights of Israelis except voting.  Most would accept it.

    •  I thought Iraq taught us (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MBNYC, Terra Mystica

      we couldn't impose solutions to ethnic conflicts in other lands.

      It won't be that hard.

      Now where have I heard that before?

      :)

      Political liberal / Bible believing Christian / Lousy at litmus tests

      by VirginiaJeff on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:05:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They need us more than we need them. (0+ / 0-)

        How would Israel say no to us when it clearly cannot produce a solution and it is completely dependent on us?  We have a solution; Israel rejects it; Israel has no solution; Israel is now on its own.

        Palestinians reject our solution; we abandon them.

        This is not a military situation like Iraq.  This is all about money which is highly persuasive.

        •  Except this comes down to the premise (0+ / 0-)

          that money can do everything.  They need us, but they would live without us if backed into a corner.

          Political liberal / Bible believing Christian / Lousy at litmus tests

          by VirginiaJeff on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:14:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What can't money buy? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mattman, VirginiaJeff

            Israel is our "friend" because we give them money and weapons.  Without us, Israel has no friends.  Not a good place to be in this world.

            •  Hope you won't think I'm (0+ / 0-)

              being too apocalyptic here.  But your observation reminded me, that's the scene Revelation predicts will occur just before the grand climax: Israel surrounded on all sides, and no friends left.

              Considering that when the book was written there was no longer an "Israel" for the Jews.  Nineteen hundred years later there is one again, and now we're discussing it's lonely predicatment.

              Political liberal / Bible believing Christian / Lousy at litmus tests

              by VirginiaJeff on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:04:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If Jesus didn't say it, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VirginiaJeff

                I don't believe it. One of the major problems in this conflict is the 2000 year history of injustices that must be forgotten in order to move forward.

                But the reality is that Israel would agree to a peace deal that didn't threaten its existence and could resolve the settlers problem. The Irish settled their differences and there was more hatred there.

                •  You might be right. And I don't (0+ / 0-)

                  want to over-emphasize a connection between current events and prophecy.

                  Although I believe the prophecies about Israel, that doesn't they have to apply to the present.  Indeed, if we work for peace, we may be rewarded obtain it for quite an extended period.  Prophecy should never be used as an excuse not to attempt doing a good thing.

                  Political liberal / Bible believing Christian / Lousy at litmus tests

                  by VirginiaJeff on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:42:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  This is so true. (0+ / 0-)

    If people on DKos have such varied opinions on Israel and Palestine, then it just shows how much more difficult it is to actually bridge an agreement with people who have vastly different political ideologies overall.

    I can't imagine that any true peace agreement will ever be reached without alienating a lot of people one way or the other.  Even if the agreement is fair in almost every objective way.

    Be safe every day, President Obama.

    by Grumpy Young Man on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:46:09 AM PST

  •  This strikes me as odd. (5+ / 0-)

    According to this campaign, DailyKos is emerging as an uncomfortable forum for Jews and unwelcoming of Jews. According to this campaign DailyKos is emerging as a forum for haters of Israel. According to this campaign DailyKos is driving Jews away from the Democratic Party. According to this campaign Obama will lose the 2012 elections because of the dominance of Israel haters on DailyKos.

    There are people whose posts and diaries I will never recommend because I know them to hold views I consider unacceptable. Some of these are anti-Zionist users who endorse, fairly explicitly, tearing down the state of Israel.

    But those folks are a tiny minority, just like the other trolls. Pretty much everyone else has more reasonable ideas. I might not agree witht hem, but at least I can respect them for having taken the time to think about their positions, you know? And the Israelis are fucking things up left and right, so if someone says, "Gee, we should call them on it, and explain that there will be consequences if they don't stop", that's not a bad thing.

    I'm a Jewish Zionist and I've never felt unwelcome at Daily Kos. Also, come 2012, if President Obama is running for re-election, I will probably vote for him (assuming there's not a more-progressive challenger). The same goes for my family, as far as I know. The same goes for many people in the fairly strictly religious community I'm from.

    We're not single-issue voters, most of us.

    "'It just feels right to hold the Internet in your hands.' Dude, have you SEEN what's on the Internet? Does [the iPad] come with rubber gloves?"

    by Shaviv on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:58:24 AM PST

  •  If the "campaign" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karmafish, MBNYC

    you speak of is dailykoswatch, it appears that the last diary there was over 3 months ago.  I'm not sure that's exactly persuasive evidence for your diary.

    In terms of a vilification campaign, if anything, there is a vilification campaign here against the site's pro-Israel posters.  Many have been banned, even though the Democratic party is extremely pro-Israel and the rest are regular called racists and segregationists.

    "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." --Barack Obama, June, 2008

    by oldskooldem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:00:33 AM PST

  •  This is Dishonest - There is no campaign (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karmafish, MBNYC

    Simone, you MUST give some details of this alleged campaign.  

    I remember that Karmafish had a diary suggesting a ban on I/P discussion on dkos, but he was supported by NOBODY, not even other Pro-Israel supporters on this site.

    Many of the people engaged in I/P discussions on this site seem completely unconcerned about Democrats winning elections.  I typically disagree with Simone on substance, however, I would not support a "gag" rule.

    This diary is utter bullshit.

  •  ya ustadh (7+ / 0-)

    ana taqreeban khalast min hal makan. shou al fa'ida? ana mish ma3 7al al dowlatayn, wa a3taqid kul al 7aki hon 3an al tasamu7 7aki fadi. yareedun salam bas li a6falhum. khalas. khalihom yaklun khara. laysh nibqa?

  •  The so-called "right of return" (0+ / 0-)

    means the end of Israel.

    It means that Jews must, yet again, live as a minority among people who may, or who may not, tolerate them.

    This has not worked out well in the past and is opposed by virtually everyone who cares about the Jewish state and the Jewish people.

    So sorry.

    •  And if you don't believe this.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karmafish

      it is suggested by one of the pro-Palestinian posters above in this very thread.  He suggested that Jews should live as a minority in a Jewish state.  That's the end-goal of that side.

      "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." --Barack Obama, June, 2008

      by oldskooldem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:28:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmm, what about U.S. Jews? (0+ / 0-)

      It means that Jews must, yet again, live as a minority among people who may, or who may not, tolerate them.
      This has not worked out well in the past

      If Palestinians did not have voting rights in Israel, then Jews could still be in control.  Just like Americans living in Canada or vice versa.  Nobody is complaining.

      •  ThinkFirst, (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not certain that I get ya.

        Palestinian citizens of Israel do have voting rights.

        As for the US, I am of the mind that Jewish people should be very grateful to this country.

        The thing is that Jewish history is both long and cyclical.  It has constantly cycled through periods of prosperity and persecution.

        There's no real reason to assume that has ended... in fact, quite the contrary.

        •  You know Karmafish... (9+ / 0-)

          Even the hint that something horrible would happen to Jews in this country is really offensive.

          If you are that paranoid, seek help.

          There have been many groups in this country that have suffered in the past, and to this day.   Including my own..even now.    

          What the hell is wrong with you?

          •  Well he has some reason (0+ / 0-)

            for concern.  There are still a lot of crazies out there and it used to be a lot worse not that long ago.

            But fear is a big factor in the I/P conflict so it must be addressed.

            •  Yes, yes it did used to be bad.... (7+ / 0-)

              Ask any American Indian....just off the top of my head...on whose land Karmafish is comfortably ensconsed.  But this is the United States, we, collectively,  get better.   I've seen it in my lifetime and we still have a ways to go.   For him to even intimate  that he has a reason to fear for the Jewish people in this country is, as I said, offensive.   He can get back to me when he's had armed White men circling his house shooting guns in the air, while we children cower in a corner of the house.   But in spite of that, I am an American.  My father, my husband, my sons have all served this country in the military, even though they have had to fight prejudice (not to mention that whole death of millions and theft of our lands and exile to places like motherfucking Oklahoma thing).

              Ask any African-American how bad it used to be, or Hispanics (and this was before the whole illegal immigration as political tool and to people who in some cases had been here longer than the Whites who treated them like crap).  Ask the Chinese who were massacred or the Japanese-Americans who were interred.

              All these things have happened, but it is better, it is much better...

              Really, I have had it with Karmafish and his whole meme.   I wish he'd just leave the Democratic Party, he keeps threatening to.  

              •  There is still a lot of fear (0+ / 0-)

                in many ethnic and religious groups, so we must take that into account even though it is irrational. But that is why a peace agreement must be reached - the fear won't dissipate until that happens.

          •  It also doesn't make sense. (5+ / 0-)

            If it ever got to the point that Jews were not "tolerated" in the United States, does anyone think there would still be a "special relationship" between the United States and Israel?

            IMO, Israel needs to try harder to make friends with its neighbors, eventually drop its enabler the United States, and stand on its own, as a nation among nations. That was the point, wasn't it?

            •  Good points (0+ / 0-)

              IMO, Israel needs to try harder to make friends with its neighbors, eventually drop its enabler the United States, and stand on its own, as a nation among nations. That was the point, wasn't it?

              Once a peace deal is reached, Israel will be able to function normally with its neighbors, just like the U.S. has no problem with Canada now.

          •  I am deeply offended (3+ / 0-)

            by the notion that Israel as a Jewish majority state at any cost is necesary because the US might reverse our tolerance for religious expression and oppress religious minorities.

            In a further consideration, in such an odious  scenario where the US turns into a genocidal nation (ugh). how long would Israel exist without US support, which would presumably be eliminated by a replay of state oppression and anti-semitic persecution of Jews?

            Do you knuckleheads even know what you are saying?

            Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

            by Eiron on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:48:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I know all about history (0+ / 0-)

          Too much in fact.

          I am not talking about Palestinian citizens of Israel.  I am talking about those who would become residents under a right of return.  They would not have voting rights just like Canadians living in the U.S.  So Jews would remain in control of Israel.  Everyone is happy.

  •  Well said. A great de-blurring of the issues at (9+ / 0-)

    hand.  Much needed.  You should repost this occasionally.  It's worth repeating to refocus the discussion.

    "Dega dega dega dega. Break up the concrete..." The Pretenders

    by Terra Mystica on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:53:00 AM PST

  •  Simone? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, sustainable

    You always add a voice of calm reason. Thank your for this thoughtful diary and your upstanding comments in the face of attack.

    I aspire to be a man of your patience.

  •  Thanks for this, sd! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    simone daud

    And for debunking the memes (an ongoing process).  If you know sabbah, tell him "hi" for me.

    "Trolling is a sad reality of internet life...Directly replying to the content of a trollish message is usually a waste of time"

    by Rusty Pipes on Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 01:39:28 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site