Palestinian right of return

[politicus]

1) Israeli exceptionalism. The belief that the Western world owes the Jews to secure them a nation state after persecuting them for centuries while we do not owe the Palestinians anything.

2) Context/time. Expulsion as a consequence of war was generally accepted in that era (Germans from Eastern Europe, Indian partition etc.). We are before the postwar human rights regime (in the politological sense of a comprehensive set of norms, discourse, practices and structures) was established and it is anachronistic to apply those norms to that era. The DoHR is from 1948, but it had not yet translated into an actual HR regime - even among Western countries. Today we view it differently and the Dayton agreement gave Bosnians the right to return - and a few did, but it will open a can of worms to try to correct old wrongdoings using a similar yardstick (several Western countries are themselves founded on some form of ethnic cleansing).

3) Whataboutery. There are other more questionable ethnic cleansings like the Turkish one in Hatay in 1939 (it was done in peacetime and the French  had no legal or moral right to cede that territory to Turkey), which makes it less obvious why the Israeli expulsion of Arabs should be singled out as one to be reversed.

4) The practical view. The long term Jewish character of Israel is already under pressure from a high Arab birth rate. In such a situation general paranoia is increased and will sky rocket if you start talking about return of 1948 refugees. There will never be peace if the Israelis do not feel secure.

It is a mix of reasons held in different proportion by different people. The last one is the one people will most often tell you. The first might be the most important. The second and third are important to me.

[politicus]

1) Israeli exceptionalism. The belief that the Western world owes the Jews to secure them a nation state after persecuting them for centuries while we do not owe the Palestinians anything.

2) Context/time. Expulsion as a consequence of war was generally accepted in that era (Germans from Eastern Europe, Indian partition etc.). We are before the postwar human rights regime (in the politological sense of a comprehensive set of norms, discourse, practices and structures) was established and it is anachronistic to apply those norms to that era. The DoHR is from 1948, but it had not yet translated into an actual HR regime - even among Western countries. Today we view it differently and the Dayton agreement gave Bosnians the right to return - and a few did, but it will open a can of worms to try to correct old wrongdoings using a similar yardstick (several Western countries are themselves founded on some form of ethnic cleansing).

3) Whataboutery. There are other more questionable ethnic cleansings like the Turkish one in Hatay in 1939 (it was done in peacetime and the French  had no legal or moral right to cede that territory to Turkey), which makes it less obvious why the Israeli expulsion of Arabs should be singled out as one to be reversed.

4) The practical view. The long term Jewish character of Israel is already under pressure from a high Arab birth rate. In such a situation general paranoia is increased and will sky rocket if you start talking about return of 1948 refugees. There will never be peace if the Israelis do not feel secure.

It is a mix of reasons held in different proportion by different people. The last one is the one people will most often tell you. The first might be the most important. The second and third are important to me.

No it isn't. Arab birth rates are dropping, while Jewish birth rates are rising (because Haredim).

They have dropped more than I thought, but in 2013 the Jewish birth rate was 1.7%, the Muslim 2.4% and the Christian 1.6%. So the Arab share of the Israeli population is still increasing -  and significant parts of the country are already Arab majority. A right of return would tip the balance.

Anyway, my main argument here was perception. The paranoia unleashed by the thought of becoming a minority in your own country. This is a powerful factor.

[politicus]

Millions of people moving back would of course change the ethnic balance. Ga

Israel experienced a turning point in spring 2012, when Jews became a minority in the old Palestrina (5.9 mio. of 12 mio.). Of course this could be reduced drastically by dumping (most of) the occupied territories, but it does add to the sense of insecurity. Most of Gaza's population would likely choose repatriation if they got the chance - it is a hellhole.

One additional aspect is the high population density in the area. 12 million+ is a lot in such a small an area with limited water resources.

There is a strategic aspect as well: Israel without the Arab majority and significant minority areas (25%+) is basically just the coastal strip + Negev. Today there are major cultural differences betwen Israeli Arabs and West Bank Arabs, but if those started to dwindle by returning Palestinians forming a link and/or becoming a majority/large plurality among Israeli Arabs that would increase the demand for Palestinian unification.

[politicus]

It would quite simply be in no one's interest.

The Palestinians with the worst living conditions (notably most of the ones in Gaza, but also some from Lebanon) would still be better off even in a collapsing Israel.

[politicus]

Also, PJ, agree with everything you said, with the exception of the end goal being secularization. While this might be nice, it is unlikely, for various demographic reasons, and attempting to blindly pursue secularization has generally proven disastrous (ex: the gigantic cluster**** achieved by trying to integrate Haredim into the armed services). Unless you're willing to go into Beit Shemesh and pulling a Peter the Great on them, it's best to work with them to allow them to live their lives as they want, while minimizing the amount of Haredism that spills outside their communities.

Haredism does pose a unique issue. I would prefer Israel abolish conscription entirely and extend a basic minimum income to all instead of requiring Haredis to work. However, the growing population of Haredi Jews means that they are going to have a growing influence over public policy, and it's imperative that the government stops bending over backwards to that before the Haredi population grows even more.

Secularization is important for more reasons than just Haredi integration though. The entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict is kept alive by the Jew vs. Muslim mentality. If the Israeli and Palestinian governments cut ties with their Jewish and Muslim roots, symbolically or otherwise, it will help move towards ending the perception of each government representing a certain religion and promote the idea that the Jews and Muslims can coexist.

Zionism is a secular nationalist ideology and some of the most prominent and radical Palestinian nationalists have been Christians, so not buying this argument.

[politicus]

I think that's an overstatement. I would say it's akin to saying the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights. Yes, states' rights to have slavery. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't about religion, it's about two nationalist ideologies. Yes, what are those nationalist identities based on? One group being Jews and the other not being Jews.

Bad analogy is bad, as the late Comrade Kitteh would have said.

[politicus]

Both Lebanon and Jordan are countries with a delicate ethnic balance and small populations. Jordan is majority Palestinian no matter what, so giving citizenship to the last 400 000 may be reasonable, although obviously not something the Bedouin descendants would like. Lebanon is a different story. It will make it even harder for the country to function if you give citizen rights to the Palestinians. Resettlement would be preferable - the question is of course where.

You also set a dangerous precedent if countries that take in refugees are forced to make them citizens later on. If accepted as the norm that will increase the number of countries that simply refuse to take any refugees in the first place.

[politicus]

Both Lebanon and Jordan are countries with a delicate ethnic balance and small populations. Jordan is majority Palestinian no matter what, so giving citizenship to the last 400 000 may be reasonable, although obviously not something the Bedouin descendants would like. Lebanon is a different story. It will make it even harder for the country to function if you give citizen rights to the Palestinians. Resettlement would be preferable - the question is of course where.

You also set a dangerous precedent if countries that take in refugees are forced to make them citizens later on. If accepted as the norm that will increase the number of countries that simply refuse to take any refugees in the first place.

How about in Palestine?

Dunno, the place is pretty packed as it is