Palestinian right of return

[Thunderbird is the word]

So I might be lighting a match with this post but here goes. If you believe that Israel should continue to exist in its current form, an ethnically Jewish defined state how do you square that with the fact that it violates the fundamental human right of return? Speaking as someone who is part Jewish I don't think it's right that I should be able to emigrate to Israel when my ancestors came from Russia and Poland but Palestinians who are only a generation or two removed shouldn't be able to. It's why I think that ideally there should be one secular state.

[dead0man]

Ideally there should be a lot of things, but the real world often doesn't go the ideal way.  There is no chance of a single, secular state there any time in the next, say, 75 years.  (absent some huge, world changing event)

[PJ]

A single secular state, while certainly nice on paper and the best solution from an idealist standpoint, is not very practical. Palestine ought to be recognized under the 1967 borders and the right of self-determination needs to be prioritized; the U.S. should also use its influence in the region to encourage secularization of the two states, as opposed to being vociferously pro-Israel in all circumstances.

[MalaspinaGold]

A few notes:
a) Israel already has a housing crisis; this would just make it astronomically worse.
b) There is no such thing as an enforced fundamental right of return. Rarely do we see cases where people kicked out of a country are given special rights to go back. This isn't the case with Pakistan/India, or East European Germans, or Middle Eastern Jews, or Greek Cypriots from Northern Cyprus, etc. etc. etc. Now it is true that some countries have voluntarily established some sort of limited right of return, but it should be noted that for the most part, these have come about voluntarily, rather than coerced from the international community, and furthermore have been mostly symbolic (LOLSpain).
c) It would be a political disaster. Political disasters should GENERALLY be avoided, even if it makes some universal humanists sad. Ideally, I'd like to see a United Europe that is completely integrated; it doesn't stop me from calling out the Eurozone from what it is.

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.

[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.

[MalaspinaGold]

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).

[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.

[MalaspinaGold]

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.

Large parts of Israel have always been Arab majority- Triangle, Bedouin areas of the Negev, since 1048. This won't change, and there won't be any flips between "Jewish majority" to "Arab majority", because there are very few places that have roughly equal populations of Jews and Arabs.

Of course if Israel really cared about the so-called "Demographic Armageddon" then it wouldn't keep trying to desperately clutch to the West Bank.

The real problem with the right of return is not the inherent idea of millions of people moving back, but the inescapable economic chaos, coupled with political chaos and backlash this would cause. It would quite simply be in no one's interest.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Demographically, the only way the right of return could work would be by a return to the 1947 partition borders, but that's even less likely to happen than a return to the 1948-1967 armistice borders.

[Indy Texas]

Palestinians from present-day Israel who currently reside in the West Bank or Gaza: will continue to reside in the West Bank/Gaza

Palestinians from present-day Israel who currently reside in Jordan: will continue to reside there and be granted Jordanian citizenship; Israel will pay the Jordanian government an indemnity to compensate them for this transfer

Palestinians from present-day Israel who currently reside in Lebanon or Syria: return to Israel and receive Israeli citizenship; alternately can take a lump sum "buyout" from the Israeli government in return for assistance emigrating to a third country

Palestinians from present-day Israel who currently reside in Egypt: follow the Jordan method above

Palestinians from present-day Israel who currently reside elsewhere and do not have refugee status: monetary compensation

Israeli citizens residing in West Bank settlement blocs not adjacent to Jerusalem: option to take Palestinian citizenship or relocate to Israel

[dead0man]

Do Israeli citizens from Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, S.Arabia, Iran, Libya, Tunisia..(you get the idea) get "monetary compensation" in this scheme of yours?


(and does your lists refer to all their descendants too?  I assume so, cause "special", if so, add that to the question too)

[DavidB.]

Will Jews from the Middle East (and from European countries) who had to flee their country get any monetary compensation as well, or is it only Jews who need to pay?

It is ridiculous that someone who has a grandparent originally from the land of Israel is considered a "Palestinian refugee", who should (according to many) be allowed to live there, while my grandfather fled "his" country in the same era, which doesn't give me any rights, let alone a "refugee status". To be clear, I don't need any refugee rights, monetary compensation, or a refugee status, because that would be pretty bizarre - I'm fine now. But that should be the same with the children of the Arab refugees from Israel, and their new countries should be held responsible if that's not the case.

Nobody would ever argue that Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, or Tunisia need to offer compensation (or citizenship) to the children of the Jews who fled these countries. Let's not apply different standards to Israel.

[ingemann]

Will Jews from the Middle East (and from European countries) who had to flee their country get any monetary compensation as well, or is it only Jews who need to pay?

It is ridiculous that someone who has a grandparent originally from the land of Israel is considered a "Palestinian refugee", who should (according to many) be allowed to live there, while my grandfather fled "his" country in the same era, which doesn't give me any rights, let alone a "refugee status". To be clear, I don't need any refugee rights, monetary compensation, or a refugee status, because that would be pretty bizarre - I'm fine now. But that should be the same with the children of the Arab refugees from Israel, and their new countries should be held responsible if that's not the case.

Nobody would ever argue that Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, or Tunisia need to offer compensation (or citizenship) to the children of the Jews who fled these countries. Let's not apply different standards to Israel.

I don't usual defend Israel, but yes you're right, also we shouldn't ignore the other element; precedence. If the Palestinians right to return are recognised 65 years after they was forced out, we creater a precedence for keeping refugees in a stateless limbo for generations. Do anybody think Germany would look better today if FRG had kept the million of Volkdeutsche refugees in permanent stateless limbo, so that they could claim their former home at a later date?

[PJ]

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.

[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.

[MalaspinaGold]

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.

Basically this. To read this as other than a national issue (Jew vs. Palestinian) is to give certain... apocalyptics the legitimacy they don't deserve.

[Famous Mortimer]

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.

[Indy Texas]

Do Israeli citizens from Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, S.Arabia, Iran, Libya, Tunisia..(you get the idea) get "monetary compensation" in this scheme of yours?


(and does your lists refer to all their descendants too?  I assume so, cause "special", if so, add that to the question too)

Well, they have citizenship and have not been living in refugee camps for the time being. Their situation is very different. A Jew who was expelled from an Arab country or left voluntarily and moved to Israel did not face anywhere near the loss of economic and social capital that a Palestinian who was expelled from Israel to a neighboring country has faced.

[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.

[dead0man]

Do Israeli citizens from Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, S.Arabia, Iran, Libya, Tunisia..(you get the idea) get "monetary compensation" in this scheme of yours?


(and does your lists refer to all their descendants too?  I assume so, cause "special", if so, add that to the question too)

Well, they have citizenship and have not been living in refugee camps for the time being. Their situation is very different. A Jew who was expelled from an Arab country or left voluntarily and moved to Israel did not face anywhere near the loss of economic and social capital that a Palestinian who was expelled from Israel [or left voluntarily, you seem to have missed part here] to a neighboring country has faced.

Indeed, and it seems like nobody involved has learned a damn thing from this situation.  Do you think Jordan, Lebanon, etc would be better off today had they had been as accepting as Israel?  Would the refugees be better off?

(and I'm going to need a cite that the average Palestinian lost more "economic and social capital" when forced to flee than the average Jew that was forced to flee, that seems dubious)

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Do Israeli citizens from Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, S.Arabia, Iran, Libya, Tunisia..(you get the idea) get "monetary compensation" in this scheme of yours?


(and does your lists refer to all their descendants too?  I assume so, cause "special", if so, add that to the question too)

Well, they have citizenship and have not been living in refugee camps for the time being. Their situation is very different. A Jew who was expelled from an Arab country or left voluntarily and moved to Israel did not face anywhere near the loss of economic and social capital that a Palestinian who was expelled from Israel [or left voluntarily, you seem to have missed part here] to a neighboring country has faced.

Indeed, and it seems like nobody involved has learned a damn thing from this situation.  Do you think Jordan, Lebanon, etc would be better off today had they had been as accepting as Israel?  Would the refugees be better off?

(and I'm going to need a cite that the average Palestinian lost more "economic and social capital" when forced to flee than the average Jew that was forced to flee, that seems dubious)

I will agree that it's entirely possible that the average Jewish refugee, no matter where they were from, lost less in the expulsion. That's likely due to how poorly they were treated and how little in the way of capital they were allowed before the expulsion.

Long before countries like Libya were expelling all their Jews, the situation was far from good there. And that's saying nothing of Europe, of course.

[The Mikado]

I suppose the question then becomes, if we're ruling out "right of return," are the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Palestinian refugees who are living in their now-ancestral refugee camps in Jordan going to get processed or settled somehow? The country that ends up holding the bag at the end of this process is Jordan.

(Yes, I get that "only" ~400,00 of the ~3.2 million Palestinians in Jordan live in refugee camps, but that's still a colossal number of people)

[ingemann]

I suppose the question then becomes, if we're ruling out "right of return," are the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Palestinian refugees who are living in their now-ancestral refugee camps in Jordan going to get processed or settled somehow? The country that ends up holding the bag at the end of this process is Jordan.

(Yes, I get that "only" ~400,00 of the ~3.2 million Palestinians in Jordan live in refugee camps, but that's still a colossal number of people)

Are the states which have kept millions in a stateless limbo for generations going to end up holding the bag at the end of the process?

...I hope so.