My Response to Mr. Ammous’s Opinion Piece.

In the previous post, I printed “Why the Right of Return Matters to Palestinians” by Saifedean Ammous.  Here is my response.  I have put the passages of Mr. Ammous’s essay in quotes.

 

“In 1948, as Zionist gangs set about ethnically cleansing most of Palestine”

 

In 1948, a war was going on.  There were “gangs” on both sides.  There was ethnic cleansing on both sides.  For instance, Arab forces captured the village of Kfar Etzion and proceeded to “ethnically cleanse” (i.e. murder) all the Jews living there, numbering at least 75 and possibly more than 100.

 

 

“Israel has to remain a Jewish state, they argue, and giving Palestinians a right to return would mean no more Jewish majority, which would bring about a system of governance not based on religious exclusivity.”

 

For me, the main reason Israel needs to remain a Jewish state is because of the history of anti-Semitism.  History has shown that the Jews were unsafe in a world in which they did not have a country to use as a haven, and an army to defend themselves.  They were expelled from one country after another in Europe during the Middle Ages and Renaissance.  In the 19^th and 20^th centuries, they were the targets of pogroms in Russia and many other countries. 

The most recent example is, of course, the Holocaust.  Prior to WWII, many German Jews were able to escape to the Jewish National Home in Palestine.  But in 1939, the British decided to issue the “White Paper”, which cut off Jewish immigration to Palestine.  As a result, the Jews had no haven.  This is dramatically illustrated by the story of the St. Louis, a ship carrying German Jewish refugees.  It went from port to port, and was refused entry.  The ship then returned to Europe, where many of the Jews were eventually murdered.  During the war, some Jews urged the Allies to use military force to try to directly stop the genocide.  But such action was not a high priority for the Allies. 

Today, as long as Israel exists, it will never happen again that Jews are defenseless and have no place to go.  Israel has shown that it can serve this purpose.  It has allowed in Jewish refugees from post-Nazi Europe, from Arab countries like Yemen and Iraq, from Ethiopia, and from the Soviet Union.  It has also shown that it can defend itself and its people from dictators and terrorists. 

The Palestinians also require a homeland.  I favor a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, BUT ONLY if that state agrees to live in permanent peace with Israel. 

 

 

“Never in history has a religious state not led to massive bloodshed.”

 

I would not call Israel a religious state.  The vast majority of Israelis are not particularly religious.  It is true that the religious Jews have too much power in the Israeli government, but this does not change the fact that Israel is needed as a haven and protector for the Jewish people.  The Jews are, after all, a people, not just a religion. 

 

 

“The Zionist movement’s terrorist gangs had to undertake an enormous premeditated program of ethnic cleansing that murdered thousands and displaced almost a million Palestinians from their homes, for no reason other than that they believed in the wrong god.”

 

Again, both sides had “terrorist gangs”, and both engaged in ethnic cleansing and murder.  And the idea that Israel fought the Arabs because the Arabs worship the “wrong god” is absurd.  Palestinian Arabs launched pogroms against Jews in 1920, 1929, 1936-39, and again in 1947.  If someone is trying to murder me and my family, I don’t care if they worship my god, their god, or no god at all.  I’m going to fight back.

 

 

“That it is necessary for many Palestinians to return to their home can be seen from the terrible conditions in which many refugees live in countries surrounding Palestine.”

 

I agree.  As I said, I favor a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

 

 

“Even if one were to ignore them, the right of return remains vital, and we as Palestinians should continue to cling to this inalienable right after almost 60 years, since it is the only commendable and honorable thing to do, and it is the only path to achieve a true and comprehensive peace.”

 

I oppose a general right of return for Palestinians into Israel.  Any sovereign country has the right to decide who to let in and who not to.  Certainly the Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, when established, should offer a right of return to all Palestinians, just as Israel offers a right of return to all Jews. 

If Israel were to let in all Palestinian Arabs, they would likely vote to end the Jewish state, and Jews would be unsafe in the world again, with no haven and no army.  Worse, many of the Palestinians are hostile to Jews, and would launch pogroms again, as in 1920, 1929, 1936-39, and 1947.     

 

 

“In my case, I would be lying if I said I needed these orange groves. My grandfather has 56 descendants spread out all over the world, and splitting these lands is unlikely to give any of us a large amount of land or money. Yet that does not in any way diminish my determination to fight until my last day for these lands, and all my cousins all over the world think similarly.”

 

First of all, other people might own those lands now.  If you come in and take over, that would be unfair to them.  The Israelis have the right to decide whether or not to let you live in Israel.  If you are hostile, Israel has the right to keep you out.  If Israel lets you in, then you must respect Israel’s laws.  If the land now belongs to someone else, you must respect their rights, but the government should compensate you.  If the government still owns the land, then you should be able to make a claim.  If Israel does not let you in, then Israel should compensate you for the land.

 

 

“The way to end racial conflict in the American South was not for Rosa Parks and blacks to give up their rights to the front of the bus and ‘let everyone live in peace’, but by ending the system that denies someone the right to sit in a certain part of a bus depending on their skin color. Similarly, peace in Palestine will not come when Palestinians give up their right to own a piece of land because of the religion to which they were born; but rather, when we abolish the system that assigns plots of lands, houses and villages to people based on what version of god they believe in.”

 

This analogy is a bit absurd.  Rosa Parks would probably have been horrified if, in order to end discrimination against blacks, the tactics used were hijackings, shootings, bombings, suicide-bombings, and rocket attacks.  By the way, the greatest civil rights leader of them all, Martin Luther King, had this to say about Zionism:

“You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely ‘anti-Zionist’… When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews – this is God’s own truth. Anti-Semitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind.”

And again, the issue is not the religious differences between Jews and Arabs, but the continuing war.  If a Palestinian shows he is willing to live in Israel in peace, and nobody else owns his former land, then he should be able to claim it.  If someone else now owns the land, or he is not welcome in Israel, then he should be compensated.

Palestinians and Israel – Debate

I recently came across an opinion piece by Saifedean Ammous, a Palestinian giving his political views on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  Although I disagree with it, it is well-written and strong, and I would enjoy debating Mr. Ammous.  Since he has a blog here at WordPress, I thought I’d start one also. 

Here is his opinion piece.  In the next post, I will give my response.  If I make any goofs along the way, I apologize.  I am new at this (blogging).

 

Why the Right of Return Matters to Palestinians

Saifedean Ammous

July 16, 2007

 

My father’s family is from a Palestinian town named Atteel that lies a few kilometers north of the West Bank city of Tulkarem. In 1948, as Zionist gangs set about ethnically cleansing most of Palestine, they did not succeed in eradicating our village. Today, the town lies in the West Bank, just east of the Green Line—the virtual separation line between the West Bank and “Israel proper”. Some of Atteel’s agricultural land was not as lucky—it fell on the other side of the partition and now forms part of the state of Israel. My grandfather had orange groves there that went to Israel, and are now owned by the Jewish National Fund, and can only be given to Jews. Any person claiming to be Jewish from anywhere in the world can travel to Israel, receive an Israeli passport and be given that land by the Israeli government at a subsidized price. Meanwhile, my cousins and I, some of whom live meters away from that land are not even allowed to set foot on it. Such is real estate in “The Only Democracy in the Middle East.”

Whenever peace is discussed, the majority of Israelis and westerners (and many Arabs) automatically assume that in order for there to be peace, the Palestinians need to give up their right of return. Israel has to remain a Jewish state, they argue, and giving Palestinians a right to return would mean no more Jewish majority, which would bring about a system of governance not based on religious exclusivity. It always amuses me when people make this argument with a straight face. Instead of ethnic cleansing and expulsion—an unquestionable evil—being used as an argument against a religiously exclusive racist state, the presence of the religiously exclusive racist state is used as an excuse for the propagation of ethnic cleansing and expulsion.

The problem that any secular or humanist (or even rational) person would have with the idea of a religious state is that it is a recipe for disaster, conflict and oppression. Never in history has a religious state not led to massive bloodshed. In Israel, this is obviously true: to set up a Jewish state in a land that was predominantly non-Jewish, the Zionist movement’s terrorist gangs had to undertake an enormous premeditated program of ethnic cleansing that murdered thousands and displaced almost a million Palestinians from their homes, for no reason other than that they believed in the wrong god. Israel then destroyed their homes (and some 400 of their villages) and denied them their right to return to them. Ilan Pappe has recently published a book detailing and documenting the elaborate nature of these crimes, how their planning started in the late 1930’s and how cynical and ruthless their execution was.

That monstrous crime against humanity had to be carried out in order to establish a religiously exclusive state should give us pause to think about the desirability of having any religiously-exclusive state, especially in a place as religiously diverse as historic Palestine, and especially considering that this state has not stopped expanding its territory until today, as can be attested by the increasing building of religiously-exclusive colonies in the West Bank. Instead, many people are hypocritical and racist enough to state that this crime needs to be continued, with millions denied their right to return, in order to save the existence of this religiously-exclusive racist state.

That the right of return is legal is not something even worth arguing, it is fully and comprehensively established in international law and UN resolutions. That it is necessary for many Palestinians to return to their home can be seen from the terrible conditions in which many refugees live in countries surrounding Palestine. Getting these lands back will be what these people need to lift them out of the horrible poverty of exile in which they have lived for 60 years. These vital uncontroversial issues are not the points I want to make today. Even if one were to ignore them, the right of return remains vital, and we as Palestinians should continue to cling to this inalienable right after almost 60 years, since it is the only commendable and honorable thing to do, and it is the only path to achieve a true and comprehensive peace.

In my case, I would be lying if I said I needed these orange groves. My grandfather has 56 descendants spread out all over the world, and splitting these lands is unlikely to give any of us a large amount of land or money. Yet that does not in any way diminish my determination to fight until my last day for these lands, and all my cousins all over the world think similarly. In order to understand this “unreasonable” demagogical clinging to old pieces of land, it might be instructive to contrast it with another famous case of someone “unreasonably” refusing to give up something which a racist authority had told them they were not entitled to.

When Rosa Parks got on a bus in Montgomery and was asked to move to the back of the bus, she refused. It was an honorable stance in the face of incredible racism. This, as is well known, led to an invigoration of the civil rights movement and mobilized the masses to the streets until they were victorious and segregation was abolished all over the south.

After abolishing segregation, Rosa Parks may have never taken a bus, or sat in the front of it. Her descendants may never think about where they sit when they board a bus, if they ever take one. Everyone would agree that the problem with segregation is not with the mere act of sitting in the front of a bus, it is about living in a society that bans people from sitting in the front of the bus based on their race. This is equally a problem for someone who takes the bus every day and someone who never takes it.

The same people who tell me I am being unreasonable clinging on to my grandfather’s land, should surely have told Rosa Parks that she was unreasonable clinging on to the seat in the front of the bus. After all, a lot of protests, riots, clashes and lynchings resulted from the civil rights movement, surely, it would’ve been better for the sake of “peace” for Rosa Parks to have compromised and moved to the back of the bus. Similarly, a lot of resistance, fighting and murder resulted from Palestinians not giving up their right of return and it would’ve been better for the sake of “peace” for Palestinians to have compromised and forgotten their homes and lands. This, of course, is equally nonsensical in both cases.

However, most people who tell me to forget my land in Palestine would never be caught dead saying Rosa Parks was unreasonable. But the blatant hypocrisy is still lost on them. Why is it that in one case, blacks should not give up a seat on a bus because of their race, while Palestinians should give up their own lands, homes and villages on which they and their ancestors have lived for millennia because of their religion (or lack thereof)?

The way to end racial conflict in the American South was not for Rosa Parks and blacks to give up their rights to the front of the bus and ‘let everyone live in peace’, but by ending the system that denies someone the right to sit in a certain part of a bus depending on their skin color. Similarly, peace in Palestine will not come when Palestinians give up their right to own a piece of land because of the religion to which they were born; but rather, when we abolish the system that assigns plots of lands, houses and villages to people based on what version of god they believe in.

I will never consider there to be peace in Palestine so long as I can visit my grandfather’s house in Atteel and look a few kilometers west to see my land that I can not visit, own, or sell. The day I can reclaim that land, I will visit it once, savor the feeling, and the very next day, I’ll sell my share of it to the highest bidder regardless of their religion, race or ethnicity, and donate the money to an educational institute that will teach the children of Palestine, regardless of their religion, race or ethnicity about the importance of equality and justice, about Rosa Parks, and about how peace could never be achieved on the basis of racist exclusion, whether it be from the front of a bus or from an orange grove.

 

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!