http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:57:38 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25246 Peter Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:43:24 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25246 <i>There never has been a Palestinian state and there is no record of a distinct Palestinian people until the PLO started claiming this in the 1960’s. So to claim that the settlements in the West Bank or Gaza are “Illegal” is to repeat a lie. What law do they violate?" <i> Even if "there's no such thing as the Palestinians", the residents of the occupied territories of West Bank and Gaza Strip have a right to to the protection of international law. The United Nations, human rights groups, and virtually every nation (except for the United States and Israel) regards the settlments as a violation of international law. Here's what <a href="http://www.btselem.org/english/settlements/illegality.asp">B'tselem</a>, an Israeli human rights group, says: Israel is obligated to act according to the principles of international humanitarian law. According to these principles, Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories violate two principles of international humanitarian law: <b> a. Prohibition on transferring civilians from the territory of the occupying state to the occupied territory </b> Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly provides that, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The commentary of the International Committee of the Red Cross to this article states that the article is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. <b>b. Prohibition on creating in occupied territory permanent changes not intended to benefit the local population </b> A fundamental principle of international humanitarian law relating to territory subject to belligerent occupation is that occupation is essentially a temporary situation. The temporary nature of occupation entails limitations imposed on the occupying power regarding the creation of permanent facts in the occupied territory. .... <i>The rules against keeping conquered territory were created to prevent aggressive war. Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza in a defensive war that was started with the stated purpose of annhilating Israel. </i> Leaving aside the question of whom attacked whom in 1967, this is clearly wrong. The prohibition against annexation of territory by war applies to all wars, including wars of self-defense. Go back and look at the text of Resolution 242; it explicitly emphsizes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" </i></i> There never has been a Palestinian state and there is no record of a distinct Palestinian people until the PLO started claiming this in the 1960’s. So to claim that the settlements in the West Bank or Gaza are “Illegal” is to repeat a lie. What law do they violate?” Even if “there’s no such thing as the Palestinians”, the residents of the occupied territories of West Bank and Gaza Strip have a right to to the protection of international law. The United Nations, human rights groups, and virtually every nation (except for the United States and Israel) regards the settlments as a violation of international law. Here’s what B’tselem, an Israeli human rights group, says: Israel is obligated to act according to the principles of international humanitarian law. According to these principles, Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories violate two principles of international humanitarian law: a. Prohibition on transferring civilians from the territory of the occupying state to the occupied territory Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly provides that, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The commentary of the International Committee of the Red Cross to this article states that the article is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. b. Prohibition on creating in occupied territory permanent changes not intended to benefit the local population A fundamental principle of international humanitarian law relating to territory subject to belligerent occupation is that occupation is essentially a temporary situation. The temporary nature of occupation entails limitations imposed on the occupying power regarding the creation of permanent facts in the occupied territory. …. The rules against keeping conquered territory were created to prevent aggressive war. Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza in a defensive war that was started with the stated purpose of annhilating Israel. Leaving aside the question of whom attacked whom in 1967, this is clearly wrong. The prohibition against annexation of territory by war applies to all wars, including wars of self-defense. Go back and look at the text of Resolution 242; it explicitly emphsizes the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25245 Bill Carone Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:24:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25245 Steve, "I would deny the great-nephew of the woman who fled in the 1930s the right of compensation. There was no harm done to the great-nephew. What is he being compensated for? You may be able to inherit property — in an ideal world, I’d be against this, but I think people have to be able to dispose of their stuff as they wish — but you can’t inherit a moral claim." The woman still had title to her property; the property can be stolen, but not the title. She can then transfer title to her great-nephew, either by bequest or other methods. That means that the great-nephew has a right to the property. I don't know enough of the history to tell if this is what happened, but in this case it is clear that the great-nephew has a claim, no? He is suffering harm by not being allowed access to his property (i.e. property to which he has title). Steve, “I would deny the great-nephew of the woman who fled in the 1930s the right of compensation. There was no harm done to the great-nephew. What is he being compensated for? You may be able to inherit property — in an ideal world, I’d be against this, but I think people have to be able to dispose of their stuff as they wish — but you can’t inherit a moral claim.” The woman still had title to her property; the property can be stolen, but not the title. She can then transfer title to her great-nephew, either by bequest or other methods. That means that the great-nephew has a right to the property. I don’t know enough of the history to tell if this is what happened, but in this case it is clear that the great-nephew has a claim, no? He is suffering harm by not being allowed access to his property (i.e. property to which he has title).

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25244 davec Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:38:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25244 It is my understanding that it is a capital crime in Jordan to sell land to a Jew, and the Palistinian Authority takes this as their law, and in fact executes people who are suspected of doing so. Now, there are quite a few Muslim Arab property owners in Israel, but it appears to me that the Jews must be held to a different standard. The Palistinians must have a right to return, but the fact that it is against the law for a Jew to be a citizen of Jordan is quite proper given historical precedent dating to the beginning of the 20th century. The Palistinians cannot be compensated for land seized by the Jews; Jews have no right to own any property whatsoever because property rights are trumped by religion and tradition. It is my understanding that it is a capital crime in Jordan to sell land to a Jew, and the Palistinian Authority takes this as their law, and in fact executes people who are suspected of doing so. Now, there are quite a few Muslim Arab property owners in Israel, but it appears to me that the Jews must be held to a different standard. The Palistinians must have a right to return, but the fact that it is against the law for a Jew to be a citizen of Jordan is quite proper given historical precedent dating to the beginning of the 20th century. The Palistinians cannot be compensated for land seized by the Jews; Jews have no right to own any property whatsoever because property rights are trumped by religion and tradition.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25243 Jonathan Edelstein Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:16:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25243 <i>The practical side mandated by the fact that in this world property rights are valid is handled easily by the distribution of a sum of money to the existing refugees. [McGill] puts the number at 3.2M. Give each one $50,000. That’s $155B.</i> Your numbers are both too high and too low. On the one hand, compensation is likely to be by household rather than by person - the heirs of each property owner will share his claim. There were about 750,000 refugees in 1948 - say, about 180,000 families at a generous estimate - and that's how many claims will exist. On the other hand, $50,000 per claim is far too little, because it's (1) less than the fair market value of the properties today, and (2) less than the WB and Gaza settlers are likely to receive for <i>their</i> evacuation. I doubt the Palestinians would settle for less than what the settlers get, so instead of 3.2 million claims at $50,000, there would be 180,000 at $250,000 to 500,000. In any event, I didn't see anything in Bush's statement that ruled out financial compensation or even the United States' right to insist on such compensation. Needless to say, I think the refugees <i>should</i> be compensated, and this is true no matter who was originally at fault for the refugee problem, simply because Israel has benefited from their property. The practical side mandated by the fact that in this world property rights are valid is handled easily by the distribution of a sum of money to the existing refugees. [McGill] puts the number at 3.2M. Give each one $50,000. That’s $155B. Your numbers are both too high and too low. On the one hand, compensation is likely to be by household rather than by person – the heirs of each property owner will share his claim. There were about 750,000 refugees in 1948 – say, about 180,000 families at a generous estimate – and that’s how many claims will exist. On the other hand, $50,000 per claim is far too little, because it’s (1) less than the fair market value of the properties today, and (2) less than the WB and Gaza settlers are likely to receive for their evacuation. I doubt the Palestinians would settle for less than what the settlers get, so instead of 3.2 million claims at $50,000, there would be 180,000 at $250,000 to 500,000. In any event, I didn’t see anything in Bush’s statement that ruled out financial compensation or even the United States’ right to insist on such compensation. Needless to say, I think the refugees should be compensated, and this is true no matter who was originally at fault for the refugee problem, simply because Israel has benefited from their property.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25242 Warren Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:18:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25242 The region of Palestine became a legal entity with defined borders when Great Britain was given the Palestine Mandate by the League of Nations in 1920. There was no Palestinian nation nor any record of a distinct Palestinian people at this time. The UN Partition of Palestine in 1947 was a Partition into an Arab part and a Jewish part. Given the circumstances, everybody in the UN who proposed or voted for the resolution knew that Partition meant the forced relocation of people. There is no other possible meaning. In world still wracked by the results of WWII, compensation seemed impossible. There were too many other outstanding disasters in China, Japan, Germany, Poland, Russia, Czechoslovokia, Yugoslovia, Great Britain, Israel, and so on. These other disaster zones have "Compensated" themselves by economic growth, and the relocated Arabs should have done likewise. Instead, they refused to deal with their situation and insisted that they would be refugees forever until the Partition was annulled. Under these circumstances, dreaming of orange groves was dreaming of bloodshed. I don't even know if there were any orange groves there in 1947. The current poverty of the Palestinians is the result of their lust for war, not of the Partition of 1947. Indeed, the presence of the Jewish State has created employment for the Palestinians and has raised their standard of living . The land of the West Bank and Gaza is, like antarctica, outside the boundaries of any country, and both Jew and Arabs are allowed to live there under the terms of the various treaties of the 20th century that created the modern middle east. In particular see the San Remo Conference of 1920 that created the modern middle east. There never has been a Palestinian state and there is no record of a distinct Palestinian people until the PLO started claiming this in the 1960's. So to claim that the settlements in the West Bank or Gaza are "Illegal" is to repeat a lie. What law do they violate? The rules against keeping conquered territory were created to prevent aggressive war. Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza in a defensive war that was started with the stated purpose of annhilating Israel. And the West Bank and Gaza was seized from Jordan and Egypt, respectively, who had ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL RIGHT to that territory, merely having conquered it in recent wars! Furthermore, Israel offered to give up the territory in return for a peace treaty and recognition from the Palestinians, who refused. The region of Palestine became a legal entity with defined borders when Great Britain was given the Palestine Mandate by the League of Nations in 1920. There was no Palestinian nation nor any record of a distinct Palestinian people at this time. The UN Partition of Palestine in 1947 was a Partition into an Arab part and a Jewish part. Given the circumstances, everybody in the UN who proposed or voted for the resolution knew that Partition meant the forced relocation of people. There is no other possible meaning. In world still wracked by the results of WWII, compensation seemed impossible. There were too many other outstanding disasters in China, Japan, Germany, Poland, Russia, Czechoslovokia, Yugoslovia, Great Britain, Israel, and so on. These other disaster zones have “Compensated” themselves by economic growth, and the relocated Arabs should have done likewise. Instead, they refused to deal with their situation and insisted that they would be refugees forever until the Partition was annulled. Under these circumstances, dreaming of orange groves was dreaming of bloodshed. I don’t even know if there were any orange groves there in 1947. The current poverty of the Palestinians is the result of their lust for war, not of the Partition of 1947. Indeed, the presence of the Jewish State has created employment for the Palestinians and has raised their standard of living . The land of the West Bank and Gaza is, like antarctica, outside the boundaries of any country, and both Jew and Arabs are allowed to live there under the terms of the various treaties of the 20th century that created the modern middle east. In particular see the San Remo Conference of 1920 that created the modern middle east. There never has been a Palestinian state and there is no record of a distinct Palestinian people until the PLO started claiming this in the 1960’s. So to claim that the settlements in the West Bank or Gaza are “Illegal” is to repeat a lie. What law do they violate? The rules against keeping conquered territory were created to prevent aggressive war. Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza in a defensive war that was started with the stated purpose of annhilating Israel. And the West Bank and Gaza was seized from Jordan and Egypt, respectively, who had ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL RIGHT to that territory, merely having conquered it in recent wars! Furthermore, Israel offered to give up the territory in return for a peace treaty and recognition from the Palestinians, who refused.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25241 cac Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:09:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25241 Detached observer: No, no objective reason at all. My reasoning runs along the lines that if we can identify someone who has been harmed then to the extent that they did not contribute to that harm (which means I think a hierarchy of compensation with the Arab ordered out of his village at gunpoint at the top and the Arab who left happy in the prospect of returning a few weeks later to find all the Jews dead at the bottom - and I think the evidence is pretty clear that the cases did range across this spectrum)then we either compensate them or reinstate them in full. But their children are certainly disadvantaged as a result of this and so have some claim but not as much because one would expect other factors to become significant in determining their life outcomes. The third generation even less so and by the fourth generation one would expect the impact of dispossession to have been largely dissipated. This doesn't mean incidentally that I don't accept the Palestinians are still suffering from the effects of the Nakba, rather that by now other factors should have countered this. The fact that they have not is only in small part the fault of the Israelis. I should add as a somewhat gratuitous aside, any situation where a Palestinian right of return erodes in this way is to say the least inconsistent with the current situation where a Jew in New York can decide he would like to live in the West Bank and move there tomorrow. If the right of return is to be abrogated by the Palestinians and I think it must be to a great extent, then there can be no case for a Jewish right outside the 1967 borders unless you approach it from the perspective of a religious Jew, which I presume most posting here are not. Detached observer: No, no objective reason at all. My reasoning runs along the lines that if we can identify someone who has been harmed then to the extent that they did not contribute to that harm (which means I think a hierarchy of compensation with the Arab ordered out of his village at gunpoint at the top and the Arab who left happy in the prospect of returning a few weeks later to find all the Jews dead at the bottom – and I think the evidence is pretty clear that the cases did range across this spectrum)then we either compensate them or reinstate them in full. But their children are certainly disadvantaged as a result of this and so have some claim but not as much because one would expect other factors to become significant in determining their life outcomes. The third generation even less so and by the fourth generation one would expect the impact of dispossession to have been largely dissipated. This doesn’t mean incidentally that I don’t accept the Palestinians are still suffering from the effects of the Nakba, rather that by now other factors should have countered this. The fact that they have not is only in small part the fault of the Israelis. I should add as a somewhat gratuitous aside, any situation where a Palestinian right of return erodes in this way is to say the least inconsistent with the current situation where a Jew in New York can decide he would like to live in the West Bank and move there tomorrow. If the right of return is to be abrogated by the Palestinians and I think it must be to a great extent, then there can be no case for a Jewish right outside the 1967 borders unless you approach it from the perspective of a religious Jew, which I presume most posting here are not.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25240 Gary Farber Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:35:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25240 "They have, as a matter of morality, a right to return, and if subsequent history — and the conflicting right of today’s citizens of Israel — means that that right cannot or should not be enforced, then they should be appropriately compensated." That's a key line, and I fully agree they should be compensated (of course, the overwhelming majority of those claiming the right of "return" are descendents, but that makes no matter in this regard). As a Jew, I'll agree that Bush went too far in endorsing Sharon's most extreme proposals. Jonathan Edelstein has made a couple of excellent posts I agree with, <a href="http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/024163.html">here</a> and <a href="http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/024274.html">here</a>. I endorse and recommend them. “They have, as a matter of morality, a right to return, and if subsequent history — and the conflicting right of today’s citizens of Israel — means that that right cannot or should not be enforced, then they should be appropriately compensated.” That’s a key line, and I fully agree they should be compensated (of course, the overwhelming majority of those claiming the right of “return” are descendents, but that makes no matter in this regard). As a Jew, I’ll agree that Bush went too far in endorsing Sharon’s most extreme proposals. Jonathan Edelstein has made a couple of excellent posts I agree with, here and here. I endorse and recommend them.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25239 Detached Observer Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:13:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25239 "I’m not sure that post Deir Yassin one could regard fears that Arabs would be harmed as completely without foundation. " Even if this were true -- can a state be held accountable for the (logical) deducation of those who abandon their homes? Hypothetical: suppose that I am an American citizen of Arab descent who concludes, not illogically, based on the numerous cases where American citizens were held without a right to trial, that I'm in grave danger. I decide to flee the country. If it helps make this more realistic, assume I've given money to some charity that I found out later was linked to terrorism. Not keen on the possibility of being flown to Guantanamo, I leave the country. Can descendants demand the right of return 50 -- or 225 -- years down the line? “I’m not sure that post Deir Yassin one could regard fears that Arabs would be harmed as completely without foundation. ” Even if this were true—can a state be held accountable for the (logical) deducation of those who abandon their homes? Hypothetical: suppose that I am an American citizen of Arab descent who concludes, not illogically, based on the numerous cases where American citizens were held without a right to trial, that I’m in grave danger. I decide to flee the country. If it helps make this more realistic, assume I’ve given money to some charity that I found out later was linked to terrorism. Not keen on the possibility of being flown to Guantanamo, I leave the country. Can descendants demand the right of return 50—or 225—years down the line?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25238 Detached Observer Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:58:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25238 Cac, Interesting. Why third or fourth generation? I can appreciate that intuitively this seems right to you, but is there any objective reason for saying no to 225 years ago and yes to 50 years ago? What if 225 years down the line, the descendents have not fully assimilated into the societies they currenly live in? Does that turn the no into yes? Cac, Interesting. Why third or fourth generation? I can appreciate that intuitively this seems right to you, but is there any objective reason for saying no to 225 years ago and yes to 50 years ago? What if 225 years down the line, the descendents have not fully assimilated into the societies they currenly live in? Does that turn the no into yes?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25237 cac Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:26:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25237 I'm not sure that post Deir Yassin one could regard fears that Arabs would be harmed as completely without foundation. The Israeli historian Benny Morris has done signficant work in this area and it is clear that what you were taught is only part of the reason for why Palestinians left. Some were driven out literally at gunpoint while others feared they would be murdered. Re the British loyalists, of course there is no case for compensation and I think they were resettled in Novia Scotia with the rights of British subjects in any case. But I wouldn't necessarily be so definite if this were 1836 and there were people still alive who'd lost their property as a result of the revolution. Intuitively I feel these sort of claims start to erode at the third or fourth generation when you would think that the impact of dispossession must be outweighed by more immediate factors. I’m not sure that post Deir Yassin one could regard fears that Arabs would be harmed as completely without foundation. The Israeli historian Benny Morris has done signficant work in this area and it is clear that what you were taught is only part of the reason for why Palestinians left. Some were driven out literally at gunpoint while others feared they would be murdered. Re the British loyalists, of course there is no case for compensation and I think they were resettled in Novia Scotia with the rights of British subjects in any case. But I wouldn’t necessarily be so definite if this were 1836 and there were people still alive who’d lost their property as a result of the revolution. Intuitively I feel these sort of claims start to erode at the third or fourth generation when you would think that the impact of dispossession must be outweighed by more immediate factors.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25236 nick Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:11:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25236 <i>Maybe Tony Blair could use the White House influence he has gained, by backing the war in Mesopotamia, to revive the road map?</i> Maybe Tony Blair could use the experience he's gathered from negotiations in Northern Ireland, where 'final status' negotiations haven't been foreclosed in the way that Bush and Sharon seem to have managed, and the peace process has advanced in (yes, stuttering) incremental steps in order to create sufficient distance from armed conflict to make it easier, eventually, to accept necessary compromises than to step back towards violence? That's to say, the time publically to address the right of return is not while armed conflict continues. Maybe Tony Blair could use the White House influence he has gained, by backing the war in Mesopotamia, to revive the road map? Maybe Tony Blair could use the experience he’s gathered from negotiations in Northern Ireland, where ‘final status’ negotiations haven’t been foreclosed in the way that Bush and Sharon seem to have managed, and the peace process has advanced in (yes, stuttering) incremental steps in order to create sufficient distance from armed conflict to make it easier, eventually, to accept necessary compromises than to step back towards violence? That’s to say, the time publically to address the right of return is not while armed conflict continues.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25235 Phill Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:11:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25235 You know what, the more I read the writings of Israeli appologists for laws that say one thing for jews and another for non-jews the more I think 'screw them'. No the world would be a better place if the State of Israel were disolved and replaced by a democracy. You know what, the more I read the writings of Israeli appologists for laws that say one thing for jews and another for non-jews the more I think ‘screw them’. No the world would be a better place if the State of Israel were disolved and replaced by a democracy.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25234 Detached Observer Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:18:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25234 Cac, Yes, I am (sort of) conceding that. If any were forced from their homes, they should be allowed to return; or, perhaps, compensated monetarily with what their home would be worth now. If they incorrectly thought they were going to be harmed once jews came to power -- you can't hold the government of Israel responsible for this mistaken notion. I'm not so sure this would apply to their children; this strikes me as very similar to the slavery reparations debate in the US. When I was in school, my textbooks said that Arabs fled in 1948 either hoping the jewish state would fail, or due to unjustified fear of retribution once palestine became a jewish state. But then I grew up in Israel. Perhaps you could answer the question I posed above: do british citizens who fled America in 1776 -- or their children -- have a right of return to the US? Cac, Yes, I am (sort of) conceding that. If any were forced from their homes, they should be allowed to return; or, perhaps, compensated monetarily with what their home would be worth now. If they incorrectly thought they were going to be harmed once jews came to power— you can’t hold the government of Israel responsible for this mistaken notion. I’m not so sure this would apply to their children; this strikes me as very similar to the slavery reparations debate in the US. When I was in school, my textbooks said that Arabs fled in 1948 either hoping the jewish state would fail, or due to unjustified fear of retribution once palestine became a jewish state. But then I grew up in Israel. Perhaps you could answer the question I posed above: do british citizens who fled America in 1776—or their children—have a right of return to the US?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25233 cac Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:02:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25233 Detached observer: The Palestinian refugees chose to leave; the Arabs that did stay in Israel are Israel’s citizens today. Those that decided to leave have no moral claim on the land they left behind. Not entirely true as recent research shows. True, many did, in the knowledged that they would return after the Jews had been expelled and my view on them is tough luck, they got it wrong. But many were expelled by military force or left because they feared becoming the next Deir Yassin. Are you conceding they should be allowed back? Detached observer: The Palestinian refugees chose to leave; the Arabs that did stay in Israel are Israel’s citizens today. Those that decided to leave have no moral claim on the land they left behind. Not entirely true as recent research shows. True, many did, in the knowledged that they would return after the Jews had been expelled and my view on them is tough luck, they got it wrong. But many were expelled by military force or left because they feared becoming the next Deir Yassin. Are you conceding they should be allowed back?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/15/the-right-of-return/comment-page-2/#comment-25232 Tom T. Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:01:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1408#comment-25232 Isn't it the case that Arafat walked away from the peace talks at Taba because Clinton and Barak refused to recognize the right of return? How does Bush's announcement on this point represent any change of existing US policy? Isn’t it the case that Arafat walked away from the peace talks at Taba because Clinton and Barak refused to recognize the right of return? How does Bush’s announcement on this point represent any change of existing US policy?

]]>