Thomas R. Pickering, former number 3 in the State Department and U.S. ambassador to Israel (1985-1988) spoke some interesting truths in a speech last week covered by the Daily Star’s Rami Khouri. Pickering, who was once in the running to become Secretary of State (but lost out to Madeleine Albright), is attempting to inject some hardheaded realism into the discussion of what should be reasonably be expected of Israel for final status talks:
[Pickering] argued that a two-state solution required a return of Palestinian land occupied in 1967, “approaching 100 percent, with negotiated tradeoffs,” giving Palestinians control over their own internal security and foreign guarantees for their external security. Jerusalem’s status would be resolved according to the Ehud Barak-Bill Clinton ideas of 2000 (essentially: what’s Arab is Arab, and what’s Jewish is Jewish).
Pickering’s call for Israel to recognize the right of return of the 1948 Palestinians is noteworthy. No serving or retired American official of such stature and firsthand personal knowledge of the conflict has ever explicitly called for Israeli recognition of the Palestinians’ right of return. I pursued the matter privately with Pickering after his public talk, and asked if he was referring strictly to the generation of Palestinians who became refugees in 1948. He replied affirmatively, and explained:
“The right of return is controversial and the Israelis don’t want to actually admit or honor this right, for the simple reason that they see it as a slippery slope. Over a period of time they think that the Palestinian and Arab objective is to flood Israel with returning refugees, and therefore, in a sense, ‘demograph’ it out of existence. The real question is whether a right of return could be recognized within negotiated limits. This would give to the Palestinians the recognition they feel is important for themselves, but at the same time protect Israel against a flood of returnees.”
How would his proposal work in practice? “I would say there are three or four steps,” Pickering explained. “First, recognize the right of return. Second, define it. One way to define it in the narrowest way would be to say that anybody who left in 1948 could return, but not their progeny born after 1948. Another way would be to say anybody who left in 1948 could return, along with some family unifications, up to a limit of, say, 25,000, 50,000, 100,000 or whatever the two sides agree on. Third, the other individuals who were involved over the years in one way or another obviously have to be dealt with in a serious way, including by the international community. There, I suggest those others who live elsewhere – Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Brazil, wherever – would have a right within some limits set by the Palestinians themselves to go to the new state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza. Obviously [the Palestinian state] could not absorb everybody. So point number four would be an international program, very liberally funded, for relocations, in places like Canada, the United States, Australia – whoever is willing to offer to take individuals who have no place [to go] but want to start a new life somewhere and who need international help to do that.”
Pickering’s call for a virtual “100% return” to ’67 borders seems necessary to me as well. I’d perhaps tinker with the 100% number as Clinton did at Camp David by attempting to incorporate some large West Bank settlement blocs within Israel in return for Israeli territorial offsets in the Negev or elsewhere.
The ambassador’s proposal for a “modified” Right of Return is similar to my understanding of the Geneva Accords on this subject. If hardline pro-Israel forces would stop screaming long enough about this proposal sounding the death knell for the State of Israel as we know it–they’d see that it is a workable compromise which will allow Palestinians to achieve a cherished dream (returning to the land they lost–even in modified form–in 1948), while it would in no way endanger Israel which would be accepting a five to six-figure influx of Palestinian former refugees.
A completely rhetorical question: why is it that State Department officials can only make such public pronouncements after they retire from diplomatic service? If a few of our currently serving diplomats could muster up the same forthrightness we might see some real progress in solving the conflict (not to mention giving Israeli leaders a heart attack due to our unexpected candor).
“what’s Arab is Arab, and what’s Jewish is Jewish” granted that was an explanation (albeit simplified) vis a vis Jeruslaem but I think the bulk of Israelis view this as a basis of a peace settlement as a whole. A strong selling point by pragmatists like Rabin was that for Israel to remain a Jewish state, then she can’t lord over large populations of Arabs. Recent election results indicate (based on mandates for Kadima and Labor as opposed to Meretz) that the public generally views this pragmatism overall with favor. However, since Israeli’s keep in mind their own interests as well, and one of them being keeping Israel of Jewish character, how does this Arab ‘right of return’ to Israel proper affect the idea of a Jewish Israel?
As much as Pickering takes pains to explain that right of return can be defined and subject to clear and stringent criteria, (5 or 6 digit numbers for example) one does not require a lifetime’s experience in diplomacy to understand that moves like this will indeed serve as a precedent; a precedent for future and dynamically redefinded rights of return. Also, if one of the returnees from 1948 wants to go back to his house or vineyard in the Galilee (as opposed to let’s say Tulkarem), what if he only rented that property from an absentee landlord from Amman?
Sounds like the message they’re keeping secret is What’s Arab is Arab and what’s Jewish is Jewish but could/should/negotiably also be Arab. I know that’s a gross oversimplification but I’ve heard some proponents of “a two state solution with right of return”. Sounds like a clever way of saying “two state solution…..for now”.
What knocked me off attempts of linear thought was this non-sequitir of a quote:
“relocations, in places like Canada, the United States, Australia – whoever is willing to offer to take individuals who have no place [to go] but want to start a new life somewhere and who need international help to do that.”
Pickering was referring to those who are currently residing in countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Brazil. How and why did relocation (with “liberal funding” by whom?) to the U.S., Canada and Australia fall into the mix? If they can’t enter a newly nascent state of Palestine due to size limitations and have to remain in their Diaspora, why do they require relocation? Why is it a given that Palestinians outside of the concept of Palestine, already residing in the world at large such as Lebanon, Syria and South America are recipients of some kind of entitlement to move to the above mentioned 3 western nations? Is it because in the case of the Arab countries the Palestinian are languishing in refugee slums?
Is it only right-of-center agitprop that posits that the Palestinians stuck there because the PLO among other “leaders” has forbade their options of integrating into their host countries in order to keep the refugee issue alive and hot?
If the situation is different such as If the Lebanese and Jordanians are limiting the opportunities of the refugee camp dwellers because they don’t want more Palestinians in their midst then shouldn’t they be called to task?
Very strange.
Jake: I’ve heard the reservations you’re expressing here before fr. others. All I can say is–sure there may be irredentists among Palestinians who believe they’ll accept half a loaf now & get the rest later. But that doesn’t mean they’ll succeed. Once a peace deal is signed & the world community (incl. the U.S.) has signed on as guarantors providing full security guarantees for Israel, I see no way that the Palestinians will ever gain MORE than what’s specified in the deal.
As for the right of refugees to be compensated if they wish to settle outside Palestine…the funding for that acc. to my understanding will come fr. Israel (to a small degree) and the U.S. (to a lg. degree), & perhaps some fr. the Europeans. I don’t think anyone’s expecting Israel to foot the entire bill for massive relocation costs for Pal. refugees. I also think this fund isn’t just meant to relocate refugees. It’s meant to compensate them for the exile & consequent suffering which seems reasonable to me.
Wow a discussion where Richard is actually sensible. Kudos to Jake for a very well put comment altogether.
The whole poit is that even in a Peace Agreement the level of “right of return” is going to remain ambiguous and not clearly defined as it was in the Geneva Agreement which Richard actually refers to in this post. And Richard can not provide anywhere a survey that does not indicate that most not some Palestiniasns desire the “Right of Return” as a “natual” right and legitimiate “grievance” coming to them. The idae that only some have this “irredentist” view is Richard’s spin on this.
Finally, the expulsion of Jews from Egypt, Syria, Iraq especially and other Muslim countries to a lesser degree is then to be recognized and they should be compensated as well. However, since this is the Arab world where they only view the world through their lense and their pre emient “suffering” when compared to all others….. this is left out and noentheless ignored by the so-called “Progressives” as to not piss off the Arab world and “ruin” the chances for the “final peace agreement” which they dream of solving the conflict. The bottom line is the conflict is muti-fasceted but the core of it is a Mental State of War and rejection of Israeli’s right to exist, humanity and being…. on all lefvels in all fascets of society. That some or many depending on your opinion support and/or commit terrorism is irrelevant… the Zeitgeist of the Arab world is a Massive Mental State of War on Israel….. and this is the BGTTOM line to the conflict. Richard either choses not to recognize this because it destroys his drream of Tikun Olam.
I can always count on Mike to either misstate or misunderstand what I say. Of course Palestinians see the Right of Return as a “natural right” just as we Jews see our Right of Return to our Jewish homeland as our natural right. But that doesn’t mean that every Palestinian must exercise that right just as not every Jew in the world has exercised their right to make aliya. I think the point of a peace agreement would be to gently move the locus of Palestinian dreams away from returning to former homes now in Israel and toward Palestine. The latter would be the place where Palestinians would be encouraged to focus their energies and build their future.
Mike knows very little about the history of Jews in Arab lands. Jews were not expelled from the lands he mentions. While there was friction between Muslims and Jews in many of them, the Jews mainly emigrated by choice. And we must remember that in some of them like Iraq, Ben Gurion helped them make up their minds by sending Israeli saboteurs (with the connivance of the Iraqi government) to bomb Jewish sites and instill fear that would induce them to make aliya.
Palestinian Arabs living within Israel by and large did not have this luxury of making a choice as a great many of them were forcibly expelled by Haganah/Palmach forces. This is why there are entitled either to return or be compensated for their suffering.
So basically you didn’t refute that the Geneva Accords delineated an exact formula for returning to Israel and left it ambigious…. your insults to me aside… which are amusing.
Really, I know very little? lol…. how many Serphard or Mizrahi expats do you personally know? I know quite a few… I would luvvvvvvvv for you to meet them and tell them what happened.
Also, please cite the source that states Ben Gurion “conspired” with the Iraqi Gov’t to get the Jews out…. did he also conspire to have them hang and disembowel a few as well? or that was sordove a fortuitous surprising occurence… And when the Iraq government kept the 2500 years worth of Jewish heirlooms, bank accounts, assets and personal belongings was Ben Gurion in on that as well?
Your arrogance is really astounding. What you meant to state is that the Jews were welcomed and resettled in a foreign place where they didn’t speak Hebrew. Whereas Arab often moving 30-40 miles away to an area where they spoke the same language and had virtually the same customs were imprisoned by their own brothers.
As far as your assertion the Sephards all simply had a nice sojourn to Israel while the Arabs were ALL pushed out by the evil Zionists……
So you have the exact formula to which % –
1) innocents forcibly expelled by the Hagannah
2) innocents fleeing fighting between Hagannah and Arab forces
3) left before the war at Arab urging
4) left before but were middle class and took their $ and assets to France and Europe
5) left after war ended on their own
6) were laborers that had emigrated in the last few years and were new to the area……
Please tell me where you got that formula please. Cite the source.
Since you seem to “know” that all or most Sephards were “tricked” into leaving and had the “luxury” of making a simple sojourn to Israel… while all the Arabs were forced out by the Hagannah. Please cite the sources.
Also please cite the source that shows how many Sephards were actively fighting against the places they lived in versus what % of Palestinian Arabs were fighting in the war against the nascent state of Israel?
Tom Segev in Haaretz is but one source of many:
This article goes on to quote an Israeli agent in Baghdad at the time who says that the original bomb was planted by the Muslim Brotherhood. But that a member of the “Zionist underground” later DID plant bombs at Jewish communal sites in order to prove to Iraqi authorities that the Jews who’d been arrested for the first bombing couldn’t possibly have done it.
The Arabs didn’t “move” 30-40 miles away as in I sell my house in New York and move to Connecticut. They were either driven from their homes by Israeli forces at the point of the gun or they fled in terror after hearing the stories of the forcible removals of other Arab villages. This isn’t just a walk in the park as you make it sound like. This is harsh exile; exile perpetrated by Israeli forces in violation of international law.
I have no forumla regarding how many Arabs left Israel and for what reason. Such a formula is a ridiculous notion. How can you tally such a number? Where would you find evidence to support it? Undoubtedly you do have such a formula given your extraordinary qualifications and credentials as a scholar of Zionist history. Perhaps your fellow justifier of the 1948 expulsions, Benny Morris, has made such calculations. Why don’t you read him to find out?