UPDATE: A report from McKinney’s family in the Atlanta Journal Constitution says that McKinney has been released by Israeli authorities and is en route to Ben Gurion airport. The newspaper report does not indicate whether McKinney agreed to a 10 year re-entry ban demanded by the Israelis. There is also no word on the fate of the other 20 detainees. I just checked FGM’s Twitter account and it indicates the 21 did NOT sign a deportation agreement and that Israel dropped all charges against them. If so, this is a victory for common sense and the FGM campaign to end the siege of Gaza.
A journalist from Iran’s Press TV had the chutzpah to ask State Department spokesperson Ian Kelly what the U.S. government was doing to gain the release of four U.S. citizens (among them former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney) abducted and imprisoned by Israel for four days now. Of course, an Iranian journalist had to ask this question becuase no native U.S. journalist cared enough about the story to ask the question themselves.
Here, from Kelly, is a portrait in spinelessness:
“We can’t comment on any of the individuals or the number of individual American citizens on board.”
…the Washington, DC spokesperson added…that the US Embassy had been in touch with Israeli authorities and was seeking access to its citizens, and made a point of noting that “we don’t take any position regarding the Free Gaza Movement or any of its messages.”
In response to other questions about the fate of those on board and the ship’s medical and construction aid for Gaza, Kelly responded, “I don’t know the answer, actually. I think I have to refer you to the government of Israel.”
It is simply preposterous that the chief spokesperson for the U.S. government’s foreign policy apparatus would have so little interest in the welfare of imprisoned U.S. citizens and could respond so callously as to suggest those interested in their whereabouts should contact the country that abducted and jailed them. What about the U.S. government itself? Doesn’t it give a crap? And if it doesn’t, why is it behaving in such an inexcusable fashion?
You may remember the film Missing, about the U.S. citizen abducted and murdered during the Pinochet coup. Then too the State Department misled the victim’s family and lied to them and the press about what happened. I’m not suggesting quite that level of malevolence in this instance. But the State Department should be damned embarrassed about its performance in this entire seamy incident. It should get off its duff and do its job, which is to protect the interests of U.S. citizens in danger abroad.
Let’s compare U.S. apathy to the response of a government that genuinely cares about its own citizens: Ireland. Here is the statement from the Irish foreign minister about his two citizens also imprisoned in the Israeli Gulag:
Ireland’s Foreign Affairs Minister Micheál Martin called for the swift release of two Irish nationals detained from the ship, including the Nobel Peace Prize winner…
“My immediate priority is ensuring the safety and welfare of Ms Maguire and Mr Graham and securing their release as soon as possible,” Martin said. “I would again renew my call for the release of Ms Maguire and Mr Graham as well as the other nineteen passengers detained on The Spirit of Humanity.”
“I would also call upon the Israeli Government to ensure that the humanitarian supplies for the people of Gaza being transported on The Spirit of Humanity are made available as soon as possible to the Palestinian authorities for distribution,” he added.
Why must is take a nation like Ireland to teach us what our own foreign affairs personnel should be doing? Why are the latter not fighting tooth and nail for McKinney’s release? Why are they not bellowing at the Israeli blackmail used to get her to agree to a 10 year ban on re-entry to Israel which would happen if she signs her own deportation order admitting violation of Israeli rules with which she vehemently disagrees?
RE: “What about the U.S. government itself? Doesn’t it give a crap? And if it doesn’t, why is it behaving in such an inexcusable fashion?”
MY COMMENT: Might it possibly be for the same reason that Biden gave Israel the green light to attack Iran?
(EXCERPT) The United States, Mr. Biden said in an interview broadcast on ABC’s “This Week,” “cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.” “Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do…”
I used to listen regularly to Al Franken some years back when he had his Air America radio program and I remember there was one broadcast where he was grumbling about Cynthia McKinney, imputing some dubious necromancy to her critical stance toward Israel. It hit me then that when alleged “liberals” could so easily & hostilely dismiss a progressive African-American Democrat from the South over being somehow un-kosher on Israel (she was still a Democrat then), it’s evident we do not have an accepted mainstream platform that can accomodate a non-Zionist perspective in this country. You go to the current Washington Post blog post on McKinney and the level of acid contempt from Americans toward a former American official that you witness, in favor of a foreign power at that, is quite something. Cynthia McKinney really is a boogeyman object of hate for the zio-nuts, just one liberal progressive African-American woman.
The Irish response is what a sane country representing the interests of its people sounds like. The rest of the Western world kind of thinks we’re nuts, and I’m starting to understand why (talk about being in an ideological bubble, look at US), we’re like this incredibly dumb destructive superpower giant held hostage by this paranoid, aggressive little Sparta on the Mediterranean. Weird, man.
Correction: Sparta of course IS on, or rather in, the Mediterranean, so my formulation above is redundant and therefore doesn’t make sense. I was thinking of Roane Carey’s recent commentary at the Nation online ‘Prussia on the Mediterranean’ and turned it into Sparta. Ah, one militaristic belligerent or another. What do you do.
Would you like to revisit the closing sentence of the fifth paragraph? The one that reads, “(The state department) should…do its job, which is to protect the interests of U.S. citizens in danger abroad.” Is that really your idea of the job of the state department? You don’t think that’s a bit of a distorted and narrow definition? Hmmmmmmmm. -wam
That is it’s job in this particular situation. And believe me if you got in trouble in a foreign land and a State Dept. official got you out of hot water you wouldn’t find that part of State’s job to be “distorted and narrow.”
Great post, Richard. Thanks so much for your faithfulness on this story.
This is the first that I heard that she had been released.
Stories get dropped so quickly, even among the left.
Two weeks ago, there was much discussion on the pressure that Mitchell and Clinton were putting on Israel to stop all settlement construction. It was a very relevant topic for the left to keep in the discussion window. It got dropped.
Why? Was the timing of the Free Gaza Movement boat appropriate if it distracted the world’s ear?
To my mind, successfully stopping settlement construction is the one action, that can shift the tenor of the discussion towards the Arab League proposal, trust-building towards two viable states, in spite of Netanyahu and Lieberman kicking an screaming.
Richard Witty, maybe the timing of the boat was “appropriate” because the people of Gaza are being pretty much starved to death and denied needed living & medical supplies. At that point airy-fairy political calculations kind of go out the window, this is about survival and helping people in desperate need. If you didn’t implicitly de-humanize the Palestinians, maybe you would see this. The very removed blase put-on liberalism that you effect just doesn’t cut it, Witty. You obviously don’t give a rat’s a## about the Palestinians. When you transform into a Palestinian kid in Gaza slowly dying from malnutrition and treatable disease, then you can get back to me. Because the empathy just isn’t there on your part, bub.
Please stop the knee jerk.
The anti-settlement effort was gaining some traction.
You got it Witty. The Free Gaza Movement started years ago in a plot to sabotage Mitchell and Clinton’s pressure on the settlements. I sincerely doubt that the FGM is the reason that you aren’t hearing about the settlements. Probably because it all happened two weeks ago, and um, news is concerned with what happened very recently.
I understand that only you, Richard Witty, possess the wisdom necessary to decide an action will contribute to a better future, so maybe you could start a blog, a twitter feed, something, anything, so that people involved in the struggle to end the occupation could check before we do anything.
n
Discipline makes effective dissent. The ANC for example was NOT an anarchist organization, but entirely coordinated and strategic.
They kept their eye on the prize.
The Free Gaza boats are imaginative, and make wonderful parallels with the Exodus as an example of Jewish civil disobedience (for whom the individuals on a few of the boats were also primarily props).
But, losing one’s focus is THE way to fail at a political campaign.
You do get that in one short week the news cycle shifted from the settlements to Iran, and the left’s attention was diverted to the Free Gaza boats.
THIS was your opportunity to flood Congress with supportive letters, at a time when the weight of the administration was leaning on THE critical issue that you’ve been commenting on (whatever your name is), for years.
And, you whine when the choice of strategy is criticized, INSTEAD of encouraging effective dissent.
Witty says “THIS was your opportunity to flood Congress with supportive letters, at a time when the weight of the administration was leaning on THE critical issue that you’ve been commenting on (whatever your name is), for years.”
Um, I haven’t commented 10 times on this blog, and probably not 50 times on the entire web, and I certainly haven’t been commenting for years. I’m not sure there is a unifying theme to my comments, except maybe Palestine. And I have a name, it is n.
Witty says “And, you whine when the choice of strategy is criticized, INSTEAD of encouraging effective dissent.”
There, Witty, is the problem in a nutshell. I lack your complete and utter wisdom. Without the benefit of Richard Witty Thought, I’m not sure what constitutes effective dissent. I’m sure there is nothing wrong with writing to your congressperson, not sure if it is all that effective. (could you provide some guidance? the masses are drowning in questions?) I’m all for direct action, not sure that it is all that effective. I can understand why groups like the ANC waged armed struggle, not sure that it is that useful in this case. My lack knowledge forces me to acknowledge that many people might have good ideas, and that I should support their trying them out. I support a variety of tactics. Why? Probably because I lack the benefit of Richard Witty Thought. Why do I lack this? Because Richard Witty won’t start his own blog. I am left to try and piece together the true path through a collection of posts on various blogs. The problem is that I never know if I am missing something. Maybe the latest kernel of truth appeared on some blog I don’t read. Maybe I didn’t read the comments section that Richard Witty graced with his wisdom. What’s funny, is that I would probably read your blog. You seem to be supremely arrogant, but not stupid, your own blog would be a chance for all of us to either learn from your wisdom, or to smash the false idol of Richard Witty Thought.
For what it’s worth I’m not an anarchist, and I don’t work with the Free Gaza Movement. I do believe that people should feel free to try whatever they think will work to help end the siege on Gaza and end the Occupation.
Witty writes “But, losing one’s focus is THE way to fail at a political campaign.”
I think you misunderstand how both history and the present function. There isn’t a “one” like you think there is. There are a bunch of groups doing different things that hope will help end the Occupation. While I’m sure that we all wish they were more unified and better coordinated, they aren’t. While I’m too young to really remember, I doubt that the movement to end apartheid was completely unified either.
So, I guessed at your identity incorrectly.
Argue if you like.
I stated that I thought that more success at confidently stopping the settlement construction was close, but was rejected by dissenters.
Richard, (i feel on first person terms from frequent encounters.)
“Your religious conversion…” is confusing. Is it meant metaphorically? The sentence doesn’t make sense, taken out of a context in which someone has identified themselves as religious, and in support of HAMAS because of .religious belief.
I don’t regard the actions of HAMAS as inconsequential. I recognize their actions as a response to the inhumane acts of an occupying power. I recognize the extent to which such acts result in injury to individuals who are Israeli, and regret it, deeply so. My response is to call for an end to the occupation for the benefit of both Palestinians and Israelis.
I don’t do so because of a personal affiliation with Islam.
Hamas’ actions are both results and causes. Thats what life is.
“Reliigious conversion” referred to the concept of political oonformity. The process of “we reject you because you don’t conform to our sequence” is similar between political religions and religious ones.
I seek peace based on mutual respect.
I consistently advocate for sovereignty defined at the green line, and equal due process under law for all individuals in a color-blind manner in both Israel and Palestine.
So, if the goal is more important than the means, then respectful collaboration and clarification is the order of the day.
Mutual respect between the people of Palestine and Israel requires that Israel, as the party which holds and uses power, acknowledge the equality of Palestinians in fundamental rights. Israel must act with recognition of those rights.
If this blog is going to be devoted to and confined to comments by “N” and “Witty”, I’m dropping out. Neither have anything to contribute to the debate beyond wanting to hear themselves talk and see their names in print.
Isn’t it time we got around to some real issues, like Michael Jackson? Or the exposure of Obama’s empty rhetoric in Moscow, where he bombed? Or Hillary’s b— s— about Honduras?
There are many commenters on this blog and all are welcome as long as they make constructive contributions. While I disagree strongly with Richard Witty’s views most of the time, I don’t think it’s right to say he has no place here. The comment threads aren’t “devoted to” any one commenter; nor are they “confined” to any particular person or pt of view. If we didn’t have commenters with whom we disagree there would be less debate and less exchange of ideas.
What do you actually disagree with?
In fact.
I’ll let other commenters with whom I agree argue with you, Richard. I’ve done enough of it already myself.
My sense is that you don’t disagree with my goal – Geneva Accords largely, though even a little further to the left in preferring the literal green line (except for Jewish old Jerusalem).
But, that you do disagree with my reactions. For example, when I stated that my sense was that “Hamas elected Netanyahu”, or that “Hamas escalated the post-cease-fire to the status of war”, you were very angry.
And, we seem to disagree on the best way to reach that goal, you preferring BDS and whatever non-too-violent dissent that can be mustered, whereas I consider those means to be counter-productive in that they isolate Israel in a way that tends to make it more defensive and permanently, the Palestinians not having a Mandela (“we forgive”) as leader.
But, if your eye is on the prize, and not the reaction, then I hope that you AGREE on the goal of something between the Geneva Accords and the literal Arab League proposal.
Richard, I appreciate your continued coverage of the recent events concerning the Free Gaza Movement. As one of the original founders of the movement, which began around three years ago when a small group of us who had been denied entry to or deported from Israel because we were known to be supporters of Palestine were tossing around ideas in hopes we would come up with a way to reach Palestine without going through Ben Gurion airport or the bridges from Jordan.
We knew nothing at all about boats and we had no money, but little by little we managed to raise enough to buy our first, and then our second, little wooden boat. I was fortunate to be aboard the first, the FREE GAZA, when last year it becae the first boat to land in Gaza Port in over 41. years.
We continued to sail our boats, until December 30 when IDF gunboats repeatedly rammed our boat DIGNITY (now lying at the bottom of the Mediterranean as a rest) in international waters.
Thanks to the IDF act of piracy last week, Israel’s latest outrage against Free Gaza received an enormous amount of press around the world (though of course not in US MSM)
Our supporters have more than doubled in numbers, and if Israel confiscates our boat SPIRIT OF HUMANITY, which we expect it will (as it did the Lebanese Cargo boat TALI in January) we will find another boat so we can continue to challenge the blockade of Gaza. You can be sure I’ll be on board.
You’ll get heard. But likely it will take an uncomfortable drama for that to occur.
The consequences of your success will be that the world and Hamas will face a dilemma. That is that as not yet a sovereign state, the conventions of port management and international law will not be in effect as far as the Gaza port is concerned.
The world and Hamas will face the current dilemma of whether to compromise with the PA and Israel, to the extent that it joins the PA, and functionally recognizes Israel CURRENTLY, or the military conflict around issues of the port will escalate.
Your work is artful. The parallel image to the pre-Israeli illegal immigration and stocking missions is important and touching
I just urge that you make good decisions, that actually effect the people that you are trying to help in a way that does help them, and doesn’t put you and others that join your work in danger, beyond what you are prepared for.
May you go from strength to strength…
Dear Senator Kerry,
I would greatly appreciate if you kept the reminder alive in the Senate, and in communications to the President, that the suggestion to Israel to temporarily (or permanently) halt settlement construction, is one that will facilitate a great improvement in relations with all of the Arab world, and likely result in component by component of comprehensive and reliable peace agreement.
The settlements represent Israel’s intent to the world. Expanding settlements indicate an intention to gradually annex. Non-expanding settlements indicate an intention to co-exist.
No other area of the various contending issues affect the degree of tension as much, both directly between Israelis and Palestinians, and between Israel and the rest of the world.
It is a tipping issue.
Thanks for your backbone to pursue humane approaches to the conflict historically and presently.
Richard Witty
Now we are finally getting somewhere Witty. In your world, the continuation of the Occupation is the Palestinians fault because activism to end the occupation scares Israel. The Palestinians need to understand this fear and reassure Israel that they were happy to be dispossessed and discriminated against. I’m not sure how if we have Congress pressure Israel it doesn’t result in the same fear? Could you elaborate?
A simplistic and malevolent interpretation.
I state that in order for peace to occur, the different parties must understand the others’ concerns.
Usually, understanding the others’ perspective reduces the vehemence and malevolence of dissent, but without reducing the determination to accomplish good.
It is possible to undertake and/or support terror on civilians of a hated enemy, but not rationally possible to undertake and/or support terror of a prospective neighbor.
To succeed, dissent must FOCUS on issues that are clear and don’t require a religious conversion to adopt.
Witty, you went from this ” And, we seem to disagree on the best way to reach that goal, you preferring BDS and whatever non-too-violent dissent that can be mustered, whereas I consider those means to be counter-productive in that they isolate Israel in a way that tends to make it more defensive and permanently, the Palestinians not having a Mandela (”we forgive”) as leader.
To this “A simplistic and malevolent interpretation.
I state that in order for peace to occur, the different parties must understand the others’ concerns.
Usually, understanding the others’ perspective reduces the vehemence and malevolence of dissent, but without reducing the determination to accomplish good.
It is possible to undertake and/or support terror on civilians of a hated enemy, but not rationally possible to undertake and/or support terror of a prospective neighbor.
To succeed, dissent must FOCUS on issues that are clear and don’t require a religious conversion to adopt.”
Somewhere in there BDS and non too violent dissent became terror attacks. I don’t think anyone on this board is involved in terror attacks, so it seems kind of irrelavant. It would be easier to know what you believe to be effective if you would discipline yourself when you write. I see very little of the struggle to end the occupation that requires a religious conversion. What parts of it do you think require one? Maybe for a Palestinian to become a Zionist, a religious conversion would help.
I don’t think the Palestinians problems are result of not understanding Zionism.
I think that the Right of Return is pretty clear and doesn’t require a religious conversion for anyone to believe, I doubt that you support the Right of Return.
“In your world, the continuation of the Occupation is the Palestinians fault because activism to end the occupation scares Israel.”
This is your innaccurate and malevolent interpretation. A personal insult, imagining what I think.
Your religious conversion is to regard the actions of Hamas as inconsequential in the math of what is possible and desirable.
Is it necessary for commentators to support BDS to realize improvement for Palestinians’ lives?
If they regard BDS as counter-productive, that is an apostasy?
Witty, you write “This is your innaccurate and malevolent interpretation. A personal insult, imagining what I think.”
Then your next post is “Your religious conversion is to regard the actions of Hamas as inconsequential in the math of what is possible and desirable.”
Dude, I haven’t said a word about Hamas. I can’t imagine how you would know what I think of Hamas or the consequentiality of it’s actions. This all started when you denounced the Free Gaza Movement as “dissidents” who were prolonging the occupation by drawing media attention from the settlements.
I am perfectly willing to accept that reasonable people are against BDS, but you seem to be against everything. So far, you have supported writing letters to your congressman opposing continued building in settlements, and Palestinians struggling to come to a better understanding of Zionism/Israel.
What actions (outside of the above) do you support?
On the ground, face to face education for the purpose of mutual humanization.
Study. Dialog.
Cross-cultural collaboration on ALL issues of natural mutual concern:
Ecology, public health, cultural interactions, academic interaction, shared infrastructure, development of regional economy.
NOT BDS, the opposite in fact, mutual investment, ACTUAL integration rather than political agitation.
For dissent, organized focus on one issue at a time, that actually achieves successes. It IS possible to support Obama’s stance on settlements to the point that Israel does not feel generally threatened (thereby giving them a political out), but is forced to address that issue.
Then the next one (say roadblocks). Then the next one (say incarceration without due process).
Thats if you want to ACHIEVE change.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it is in fact impossible to make real change without a collectively punitive isolating BDS approach.
Witty wrote “Study. Dialog.
Cross-cultural collaboration on ALL issues of natural mutual concern:
Ecology, public health, cultural interactions, academic interaction, shared infrastructure, development of regional economy.”
I’ll be honest, those goals seem more appropriate for inside 1948 Palestine than for the West Bank and Gaza. It would be great if Israel would end their discrimination against their Palestinian citizens.
For activists, for the occupied people of the West Bank and Gaza? Study is always good, but doesn’t seem to be in short supply. As for the rest of it, they already share their ecology, Israel takes half the water. Israel has already taken half the land. They are generally forbidden to enter Israel so cultural interaction is limited, except to those Israeli’s (mostly settlers and soldiers) who choose to come to their lands. I’m sure many of them would be thrilled if Israel would allow more economic developement, but that doesn’t seem to be their strategy. I’m sure the villages of the southern West Bank would love to be allowed to be hooked up to the electricity poles which run through their villages, I’m sure they would love to be able to use the Israeli only roads which run by their villages, I’m sure they would love to have more access to water, I’m sure they would love to be able to obtain building permits, but Israel forbids all of this.
I have nothing against any of this, well, except that it needs to be examined for the risks of normalization. Much of it seems like the Occupation before 1987. That really wasn’t acceptable either.
I don’t think that any of this is an effective way to end the occupation. I don’t recall this being the strategy of the ANC or the civil rights movement in the US. If Israel is special for some reason, you need to explain that to us. I like at Israel, and see a lot of parallels to South Africa, I think many other people do to. That is probably where the BDS movement comes from.
I’m sure most activists would love for the movement to be more unified. It isn’t. We have to face the world we live in, not the one we wish we did. So we do our best.
It seems to me that Israel only acts when it does feel generally threatened. Sharon didn’t pull out of Gaza because he opposed the occupation. I don’t think the average Israeli wants two states because it opposes the occupation, they will accept two states because they fear demographics.
Witty writes “Thats if you want to ACHIEVE change.”
Really Witty, you think that everyone who disagrees with you doesn’t want to change the situation? It’s absurd and insulting. You write this over and over, on blog after blog. Enough.
Most people, when they admit they might be right, are welcoming of other people trying other things. But not you.
I think that most activists in the west, and most Palestinians, want peace based on justice, not peace based on mutual respect. My guess is that mutual respect comes later if at all, I doubt it has ever really came to the US or South Africa. I really don’t want peace to be the world of silent oppression.
That being said, I think that most of us (Palestinians and western activists) are willing to accept that Israel won’t be accepting a just solution any time soon. Being practical people, most would accept an unjust peace. That’s life.
For you, Witty, obviously part of your support for a two state solution comes because you believe to to be practical. Outside of that, why do you support it? Do you support the right of return? If not, why?
You asked what I support.
“NOT BDS, the opposite in fact, mutual investment, ACTUAL integration rather than political agitation.”
Mutual efforts on ecology, public health, culture, economic development, etc. INTEGRATE.
BDS isolates.
I support the two-state solution because it results in more optimal democracy than a single state solution. In a single-state solution 49% likely will feel that they are governed by external powers, and be angry and violent about it. In a two-state solution with 20% minorities in each, only 20% at maximum will feel that they are not self-governed (and many of them will).
I support very limited right of return, ONLY in cases where perfecting individual title by compensation is less just than transfer of title back to original owners 60+ years ago. (Rare, I expect).
Witty, I understand that you support integration and not BDS. Why is less obvious. You want their to be two states, so integration is good so long as it doesn’t result in new Palestinian citizens of Israel? Two states isolates, one state integrates.
Witty, I’m not even sure what “perfecting individual title” means. You write about this occasionally, and I get the feeling it is gibberish to most people. I assume it has something to do with title to land. I really would like you to explain this.
How do compare the value of compensation and justice? So the Bedouin of the Negev are allowed to return because no one took their house? I don’t think most people think the right of return is about “perfecting individual title”.
I don’t believe that the right of return, now 60 years (3 generations) past 1948 is valid any longer. It would have been in 1968, but not now.
The only conditions that I would consider a right of return to Israel perse would be in specific cases, where the overwhelming balance of title questions on specific land claims overarch the relative rights of current residency.
I do believe that compensation for all title claims should occur, resulting from all expropriations.
All nomadic peoples are in a difficult state, now that the world is very crowded. There isn’t much room for nomadicism in the modern world.
That’s what I “like” about Witty. You’re perfectly willing to decide on behalf of the Palestinians what rights of theirs are valid & what aren’t. It’s called chutzpah where I come from.
So, you disagree with my “chutzpah”?
What about content? Its only an opinion.
Do you differ with the opinion? Why, why not?
The problem of being governed by external powers is one for the people to decide. Just because you don’t like Palestinian citizen’s of Israel feeling oppressed does not mean that they might not prefer living in their homeland under oppression than somewhere else being governed by external powers. Outside of the refugees moving to a the new Palestinian state it seems inevitable that they will be governed by external powers, so you might as well offer them the option of being governed by external powers in their homeland.
Of course, my opinions are just opinions. They are statements of what I observe to be optimizing democracy.
A single-state to my reasoning, results currently in more suppression than a fair two-state solution.
Maybe that will change if Israelis and Palestinians identify more as human beings than as national identity.
That the US and Canada don’t merge (both humanist and VERY similar culturally), indicates that the national definition is important to people.
Witty writes “The only conditions that I would consider a right of return to Israel perse would be in specific cases, where the overwhelming balance of title questions on specific land claims overarch the relative rights of current residency.”
The overwhelming balance of title questions? I’m never sure I understand anything you say. The refugees aren’t demanding to return to their particular home, they are demanding to return to their homeland. As I understand it, most of the land which was confiscated from them is under the jurisdiction of the ILA and the JNF and is then leased out to Israeli Jews on 99 year leases. From an ownership of land perspective there is no problem. When they lease is over, the land is returned to it’s rightful owners.
I’m not sure why Palestinian human rights are reduced to a question of property. Well, outside of the fact that you think human rights have a statute of limitations of 20 years. Is that only the right of return or do othe human rights have a 20 year statute of limitations? Convienant that that is when Israel gained a bargaining chip isn’t it? But for some Palestinians, their rights aren’t even a question of property. They also depend on the how much the world has changed relative to their old mode of life. The Negev isn’t that crowded.
We all recognize that opinions are just opinions, the point of debate is to challenge what you believe and modify it as you learn new things.
Witty writes “Maybe that will change if Israelis and Palestinians identify more as human beings than as national identity.”
But the problem isn’t the Israeli national identity. The problem is the Jewish national identity. Nothing in a Palestinian identity precludes Jews from embracing it and nothing in an Israeli (well a theoritical non zionist one of a state of all it’s people) precludes Palestinians from embracing it.
I would hazard a guess that the problem of violence in Israel due to a growing minority population comes more from the majority than the minority. You know, the one with a history of ethnic cleansing. And due to the fact that refugees lose the right of return in 20 years if it would inconvenience the cleansers, the strategy would seem pretty attractive.
On the political side, the problem with a growing non jewish minority in Israel is Zionist. How do you keep them out of government? Yes, you can raise the vote thresholds for entry into the knesset, but that only goes so far. You already have the problem of trying to establish a majority in the Knesset when 10 of the seats can never be brought into the government. Can you imagine the power of the fringe Jewish parties if that grew to 20 or god forbid 30 seats? Thank god for the high orthodox birth rate.
I get the feeling that your real concern is the Jewish demographic majority of Israel. It’s easier to couch this in terms of the possible, but you don’t even believe that Palestinians have a human right, which sadly must be sacrificed for what is possible, to return to Israel, they have no right.
You wonder why people don’t seem to consider you their ally? Probably not because of BDS, probably more because you just don’t share our values. Because most of us probably don’t think that your recommendations for the movement are effective. Probably because you preach dialogue but haven’t asked me a single question. Do you ever ask people serious questions, or do you just speak your own opinions?
“I get the feeling that your real concern is the Jewish demographic majority of Israel. ”
You speculate a great deal, innaccurately.
Compensation for seized land is really easy for zionists to support. Why? Because, as I understand most of the proposals compensation will be paid by the international community. Who wouldn’t support giving other peoples money as compensation for wrongs they’ve caused?