Could this be beginning of the end?

Allowing Arabs the right to return to Israel could be seen as suicide or symbolism.
PAT JOHNSON REPORTER

When people discuss the dream of a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one particular issue seems more insurmountable than the other difficult, long-entrenched problems. Claims by Palestinian refugees that they should be allowed to return to the places of their origin that are now within the state of Israel are seen by many as a “deal-breaker.”

It is part of the complexity of the issue that there is not even agreement on how many Palestinians were forced out of their places of origin by the 1948 war. It is further complicated by the calculations of how many should be included as “refugees” now that at least two generations of Palestinians have been born “in exile.”

Divergent numbers are purveyed by groups with vested interests in the issue.
The Council for Palestinian Restitution and Repatriation (www.rightofreturn.org) says that 750,000 Arabs were displaced in 1948 by the creation of the state of Israel and the ensuing war. They claim that a further 350,000 Palestinians became refugees after the 1967 war and, just to complicate the calculations, some of these were refugees for the second time. Calculating these two waves of refugees and their descendants, that group claims a total of 4,942,121 Palestinian refugees.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) (www.camera.org) prefers the number provided by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which tallies up at 3,521,130 Palestinian refugees, including descendants. CAMERA notes, however, that these figures were based on information supplied voluntarily for the purpose of accessing services offered through that UN body. CAMERA asserts that the number of genuine refugees and their descendants is lower than even this number.

Whether the number is as low as three million or as high as six million has been given a great deal of attention in this discussion. But critics of the concept of a right of Palestinian return note that there are already close to one million Arabs in Israel, compared with five million Jews. An open-ended right of return, whether it’s three or six million, could quickly tip the scales of the Jewish state in what has been referred to as “demographic suicide.”

A wide range of opinions

Would a Palestinian right of return signal the end of the Jewish state? Many critics say yes. Many proponents say the issue has been blown out of proportion and a “literal” right of return is subordinate to the “theoretical” recognition of a right of return.

Among the most visible activists on this front has been the Vancouver group Jews for a Just Peace, whose frequent spokesperson is Stephen Aberle. The Bulletin put the question to Aberle and members of the group, What would the right of return mean?

The group said its members hold a range of opinions – some people say that the Jewish nature of the state is sacrosanct and others say it is not.

The overriding goal of Jews for a Just Peace, members said, is that Israel acknowledge culpability in the expulsion of Palestinians from their lands. How reparations are made after that acknowledgment is open to interpretation.

Prof. Richard Rosenberg, an activist and member of Jews for a Just Peace, said the ideal situation would be two viable states.

“If there were two separate states, the Palestinians could admit anyone they want,” he said.

However, he said, that still wouldn’t satisfy those Palestinians who want to literally return to the homes they or their parents evacuated in 1948.

“Whatever the arrangement is for two states, there will be some Palestinians, and it could be a large number, who will claim the right to return to their former
areas, their houses even, and those lands could be in the Israeli state,” said Rosenberg. “Would Israel allow them to return? I can’t imagine that they would.”

Morally, however, Rosenberg said Israel should acknowledge the validity of the claim.

“In principle, the notion of return is a viable notion, no different than the notion of Jews [returning],” he said.

Parallel with the church

Rabbi David Mivasair, spiritual leader of Vancouver’s Or Shalom synagogue, has been a proponent of Palestinian rights, although he said Vancouverites – even Canada’s national government – have little impact on what really happens in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, he said, the issue of a Palestinian right of return is an overblown “red herring.” The idea of a right of return differs dramatically from a literal right of return, he said

“I don’t think any serious person involved in trying to solve this problem thinks that Israel should agree to allow unlimited numbers of Palestinians to return,” he said. “No one with any iota of seriousness proposes that.”

The situation, he said, is similar to that in Canada, where governments are struggling with the historical injustices toward aboriginal peoples, and there are parallels with other historical examples.

“I actually think it’s comparable to Christian churches in recent decades expressing their sorrow over the Crusades,” said Mivasair. “It’s an acknowledgment that means a lot. Though what it means in practice – that’s what actually has to be negotiated. ”

Jewish state not needed

Though most people associated with the issue claim the right of return would be more symbolic than practical, at least one activist takes the matter quite literally. Naftali Lavie, who wrote a letter to the editor on the subject, later expressed the view that Israel must be prepared to accept any refugees that want to go there.

“Return means return to the places from which they fled or were expelled,” said Lavie. “I would be the first to say that no Israeli worker or farmer should be made homeless to accommodate a returning Palestinian family. But the right to return, to the Galilee and the Triangle and Jaffa and Haifa and Lod, must be recognized unequivocally, and the enormous practical challenges (funding, infrastructure, home construction, employment) will have to be faced in practical terms.”

Despite the views of others that return is theoretical and does not threaten the Jewish nature of Israel, Lavie argued that it doesn’t matter anyway.

“Preservation of the lives of Jewish people facing the risk of persecution does not require an ethnically defined state,” said Lavie. “Study of the Torah and the Talmud do not require an ethnically defined state. Permitting the ages-old Jewish genius to flourish in the fields of science, medicine, art and any other field does not require an ethnically defined state.

“The state of Israel is ethnic nationalism institutionalized and gone wild. With all the limitations of historical analogies, Israel is a ‘Jewish state’ in the sense that racist South Africa was a Boer state and in the sense that Nazi Germany was an Aryan state. In short, there is nothing ‘Jewish’ worth preserving in the ‘Jewish state.’ ”

Of course, that view falls at the extreme end of a spectrum, but even the concept of a “symbolic” right of return meets with strong opposition in some quarters of the British Columbia Jewish community.

Israel’s future is at risk

Geoffrey Druker, city director for State of Israel Bonds, said Israel and its allies might view something as symbolic, but it is not necessarily in their control.
“The problem is, I think, the Arabs are looking for more than a symbolic act,” he said. “The Arabs will pounce on us. They won’t see it as a symbolic act and they’ll say ‘Once you’ve admitted [it], you’re guilty. Once you’re guilty, you have to pay.’ And a country doesn’t pay by suicide.”

He said the refugee problem is a tragedy, but one brought on by the Arab people.

“The refugees weren’t a result of the establishment of the state of Israel,” said Druker. “Israel was willing to live with much less. The refugee problem started because they attacked and Israel defended.”

Moreover, he argued, many Palestinians left on the promise by Arab states that they would return victorious soon after the neighboring Arab states had routed the Jews from the region. Those who stayed are in a far better position than their cousins in Arab-enforced refugee camps.

“In Israel, there are close to 900,000 non-Jewish citizens,” he said. “Those who stayed behind, based on the Israeli Declaration of Independence, are full and equal citizens of the state of Israel. There could have been more.”

Dr. Sally Rogow, another Vancouver Zionist activist, argues that the so-called right of return is just part of a larger plan to overwhelm the Jewish state, either by force or by inundating the country via the right of return. Either way, she believes it is just the latest effort to push the Jewish state into the sea.

“I think what we’re seeing is an onslaught, a very well-organized intention to get rid of the state of Israel from the Middle East,” said Rogow. “It’s sort of like the Crusades and a lot of what you see is reminiscent of Hitler and his desire to conquer Europe.”

Most significantly, though, Rogow said, there should be no such discussion until certain fundamental Israeli demands are met.

“When it comes to people returning, I think it needs to be when peace has been established, when the right of Israel to exist is recognized and honored,” she said. “Then it can be taken under consideration on an individual basis.”

Canada has lesson for us

The “individual basis” could be something like the plan put forward by former prime minister Ehud Barak, said Judy Mandleman, one of the organizers of Vancouver’s Local Israel Action Committee. It may be possible to consider the return of some refugees based on family reunification and, likewise, there may be room for some financial compensation.

Mandleman’s perspective is that the Palestinian situation could learn something from Canada’s redress of Japanese-Canadians for their treatment during the Second World War.

“It was symbolic,” she said of the limited restitution made to Japanese-Canadians. “It was a way of apologizing, in a sense, and we certainly owed the Japanese[-Canadians] an apology.”

If there were to be any financial remuneration between Israel and the Palestinians, she said, it should be solely for the generation who left in 1948.
Mandleman also stressed that she doesn’t think Israel owes an apology, since most of the refugees left by choice and at the urging of Arab states.

In 1948, there were roughly the same number of Jewish refugees evacuating Arab states as there were Arabs fleeing Palestine. The Jews, Mandleman noted, were welcomed and assimilated into Israel. The Arabs have, for 53 years and counting, been warehoused in appalling conditions in refugee camps in Arab states.

“They could have been easily integrated into the communities where they’re living,” she said. “You have refugee camps even now still in Gaza, which has been under Palestinian control for about five years now. These people are pawns. I feel sorry for them, but really, it’s time that they rose up and did something too.”

The idea of returning Palestinians in large – or even moderate numbers – is unacceptable, she argued, because it will undoubtedly turn Israel into something other than a Jewish state.

^TOP