H. Res. 185

[Quizalufagus]

The U.S. House of Representatives is currently considering H. Res. 185 (http://www.hsje.org/pdf/jadvocate/resolutions/HRes185.pdf), which if adopted will voice American support for a right of return for Jewish refugees displaced from Arab states after the creation of Israel. What impact will this legislation have on the Palestinians' attempt to get a right of return for themselves? It seems to me that they'll be forced to drop a lot of their rhetoric on this point unless they're willing to support a Jewish right of return as well (which won't happen until well after Hell freezes over).

[tjakey]

Seems to me the question is, will the US voice similar support for the right of return for Arabic refugees displaced from Palestinian areas after the creation of Israel?

[Quizalufagus]

The subtext of the resolution seems to suggest that it will--at least so long as a right of return for Palestinians entails a right of return for Jews. Of course, there will never be a right of return for either group. Congress understands that, so the resolution seems to me to be rhetorical. The real point of this bill is to force the Palestinians to shut up about the right of return.

[laughing dog]

This makes little sense. Israel can set policy within its borders (i.e. who, if anyone, gets a right of return). However, the Palestinians have no control and certainly little influence over the internal policy of other Arab states (i.e. Jewish right of return in those Arab states). How can anyone think this is some how an equivalent type of deal? If passed as written, it will just further cement the image of the US as a ally/pawn of Israel in the eyes of the Arab world.

[tjakey]

mmm...I thought we were a pawn of Israel? Is that actually in doubt somewhere?

[David B]

This makes little sense. Israel can set policy within its borders (i.e. who, if anyone, gets a right of return). However, the Palestinians have no control and certainly little influence over the internal policy of other Arab states (i.e. Jewish right of return in those Arab states). How can anyone think this is some how an equivalent type of deal? If passed as written, it will just further cement the image of the US as a ally/pawn of Israel in the eyes of the Arab world.

Not just the Arab world, but the dispassionate.

People as sophisticated as the ruling classes and such free press as exists in China, India, Africa, Latin America will not see this as a great step forward.

Nor those who don't think that Israel has some sort of divine right to the land it's more scriptural fundamentalist proponents claim in the West.

David B (is coming more and more to the conclusion that the West should abandon Israel, except insofar as their nukes should be taken out)

David B

[Arctish]

I don't see a problem with addressing the issue of refugees for the entire region. If the intent of this law and it's application is to reach a fair settlement for all of the refugees I'm in favor of it. The problem I see with this resolution is that it appears to equate all refugees regardless of the circumstances under which they became refugees. It looks a lot like the ridiculous zionist apologetics I have seen over and over again in discussions of Israel and refugees. Basically the defense of Israel's policies works this way: declare all of the Jewish refugees roughly equal the number of Arab refugees, declare the circumstances under which they became refugees were exactly the same (creation of the State of Israel), declare Israel took responsibility for the Jewish refugees and the Arabs are therefore responsible for the Arab refugees, and conclude calls for Israel to compensate it's victims are inspired by anti-semitism.

What this lacks is any sort of justice for the refugees themselves. It ignores their real losses and injuries. It sabotages any attempt to separate deliberate harm from unforseen consequences or collateral damage. Even worse, it disconnects responsibility for the harm and responsibility for the compensation.

The Palestinians forcibly removed from their villages when Israel was created and the Jews fleeing the radical Islamic takeover of the government in Algeria were made refugees under different circumstances. The causes were related but not the same. The losses in lives and property were also very different. Equating the two without acknowleging the differences is scarcely any better than ignoring both.

If the goal of this Resolution is persuading or compelling Arab governments to compensate their Jewish victims while at the same time persuading or compelling Israel to compensate it's Palestinian victims I support it. If the goal is to make the Tu Quoque fallacy part of our foreign policy I oppose this stupidity.

[Quizalufagus]

This makes little sense. Israel can set policy within its borders (i.e. who, if anyone, gets a right of return). However, the Palestinians have no control and certainly little influence over the internal policy of other Arab states (i.e. Jewish right of return in those Arab states). How can anyone think this is some how an equivalent type of deal? If passed as written, it will just further cement the image of the US as a ally/pawn of Israel in the eyes of the Arab world.

I think the resolution is actually very clever in light of the larger political dynamic. This bill isn't really aimed at the Palestinians per se, but rather at the Arab states who oppose Israel (and the west) under the pretense of supporting the oppressed Palestinian people. These states are the ones pulling the Palestinians' strings behind the scenes, and they also happen to the be the ones against whom Jewish refugees have a grievance. In many ways it's a brilliant move.

Nor those who don't think that Israel has some sort of divine right to the land it's more scriptural fundamentalist proponents claim in the West.

You're kidding, right? This sort of generalization about supporters of Israel is simply silly.

It looks a lot like the ridiculous zionist apologetics I have seen over and over again in discussions of Israel and refugees. Basically the defense of Israel's policies works this way: declare all of the Jewish refugees roughly equal the number of Arab refugees, declare the circumstances under which they became refugees were exactly the same (creation of the State of Israel), declare Israel took responsibility for the Jewish refugees and the Arabs are therefore responsible for the Arab refugees, and conclude calls for Israel to compensate it's victims are inspired by anti-semitism.

Are you suggesting that Jewish refugees somehow have a less valid complaint that Palestinian refugees?

[laughing dog]

I think the resolution is actually very clever in light of the larger political dynamic. This bill isn't really aimed at the Palestinians per se, but rather at the Arab states who oppose Israel (and the west) under the pretense of supporting the oppressed Palestinian people. These states are the ones pulling the Palestinians' strings behind the scenes, and they also happen to the be the ones against whom Jewish refugees have a grievance. In many ways it's a brilliant move. Except the way it is worded, it appears to be aimed at the Palestinians and requiring something of them that they are logically and legally unable to give. It does appear more like US posturing for Israel.


Are you suggesting that Jewish refugees somehow have a less valid complaint that Palestinian refugees? Since the resolution excludes Jewish refugees from non-Arab states, I think it answered your question - yes they do have a less valid complaint.

[Arctish]

It looks a lot like the ridiculous zionist apologetics I have seen over and over again in discussions of Israel and refugees. Basically the defense of Israel's policies works this way: declare all of the Jewish refugees roughly equal the number of Arab refugees, declare the circumstances under which they became refugees were exactly the same (creation of the State of Israel), declare Israel took responsibility for the Jewish refugees and the Arabs are therefore responsible for the Arab refugees, and conclude calls for Israel to compensate it's victims are inspired by anti-semitism.

Are you suggesting that Jewish refugees somehow have a less valid complaint that Palestinian refugees?

Not at all. You have missed my point. Perhaps I was not communicating it very well.

I am saying judge each case on it's own merits. Some of the Jewish refugees left unmolested and with all their possessions. Few of the Palestinian christains and muslims left under similar circumstances. Some of the Jewish refugees left their homes years after the creation of the State of Israel after enjoying a fairly secure and peaceable life until that point. Some refugees were created when governments changed, others when governments solidified their rule or turned xenophobic. Some lost all their possessions and many lost family members to violence. Calling them all equal is fundamentally unjust because they are not equal in cause, harm done, or losses suffered.

I am fully in favor of pursuing justice for the refugees - all of them. I am not in favor of deflecting calls for justice by accusing others of injustice. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. Perhaps I am being overly suspicious but my government has a history of hypocricy in the Middle East. I suspect more of the same here but will be very happy if I am proven wrong.