…No doubt, the creation of the Jewish state in 1948, and the subsequent decades of expansion from war have been a blistering experience for every side, most notably the American taxpayer. Attacks against civilians are common. Both sides in the fighting claim the moral high ground, and in most cases, victory. In the name of self-defense, Israel’s military has made mistakes which cost her political gold, Jewish blood and reputation in the world body. Expulsion of Palestinian Arabs is no small part of the problem and herein lies the groundwork for the right of return…
On August 11th, “Al-Awda” or the Palestinian Right of Return Organization, staged a protest in my home town of San Diego. Naturally, I grew interested as the event was billed as a protest to the “massive pre-meditated Israeli onslaught on the Palestinian and Lebanese civilian populations.”
The larger issue on the floor was Arab separation from homes and villages in Palestine, violent occupation and regional fighting. The current events unfolding in the Eastern Mediterranean gave the idea a brighter spotlight, and the purpose a greater chance of garnering more attention. The timing was right for an Islamic protest.
The sponsors of the event are publically financed by Islamic groups who oppose any aid to Israel. Yousef Abudayyeh of the Arab Americans Association of San Diego was unequivocal in his condemnation of the U.S. And Israel, and said, that it is “a shame this money is used to kill people.” Abudayyeh and others made no comment denouncing Syria or Iran’s funding of Hezbollah or criticized thousands of rockets blasting away at Northern Israel, ostensibly making Lebanon the archetype of a functioning but failed state, in the model of the Palestinian Authority.
Abudayyeh would probably dismiss my concerns over his lack of objectivity by mentioning that there is more than enough support for Israel, and that if Islamic groups don’t speak up and participate, then the violent option being exercised by Hezbollah becomes the only option. My response is for another article at another time. Let’s get back to the cultural, historical and legal basis for a Palestinian right of return.
The relevant background isn’t hard to find. It stems from Article 13(2) [et al.] of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads in pertinent part,
“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”
Human Rights Watch agrees, and has long defended the notion of return, and perhaps for the stated purpose that some Zionist aruge, the destruction of Israel through Arab migration. International Jewish Jurist Anne Bayefsky concluded that there was an anti-Semitic agenda at Human Rights Watch when she wrote,
“When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do…”
Gerald Steinberg is one of the more vociferous critics of Human Rights Watch. In a 2006 National Review article titled “Human-Rights Schizophrenia” Steinberg wrote,
“During the height of the terror attacks against Israel, HRW focused one-third of its entire Middle East effort on condemnations directed at Israel. This went far beyond legitimate criticism, and suggested an obsession.”
Kenneth Roth, the executive director of HRW, published a response to criticism from Israel’s supporters on April 1, 2004 in the Jerusalem Post, titled “The Truth Hurts”. Roth defends HRW’s allegations that Israel breaks humanitarian law, referring to Israel’s policy of
“…assassinating suspects, punishing families, employing abusive interrogation techniques, imposing punitive restrictions on the Palestinian population that go well beyond security requirements, building a security barrier not on the Green Line but with deep incursions into the West Bank to protect settlements that themselves violate the Geneva Conventions”
While it is true that at least a respectable measure of HRW’s attention is mustered for harsh criticism of Israel’s policy of occupation and in support of the Palestinian right of return demanded by the Islamic protestors, to call HRW “anti-semitic” or leveling accusations of “illegitimate criticism” ignores the faithful work of HRW in a wide range of areas and topics around the globe, and underscores Jewish sensitivity to all but the most flattering remarks. Most likely, the Zionists’ response was designed to lesson the effect HRW’s reports have on the press, public and global policy makers. Since Israel can’t win on the merits, some would say, they have no choice but to call their critics racist.
No doubt, the creation of the Jewish state in 1948, and the subsequent decades of expansion from war have been a blistering experience for every side, most notably the American taxpayer. Attacks against civilians are common. Both sides in the fighting claim the moral high ground, and in most cases, victory. In the name of self-defense, Israel’s military has made mistakes which cost her political gold, Jewish blood and reputation in the world body. Expulsion of Palestinian Arabs is no small part of the problem and herein lies the groundwork for the right of return.
The history surrounding the taking of Arab lands after the founding of the Jewish state gives Israel a near free pass, if you look no further than the Jewish perspective on the events on. Still, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister and a reputed Communist who admired the Soviet system, pledged that new nation would “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex.” Privately, and sometimes openly, Ben-Gurion seemed to have very little intention of keeping any promise to the land-owning Arab. Said Ben-Gurion in 1919:
“Everybody sees the problem…between the Jews and the [Palestinian] Arabs…There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the [Palestinian] Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved… We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs.”
Early on, Zionists made critical errors in evaluating Arab nationalism, and used poorly reasoned arguments to deny Palestinian Arabs any right of self-determination. The Zionists got it right when they assessed Arab hate towards Jews and determined that the hostility wasn’t based on race, but rather on the tangible fear of being disposed of economic power in burgeoning Zionist settlements. Arabs called it the “Nakba” and it refers to the violent expulsion of inhabitants of the country and the transformation of those remaining into refugees in their homeland, or into incomplete citizens
Benny Morris, a modern and well know Zionist apologist, has been determined to justify the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from the newly declared state of Israel in 1948, which is continuing today. In an interview for Ha Eretz in January 2004, Morris openly supports the removal of Arabs, and defended the Israeli choice of uprooting 700,000 Arabs in the aftermath of the end to the British Mandate. The choice according to Morris was one of “ethnic cleansing [of the Arabs] or genocide [of the Jews].”
So that’s where it started. A hostile backlash from the Arabs who were becoming dispossessed of their own lands became cultural paranoia for the Jews, ergo, they were justified to remove all of the Arabs. If its that simple, then why is so much of the planet up in arms over such a thin sliver of land?
Still, while the march in San Diego was couched in a debate on the plight of palestinian Arabs, what it looks like is more of the same anti-American sentiment, only this time it isn’t being digitized from Damascus. Its coming from right here at home.
Other organizations who participated included The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and The Raza Rights Coalition, International Socialist Organization and other Islamic or Socialist groups.
Police report that about 300 people attended the march.
Written by Jesse Toler [send him email], who is an activist and contributing writer to www.populistamerica.com
