Close your eyes, breathe in deeply, now exhale slowly… That was easy, wasn’t it? Not for everyone…
When President Bush hosted the Annapolis Conference in 2007, Israel, the Palestinians, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice left hoping that some resolution to the decades-old conflict would reveal itself by the end of 2008. The likelihood of such an outcome by the end of Bush’s presidency seems to be steadily evaporating, as Israel’s prime minister exits office in disgrace and Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, though softening his rhetoric, is still adamant that “Palestinian refugees must have the right to return to their homeland” (as he recently asserted in his meeting with Hosni Mubarak of Egypt) and that “Jerusalem and the right of return are inalienable Palestinian rights, too.”
For their part, Hamas leaders (Abbas’s political foes) are even more direct and stringent on the issue, contending that any negotiations “which disregards the basic rights of the Palestinians, and their internationally-guaranteed Right of Return will not be accepted by the Palestinian people.”
All sentient observers of the Palestinian issue know that “right of return” is a core tactic in rendering any viable Arab/Israeli solution effectively impossible — that the prospect of some four or five million Palestinian refuges flooding into Israel would, as University of Haifa professor Steven Plaut puts it, “derail Israel demographically and turn it into the Rwanda of the Levant.”
The demand for a right of return — a notion referred to by Abbas and his Palestinian supporters as “sacred” and an “enshrined” universal human right granted by UN resolutions and international law — in fact has no legal or diplomatic standing, and is part of the propaganda campaign based on the thinking that if Israel cannot be eradicated by the Arabs though war, it can be destroyed by being forced to commit demographic suicide.
In the first place, the concept of the right of return has at its core the notion that the Palestinians were “victimized” by the creation of Israel; that they were expelled from a land of “Palestine” where they were the indigenous people “from time immemorial,” as historian Joan Peters put it in her book of the same name.
The recounting of this wistful reading of history has enabled the Palestinian cause to become the obsession of Western leftists, Middle East Study Centers on university campuses, the United Nations, and throughout the Arab world where Jew-hatred helps fuel a central, persistent myth of Zionist oppression of Muslims.
More important, far from being either a “sacred” or, for that matter, legal right, the right of return is a one-sided concoction that deliberately misreads UN resolutions for political advantage and conveniently embraces only those portions that fit the intent of Arabs to make good on their long-standing intent to “drive Israel into the sea.”
In continually repeating the lie that they are victims of the “Zionist regime” and were expelled from a country of their own and condemned to unending refugee status, the Palestinians — and their Arab enablers — have prolonged the myth of victimhood.
But as Professor Efraim Karsh, head of Mediterranean Studies at King’s College at the University of London and the author of Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians, points out, the “claim of premeditated dispossession is itself not only baseless, but the inverse of the truth. Far from being the hapless victims of a predatory Zionist assault, the Palestinians were themselves the aggressors in the 1948-49 war, and it was they who attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to ‘cleanse’ a neighboring ethnic community. Had the Palestinians and the Arab world accepted the United Nations resolution of November 29, 1947, calling for the establishment of two states in Palestine, and not sought to subvert it by force of arms, there would have been no refugee problem in the first place.”
Thus, the accusations that the creation of the State of Israel led to the eradication and dispossession of a Palestinian “nation” and that Israel continues to obstruct and deny the Palestinians’ right to self-determination are spurious at best. Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, notes that before the 1967 war when Israel took control of Gaza and the West Bank, no one — including the Palestinians themselves — thought of the Palestinians as a nation; this “supposed national identity was invented in the 1960s in what turned about to be an extraordinarily successful ploy to adjust the paradigm of the Arab-Israeli conflict with the newly-minted Palestinians as the underdogs.”
About the Author: Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., is president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and author of “Genocidal Liberalism: The University’s Jihad Against Israel & Jews.”
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
The convicted murderer was released from Israeli prison with more than two dozen other sociopaths
JCF is a donor/supporter of The New Israel Fund which supports BDS & wants IDF soldiers prosecuted
The ‘Peace Industry’ promotes its adherents; weak leaders, both military & political, is the result
What does the Torah want from our small nation described as “they who struggle with God & with men”?
Mr. Nadler’s support for the deal is a naked political gift to a president who has defied logic in his quest to reinvent international affairs according to his ideological inclinations.
In practical terms, the proclamation surely makes a compelling argument:
BDS activists are not shy about discriminating against Israelis simply because they are Israelis –
A Federal Ct Judge ordered the PA to post JUST $10 million due to interfering letter from State Dept
Osakwe, like many other students at the CAMERA conference, described an extremely hostile campus environment when it comes to the issue of Israel.
Many people view a letter or manuscript by a chassidic rebbe or the Chofetz Chaim as intrinsically holy.
Key Iran Lobby figures had been major donors to both Biden and Kerry when they were in the Senate,
Abbas’ resignation has now sparked speculation about who will fill his place if and when he leaves
The primary objective of this conference was to question the fundamental legitimacy of Israel itself
Only in the inverted world of academia would Jewish professors denounce the AMCHA Initiative report.
Rather than serving as a deterrent against terrorist attacks, Israel’s military strength and capabilities are instead looked at as an unfair advantage in the asymmetrical war in which it finds itself.
The multiculturalism that animates the hate-Israel crowd is sprinkled with code words of oppression
Jews do not fare well on campuses these days, particularly in the context of the debate over Israel.
The cynical, and historically and factually inaccurate, view has meant leftists frequently denounce Western democracies as imperialistic, racist, militaristic oppressors.
What was unique about the MLA’s and the ASA’s approach was the breathtakingly Orwellian notion that not only was Israel itself guilty of the many alleged transgressions assigned to it by its libelers, but a boycott against Israeli academics was warranted because the academic establishment itself is complicit in Zionism’s excesses and a core element of the bemoaned occupation, oppression, and denial of Palestinian self-determination.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/there-is-no-palestinian-right-of-return/2008/10/01/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: