The Grayer it Becomes

Ethan Bronner, discussing a new revised version of Israeli historian Benny Morris? The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, has publicly waded into the quicksand of the Palestinian refugee issue, and, wanting to seem fair, merely drifts toward the anodyne.

After offering a Palestinian and Israeli perspective of the cause of the refugee problem, he offers this bland round-up phrase: ?All of this suggests that the more you look into the history of this conflict, the grayer it becomes, and the more difficult it is to assign blame cleanly.?

Well, yes, but that sort of misses the point. Did the Israelis plan to expel the Palestinians? Was it really ethnic cleansing? Were the Arab states responsible for the Palestinians? leaving their home? Somehow, all these questions miss a more fundamental one: Once the Palestinians left, or were expelled, were they allowed to return home? The answer is no, and you can read more about that in Morris? own Israel?s Border Wars, 1949-1956.

Comments

[Yehudit]

"the more difficult it is to assign blame cleanly.?

Why would one want to, in a conflict this complex? It seems to me that ongoing attempt to "assign blame cleanly" creates the scapegoating and distortions of history that have overwhelmed -especially on the Left these days - any negotiation that honors the wishes and reality of all the parties involved.

"all these questions miss a more fundamental one: Once the Palestinians left, or were expelled, were they allowed to return home?"

Why is this the most fundamental question? Unless you are prepared to create an overarching global principle about all refugees everywhere being allowed to return home.

The equal number of Jews who were forced out of the countries they had been living in for centuries before the Arabs took over (Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, the Saudi peninsula, Iraq, Iran) were also not allowed to return home. If they are not part of your discussion then you are not asking a fundamental question, but merely one designed to promote your biases.

[Andrew]

I will beat Rick to this thread, and apprise everyone that his panacea for the middle-east is to discontinue a couple of billion dollars per year to Israel in foreign assistance...
although the aid cut-off will not be conditional on any Israeli behavior, and (he says) they can get along without it, anyway.

Everyone who believes this proposal will revolutionise the situation in the Mid-East clap hands!

[Ignorant Law Student]

I believe it would change things. I don't know how.

Sunzi, the author of The Art of War, said that one should never fight an enemy with his back to the river -- he will not fight as fiercely if he believes there to be an escape. It seems that both Israelis and Palestinians feel at the brink of annihilation, and there is great potential for maniacal acts of desperation at this point.

On top of which, the billions of dollars that the US gives Israel is part of the Israel/Egypt peace deal - both sides get billions of dollars not to attack each other. It's been pretty good so far on that regard.

[Mo]

Yehudit,
I could be wrong, I have been before, but weren't the Jews expelled from those countries after the Palestianians were kept out. The expulsions are still immoral, but it changes things a bit. Also, I know quite a few Egyptian Jews, still in Egypt, so they all weren't expelled.

[Mo]

Also, do you think the Israelis would allow the Palestinians the right of return in exchange for the various Arab states allowing Jewish right of return for their land?

[joe]

Andrew, I don't think eliminating American military aid to Middle Eastern countries would be a panacea to thier problems. But it would keep our hands clean, while probably not make the violence any worse, and freeing up resources better spent through other channels.

[joe]

Mo's question, though incisive, is entirely rhetorical. Jewish refugees from Muslim countries, and their families, are never goint to move vack, and it's a shame. It would be so much better for all parties if all the Jewish former residents of Arab and Persian cities were to move back to them and reestablish themselves in the society and economy, but it's just never going to happen.

[Andrew]

Lucas

I mean to say that since 1948, Iraq (along with Syria and Saudi Arabia) has never signed a peace treaty with Israel. Egypt and Jordan have. The US can not sign such a treaty on behalf of Iraq...and it would not serve any point.

[SM]

Joe,
"It would be so much better for all parties if all the Jewish former residents of Arab and Persian cities were to move back to them and reestablish themselves in the society and economy, but it's just never going to happen."

Are you really this naive, Joe ? Jews move back to countries as reknowned for tolerance of minorities, pluralism etc, etc as fabled al-andalus and everything proceeds shiny and happily ?

[Andrew]

joe

Well...there will be few if any Jews returning to either North Africa, or the "frontline" states (Egypt. Jordan and Syria). But maybe the Arabian peninsula and Iraq and Persia.

Technically Iraq (and Saudi Arabia) are still in a state of war with Israel. That needs tending to.

I personally would like to see the aid phased out sensibly...and this is the only way it is likely to happen. I only regret it a little in the case of Jordan, a society that appears to be on the move.

The amount of money IS nearly trifling. The principal way America finances terrorism is buying Saudi and Persian oil.

[joe]

That's why it's never going to happen, SM. The Muslim states won't let them, and the Jews, who aren't as a whole suicidal, won't want to.

I think you misunderstood my post.

[Lucas Wiman]

I'm unconvinced that Iraq is at war with Israel. Why would Bush do that?