August 06, 2009

Ha'aretz demands right of return for Palestinians

Well not all Palestinians, just the ones whose ethnic cleansing
paints Israel in the world's eyes as a country that maintains a cruel regime of occupation, oppresses the weak and strives to create political facts in the disputed city under the guise of the "rule of law."
The Ha'aretz editorial really shows the cleft stick that liberal/left zionists find themselves in.

Israel has evicted thousands of times more than just two Palestinian families. Ethnic cleansing is one of the pillars on which the State of Israel stands. Whoever writes for Ha'aretz knows this. Look:
A democratic state that strives for peace and justice simply has no right to uproot families who became refugees in 1948.
Where was the writer in 1967? Does he or she not know that the 67 war was accompanied by another bout of ethnic cleansing by Israel. Many of the victims of that round were refugees from 1948. And when did Israel ever strive for peace?

But there's more:
No thinking person will be persuaded that Jews have a sweeping right to return to their homes in East Jerusalem as long as Israeli law not only bars Palestinians from returning to their homes in West Jerusalem, but even evicts them from the houses where they have lived for the last 60 years. The Israel Lands Administration's regulations do not even allow Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem to buy land and houses in many parts of the city.
Are they saying that the average Israeli is unthinking? Or are they saying that Gideon Levy is an average Israeli?
It is impossible to ignore the injustices of 1948 while hundreds of thousands of refugees rot in the camps. No agreement will hold water without a solution to their plight, which is more feasible than Israel's strident scaremongers suggest. But rulings like the current one make it harder to distinguish clearly between Sheikh Jarrah and Sheikh Munis, between the conquest of 1948 and the conquests of 1967. My house stands on land stolen by force, and it is the obligation of Israel and the world to redress the injustice without creating injustice and new dislocation. My house stands on land that was stolen, but the whole world has recognized the Jews' right to establish their state there. At the same time, no country in the world has recognized Israel's right to conquer Sheikh Jarrah as well.
The world? Was it really the whole world?
In my morning musings on the way to the pool, I sometimes think about the land's original owners. I long for the day when Israel takes moral and material responsibility for the injustice done to them. Now, because of the court ruling, my right to continue to swim here may also be in doubt.
The world can always change its mind, can't it?

0 comments:

Post a Comment