I would support it if I thought that it would do anything except derail the peace process even further. It is a good idea, at its heart, making the Arab countries recognize the fact that they have not been innocent bystanderds. We heard the phrase, "Palestine is a club that the Arab states use to beat Israel with." It is partly true. Look at the way that Lebanon has treated the Palestinian refugees. So, while I agree with parts of the resolution, recognizing that the Arab states hold guilt for how they have acted, I dislike the way that the resolution is being handled. If it were a big deal for the Jews in Israel, if it were necessary for the Jewish refugees to recieve reparations, I would support it. But, it is coming from the outside, imposed by American evangelicals in a move clearly designed to make things more complicated for the negotiators. I dont like it.
“'Dealing with [both refugee issues] honestly and upfront will increase the odds of a peaceful resolution,' says Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat congressman who was one of the bill's sponsors."
I don't know that I agree with this statement. It seems to me this is just once again the US trying to tip the scale as far on the Israeli side as they can so Israel get's max benifet from any peace agreement.
"But he also mentioned another goal: to show how Arab leaders, by keeping the Palestinian refugees in misery while the West accepted Jewish ones, have used the Palestinians as pawns to whip up anti-Israel feeling."
While I agree that the Arabs have done this, I don't think that they have unknowningly done this. I think this was probably fairly intentional and I don't see how this resultion is really going to make them feel bad about it.
So yeah, I'm not real impressed... Glad to hear that new ideas are at least being bounced around though.
As I'm trying to figure out how to make a post myself, I thought I'd sneak into the mesp blog with a comment. The issue of Arab Jewish and Palestinian refugees seems like it's comparing apples to apples, but I think the similarities are deceptive. Palestinians were forced off their land in the 1948 War by militant Zionist Jews and a UN resolution (pushed through by the West, which was trying to make up for its inaction during the Jewish refugee crisis before and during the Holocaust) that provided no transition plan for the creation of Israel. Arab Jews were forced off their land as an eye for an eye response to the belligerent nature of the European Jewish colonization of Palestine. Palestinians were reluctantly accepted as temporary refugees into neighboring Arab countries—in many cases never becoming full citizens—while Arab Jews were gladly welcomed by a self-described Jewish state that was trying to build up its ratio of Jews to non-Jews. This is not to say that we should hesitate to speak out against the violence that Arab Jews faced. But calling oranges apples does nothing to “increase the odds of a peaceful resolution” between Israelis and Palestinians.
4 comments:
I would support it if I thought that it would do anything except derail the peace process even further. It is a good idea, at its heart, making the Arab countries recognize the fact that they have not been innocent bystanderds. We heard the phrase, "Palestine is a club that the Arab states use to beat Israel with." It is partly true. Look at the way that Lebanon has treated the Palestinian refugees. So, while I agree with parts of the resolution, recognizing that the Arab states hold guilt for how they have acted, I dislike the way that the resolution is being handled. If it were a big deal for the Jews in Israel, if it were necessary for the Jewish refugees to recieve reparations, I would support it. But, it is coming from the outside, imposed by American evangelicals in a move clearly designed to make things more complicated for the negotiators. I dont like it.
Thanks Micah.
“'Dealing with [both refugee issues] honestly and upfront will increase the odds of a peaceful resolution,' says Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat congressman who was one of the bill's sponsors."
I don't know that I agree with this statement. It seems to me this is just once again the US trying to tip the scale as far on the Israeli side as they can so Israel get's max benifet from any peace agreement.
"But he also mentioned another goal: to show how Arab leaders, by keeping the Palestinian refugees in misery while the West accepted Jewish ones, have used the Palestinians as pawns to whip up anti-Israel feeling."
While I agree that the Arabs have done this, I don't think that they have unknowningly done this. I think this was probably fairly intentional and I don't see how this resultion is really going to make them feel bad about it.
So yeah, I'm not real impressed... Glad to hear that new ideas are at least being bounced around though.
As I'm trying to figure out how to make a post myself, I thought I'd sneak into the mesp blog with a comment. The issue of Arab Jewish and Palestinian refugees seems like it's comparing apples to apples, but I think the similarities are deceptive. Palestinians were forced off their land in the 1948 War by militant Zionist Jews and a UN resolution (pushed through by the West, which was trying to make up for its inaction during the Jewish refugee crisis before and during the Holocaust) that provided no transition plan for the creation of Israel. Arab Jews were forced off their land as an eye for an eye response to the belligerent nature of the European Jewish colonization of Palestine. Palestinians were reluctantly accepted as temporary refugees into neighboring Arab countries—in many cases never becoming full citizens—while Arab Jews were gladly welcomed by a self-described Jewish state that was trying to build up its ratio of Jews to non-Jews. This is not to say that we should hesitate to speak out against the violence that Arab Jews faced. But calling oranges apples does nothing to “increase the odds of a peaceful resolution” between Israelis and Palestinians.
Post a Comment