One important thing that was left out is that the right of return (RoR) is first of all an individual right in the sense that no entity has the legal right to negotiate away. It is a right enshrined in human and international law and has been the subject of ritual yearly affirmation by the United Nations. The rationale offered by Israeli and Zionist organzations, groups and individuals is that by granting the right of return to Palestinians then Israel ceases to be a Jewish State--The Arab demographic threat which prompted the enactment of the marriage law depriving the non-Israeli spouses and children of Israeli citizens from gaining Israeli citizenship. This would not have become an issue had Israel chose to abide by international law which many pro-zionists refer to to affirm the legitimacy of the State of Israel.

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/20/2008 @ 05:07AM PST

"When that happens, the political opposition to a peace deal will continue to use the RoR as a wedge issue to try and get the radical left to denounce it."
This statement shows your real agenda here and ignorance of the complexity of the Palestinian reality.
First of all the Palestinian authority and the leadership in the West Bank and Gaza does not represent but less than half of the Palestinians. About 50% of Palestinians live in exile in neighboring Arab countries and around the world. They did not vote for this Palestinian authority not by choice but because the PA is supposed to represent the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza. In this respect the PA cannot and has no mandate or jurisdiction in negotiating away the rights of those refugees who had no say in the election of this "leadership".
Your statement is poisonous because it implies that those who insist on Israel recognizing and abiding by international law and human rights are in fact anti-peace and would do anything to scuttle peace deals. Peace can be achieved tomorrow if Israel moves to accept its responsibility in the creation of the refugee problem and moves to either repatriate, compensate and apologize. The issue of the refugees and their rights has to be solved within the framework of international law and humanitarian ethics. A referendum has to be conducted to determine what is acceptable to the refugees themselves.
Any peace deal, like you put it as if it is a commercial transaction, has to based on justice and has to be fair. It has to address the root causes of the conflict not sysmptoms. The refugee issue has been at the heart of this conflict and it must addressed not dismissed or used in the manner you do here to classify organizations as "good boys", "bad boys" depending on whether they are willing to give in to Israel's wishes or insist on what is right.

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/21/2008 @ 05:14AM PST

Aref, it sounds like on this issue you are a '4.' All power to you!

Posted by Charles Lenchner on 11/21/2008 @ 05:21AM PST

Charles, I am proud to be a 4. The first thing that a true peace maker has to do is to be able to listen to the victims as well as to the victimizers and then find ways to resolve the issues. It seems to me that you refuse to listen to anyone who has a different view.
Change begins with oneself. We cannot change the world if we are unwilling or incapable of changing ourselves. I have gone through a huge change from a nationlist to a humanist outlook. Are you willing to do the same?

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/21/2008 @ 05:45AM PST

Seriuosly Charles, do you have an argument other than the labeling to present for I have written? Or is this sole purpose of your ranking scheme so that you can pigeon-hole people?

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/21/2008 @ 06:02AM PST

Let me rewrite this last message.
Seriously Charles, do you have any argument to present for what I have written other than you labeling? Or is the purpose of your ranking scheme is the pigeon-holing of individuals and organizations? This is not a rhetorical question.

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/21/2008 @ 06:19AM PST

I don't think Charles is trying to insult anybody. He is presenting several different common opinions about the right of return. It isn't clear to me how they are ranked however. The criteria for the ranking isn't clear however.

Posted by Anthony Vernetti on 11/21/2008 @ 02:13PM PST

I think part of the problem is the word 'rank.' I didn't mean to suggest that there is a line from best to worst. It's just a line from what could be described as 'amenable to Israel as it is' to 'against Israel as it is.' Maybe folks assume that I support views that are more amenable to Israel?

It's curious that Araf has taken it as an assualt on his views.

Does anyone dispute that '3' represents (more or less) the middle of Palestinian public opinion within historic Palestine at this moment?

Posted by Charles Lenchner on 11/21/2008 @ 03:25PM PST

It is not the use of the word rank. It is the language and the implied meaning and connotations that is a big part of the problem. For example when you say "Better the Right of Return without peace than peace without the Right of Return. " (in #4 where you pigeon-holed me) What does that imply? Read it and think about what it says. It says that we would rather insist on the right of return even if this means that it will diminish or annihilate the possibility of peace rather than have peace and give up the right of return. Then you go and put organizations in this category which may or may not actually fit what you conclude by insisting on the right of return. When I clarified the legal issues and what most Palestinians think, you come and stick a label on me--not that I care what you label me I have had much worse labels stuck on me. This is what I have a problem with, reducing these very complex and nuanced issues to a simplistic ranking, or whatever you want to call, system which means nothing. Then comes the summary with the "Congratulations you are being watched by the FBI". What the fuck is this supposed to mean? What purpose does it serve? Are you saying that those people and organizations are terrorist criminal and extremist organizations? Are you trying to tell others that if you support or sympathize with such organizations then you can expect to be watched by the FBI?
Further I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when I asked what is the purpose of this system. You gave me an answer and I accepted it and waited to see where things went and what came out was nothing but a system of pigeon-holing which does not capture any of the nuances and complexities of any given organization. What came out is exactly what I expected to see in a State Department classification of "good boys" and "bad boys". Maybe that was not the intent but this is the way it comes across and it is the way I and others perceive it.
No Charles, I do not care if you assault my views or not. As I mentioned I am quite used to that thank you. I have had more than thirty years of assaults on my views that I am quite used to it. What I am bothered with is the tendency to reduce and simplify issues to single points at the cost of losing all relevant context. This is what this classification system does. I don't care if you are going to do the same thing regarding the Israeli side. I do not seek stripping the issues of their context and relevance. I and I assume many others seek a good and deeper understanding of the issues and rationale. I want to dig deeper beyond the obvious in order to get a complete picture or as complete as possible. If I wanted simplification and stripping things of context I would be watching CNN or Fox News not here. That is what I have a problem with and that is what others have tried to point out to you but you don't seem to want to admit that there is anything wrong with the language or the method. Whatever you are trying to achieve maybe clear to you but it is certainly not clear to anyone who has voiced an opinion here. You simply dismissed me and you dismissed Kay and Gerry. You have your agenda--yes this is your blog--and you want to follow it regardless of what others say. That is not how you are going to achieve peace. I am sorry but I really do not get it. I am not asking you to acquiesce or to adopt my views. All that I am trying to say is that you have to be careful about the language and about the system of classification especially when it comes to the Palestinian organizations. We have huge and great sensitivity to this issue because it was used for a long time as means to create divisions within our society and to create suspicion among the various groups with the result of weakening the unity and therefore resolve of the Palestinians in their struggle against the occupation. That is why you will not find any Palestinian who will accept your ranking system and who will be happy and go along with it. Obviously you do not know the thinking, the attitude and culture of the Palestinian people and this is a major problem for someone who wants to work for peace among Israelis and Palestinians.

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/21/2008 @ 04:23PM PST

" Eighty-two percent of Palestinian respondents in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip said that the most just solution to the refugee problem is one based on United Nations Resolution 194, which calls for the right of return for all Palestinian refugees and compensation for those who do not return. Only 11% of Palestinians say that the most just solution would be that which appears to be on the negotiations table now, i.e., return for a limited number of refugees and suitable compensation for those who do not return, to be negotiated between Israel and Palestinians. "

You can read the rest of this report from the Jeruslaem Media and Communications center:
http://www.jmcc.org/research/reports/refugees.htm
There are several opinion polls conducted in a scientific method with the data and methodology published within which shed a bright light on what Palestinians think. Again keep in mind that those are the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who constitute only anout 50% of all Palestinians.

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/21/2008 @ 06:48PM PST

I must add that the vast majority of Palestinian refugees outside the West Bank and Gaza also support resolution 194. In a poll over 80% of Palestinian refugees supported the idea of returning to what is Israel even if it meant aquiring Israeli citizenship. I will find the source and put a link here.
There you have it.

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/21/2008 @ 07:03PM PST

Here's another link with several articles as well as interpretations of human rights issues relating to refugees and the RoR.
In my previous comment I believe the information provided is not quite correct. My apologies. However, as promised I will do the research and provide factual, reliable and most importantly scientific data regarding this issue.

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/21/2008 @ 07:23PM PST

Here's the link. I am sorry.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/returnindex.htm

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/21/2008 @ 07:24PM PST

There was a scientific survey conducted in 2003 by the Center for Palestinian Surveys and Research. http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/refugeesjune03.html. It deals with the intended behavior and attitudes of refugees in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan and Lebanon.

It's hard to summarize the findings in a simple sentence, but it's something like this: Refugees are split in thier opinions. Many of them were quite willing to discuss alternatives to return while still supporting a peace agreement.

The problem with pointing to UN Resolution 194 is that it doesn't actually dictate the terms of an agreed settlement between Israel and the Palestinian refugees; it merely states a principle. That has to be implemented, and many options exist. And those that support resolution 194 actually split into many camps based on which solution they support.

One can still support 194, and also agree that the terms of a settlement are subject to negotiation. And this is precisely that the rank of '3' points to: the range of opinions held by the broad middle of the Palestinian people, that the right of return is sacred AND that the actual terms of how that right would be implemented are likely to represent a compromise that they would support.

Still confused about why folks think I'm attacking anyone. I mean, I am being snarky sometimes, but if I joke about folks needing to worry about the FBI it's also a statement about the erosion of civil rights in this country, not a call to criminalize anyone's views.

Posted by Charles Lenchner on 11/21/2008 @ 08:54PM PST