18.8.03
Corrected Ha'aretz editorial
Reading Ha'aretz's editorial today, entitled "There is no right of return", I noticed that there were a few problems in the honesty, moral integrity, and not-being-incredibly-hypocritical departments. Below are revised passages from the editorial that rectify these shortcomings (corrections/additions in italics):
Palestinian Authority External Affairs Minister Nabil Sha'ath chose Lebanon, an Arab state that denies the most fundamental human rights to a myriad of Palestinian refugees, as a base from which to unleash a provocative declaration regarding the right of 1948 refugees to return to Haifa. It is understandable that Sha'ath chose Lebanon, though, since Israel - the state that denies the same fundamental rights to the same exact refugees and is, in fact, responsible for their predicament - would never let the Palestinian minister speak any of these words from his native land, much less let him live there.
...
Speakers [at a recent rally]... attacked Dr. Khalil Shikaki, head of the public opinion research institute in Ramallah, who released a comprehensive survey showing that only a minority of refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and the territories want to redeem a right of return to Israel. Of course, we at Ha'aretz would never recommend that the Palestinians' right of return be recognized and Dr. Shikaki's findings be tested. We simply like to trot this research out for propagandistic reasons and validation of Israel's barbaric policies.
...
The Palestinian leadership would be well advised to take very seriously the united front in Israel that opposes a right of return. This is especially important for them to do so that they can sign a peace treaty before the apartheid nature of Israeli society becomes impossible to hide behind a 10-year-old sham of a "peace process". The most committed supporters of the Oslo Accords believe that a concession of refugees' right of return to Haifa can be traded fairly for a concession of Jews' right of return to Hebron. Oh, wait - we fucked up. We entitled our piece "There is no right of return". But now we are conceding that the Palestinians do have a "right" and that it does involve a "return". How did that make it into the paper? Where are our ideological commissars? Are we losing the ability to continue the mental and moral gymnastics that make both uncritical support of Israel and the carefree trampling of an entire people possible? Israel, just like the PA and Arab states, should have an interest in the search for a just solution for hundreds of thousands of stateless, disenfranchised people who live in, and outside, refugee camps. We had tears in our eyes thinking while writing these sentiments about their situation - really. But this solution cannot include a return of refugees to the State of Israel; instead, the return should be to the Palestinian state that will arise alongside Israel. We at Ha'aretz don't believe in the concept of countries taking responsibility for their crimes, nor in the idea of justice, nor in the idea of people being able to live their lives without facing the prospect of ethnic cleansing.
Reading Ha'aretz's editorial today, entitled "There is no right of return", I noticed that there were a few problems in the honesty, moral integrity, and not-being-incredibly-hypocritical departments. Below are revised passages from the editorial that rectify these shortcomings (corrections/additions in italics):
Palestinian Authority External Affairs Minister Nabil Sha'ath chose Lebanon, an Arab state that denies the most fundamental human rights to a myriad of Palestinian refugees, as a base from which to unleash a provocative declaration regarding the right of 1948 refugees to return to Haifa. It is understandable that Sha'ath chose Lebanon, though, since Israel - the state that denies the same fundamental rights to the same exact refugees and is, in fact, responsible for their predicament - would never let the Palestinian minister speak any of these words from his native land, much less let him live there.
...
Speakers [at a recent rally]... attacked Dr. Khalil Shikaki, head of the public opinion research institute in Ramallah, who released a comprehensive survey showing that only a minority of refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and the territories want to redeem a right of return to Israel. Of course, we at Ha'aretz would never recommend that the Palestinians' right of return be recognized and Dr. Shikaki's findings be tested. We simply like to trot this research out for propagandistic reasons and validation of Israel's barbaric policies.
...
The Palestinian leadership would be well advised to take very seriously the united front in Israel that opposes a right of return. This is especially important for them to do so that they can sign a peace treaty before the apartheid nature of Israeli society becomes impossible to hide behind a 10-year-old sham of a "peace process". The most committed supporters of the Oslo Accords believe that a concession of refugees' right of return to Haifa can be traded fairly for a concession of Jews' right of return to Hebron. Oh, wait - we fucked up. We entitled our piece "There is no right of return". But now we are conceding that the Palestinians do have a "right" and that it does involve a "return". How did that make it into the paper? Where are our ideological commissars? Are we losing the ability to continue the mental and moral gymnastics that make both uncritical support of Israel and the carefree trampling of an entire people possible? Israel, just like the PA and Arab states, should have an interest in the search for a just solution for hundreds of thousands of stateless, disenfranchised people who live in, and outside, refugee camps. We had tears in our eyes thinking while writing these sentiments about their situation - really. But this solution cannot include a return of refugees to the State of Israel; instead, the return should be to the Palestinian state that will arise alongside Israel. We at Ha'aretz don't believe in the concept of countries taking responsibility for their crimes, nor in the idea of justice, nor in the idea of people being able to live their lives without facing the prospect of ethnic cleansing.
