iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ben S. Cohen

Ben S. Cohen

Posted: October 28, 2010 03:31 PM

I wonder how many of those commentators who diligently monitor the "muzzling" activities of the "Israel Lobby" will note the story of a UN official who made a perfectly reasonable observation at a recent conference, and now has everyone from Hamas to the government of Jordan demanding his head on a plate.

The official in question was Andrew Whitley, the New York Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA,) the UN body charged with providing aid and services to Palestinian refugees. When UNRWA began its operations in 1949, there were approximately 700,000 refugees; now there are close to 5 million, by dint of the fact that, in marked contrast to other refugee populations, Palestinians registered with UNRWA can pass down refugee status to subsequent generations. It's also a pertinent fact that explains why Whitley said what he did.

"We recognize, as I think most do, although it's not a position that we publicly articulate, that the right of return is unlikely to be exercised to the territory of Israel to any significant or meaningful extent," Whitley told an audience at the National Council for US-Arab Relations conference. "It's not a politically palatable issue, it's not one that UNRWA publicly advocates, but nevertheless it's a known contour to the issue." Instead of entertaining that "cruel illusion," he continued, Palestinians should start considering "their own role in the societies where they are, rather than being left in a state of limbo where they are helpless."

For simply articulating a truth known by very many, not the least the Palestinian leadership, for decades, Whitley was chastised by the Jordanians, while Hamas angrily demanded his dismissal: one more example of how speaking your mind can land you in scalding water with those who regard freedom of speech as contingent on what you say.

Still, it's hard to fault Whitley's logic. Of the 50 million people who lost their homes because of war and conflict in the twentieth century, practically none of the original displaced returned to their homes, never mind their descendants. The historical record shows that refugees - like those 17,000 displaced Jews administered to by UNRWA back in 1950 - are invariably absorbed by host countries.

What's different in the Palestinian case is that the refugee question, and its associated "right of return," has been deliberately positioned by the Arab side as the single biggest obstacle to a final settlement of the conflict with Israel. Accepting that the refugees will not go home, that they will live free of the apartheid conditions imposed on them in states like Lebanon and Syria, and that they might even receive some financial compensation on top, is the height of political incorrectness in the Middle East. It means accepting not only that Israel has the right to exist, but also the right to define itself as the democratic state of the Jewish people.

More than settlements, or Avigdor Lieberman, or any other variable you might care to mention, it is this refusal to break with the narrative of Zionism's original sin which has derailed the peace talks for nearly two decades. As I was researching a new short film on the peace process (embedded below too,) I was struck by how the offers made by Benjamin Netanyahu's predecessors would have resulted in a contiguous, viable Palestinian state in nearly 100 per cent of the West Bank, had they been accepted.

They were rejected because resistance to the notion of two states side by side - which, let us remind ourselves, is where President Obama wants the parties to be one year from now - runs counter to the main currents of Palestinian nationalism.

The persistence of refugee status for millions of Palestinians has been the physical bedrock of rejectionism, both expressly, as in the infamous "three noes" of the Khartoum conference of 1967, and by implication, as demonstrated by the recent Palestinian decision to withdraw from direct talks. Could Andrew Whitley's carefully worded remarks mark the beginning of a seismic shift on the Arab side, given that he has arrived at these conclusions as a friend of the Palestinians? I don't want to predict. All I will say is this: those who call themselves peace advocates could prove themselves by encouraging the liberation of the Palestinians from what, to the western flotillistas and their ilk, seems like a noble dream, but is, for the people living the reality, a quixotic struggle with no end.


 

Follow Ben S. Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ZWord

 
 
  • Comments
  • 80
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Allan Richter
02:56 PM on 11/06/2010
“Israel to any significant or meaningful extent’, Whitley told an audience at the National Council for US-Arab Relations conference. ‘It's not a politically palatable issue…but nevertheless it's a known contour to the issue. Instead of entertaining that cruel illusion…Palestinians should start considering their own role in the societies where they are, rather than being left in a state of limbo where they are helpless’…” (Whitley quoted by Ben Cohen).

The operative word here is cruel. Do the Arabs feel no shame? Do the member nations of the United Nations feel no shame? Muslim Arabs don’t love their fellow Arabs but cruelly use them as political pawns? The United Nations dominated by cynical hate and politics co-operates with Arab states keeping generations of Arabs in cages in Arab lands? There is a command in the Torah to love not only your neighbor but also the stranger. Whether neighbor or stranger the United Nations cooperating with the cynical policies of the Arab states is collaboration with evil.

Whitely is correct. Palestinians should start considering their role in the societies where they are. But the Arab states holding the keys to the prison doors should also accept their fellow Arabs, not hate them. The United Nations should end its cynical collaboration with evil.
02:43 PM on 11/01/2010
This is the key to ending the conflict. The Arabs must begin to resettle the refugees from their failed wars against Israel. The reason they haven't is that the Arabs are still hoping to destroy Israel and evict the so-called refugees. In every other conflict, the refugees are settled, except for this one.

The the US gave citizenship to the Vietnamese and Cambodians who sided with the US in our wars in Indochina. The US gave citizenship to the Cubans who fled the collapse of our puppet in Cuba, much as the Germans gave resettled the Germans evicted from Danzig (now Gdansk) after it was taken from Germany in response to WWII (curious that no one has ever called Lech Walesa a "settler"). The millions of refugees in the Pakistan/India division, found homes and citizenship. The Arabs must give citizenship to the people who fled their attack on Israel in 1948 and 67, just as Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees ethnically cleansed from Arab lands after 1948.

The Gaza strip should also be resettled as part of Egypt, from where it came. Just as the Palestinians who came to the US and were given citizenship here (can you imagine them being deported to Palestine after a peace treaty? never), the refugees who reside in Gaza, having fled Egypt's attack in 1948, should be given Egyptian citizenship.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trollstein
Once you go Schwartz, you never go back baby
10:33 AM on 10/31/2010
For so long I have been saying this. The artificial and anti-civilian perpetuation of nationless so called "refugees" fuels the core-conflict (with high octane) and denies these Arabs of Palestinian lineage normal human rights. Since these 5-6--million are not likely to be granted Israeli citizenship; while some may move to WB--after final agreement on same but most should be thinking about establishing their national and human rights where they were born.
BTW: Mr. Arafat rejected $30-bbln in international pledges (y2k) without batting an eye. He could have at least demanded $300-billion before storming off and starting his 2nd "Intafata".
09:08 PM on 10/31/2010
So you are opposed to the idea of refugees being able to return to their land?

Isn't that the entire basis for the state of Israel?
The only difference is that most of the israeli refugees can't actually trace their lineage back to Israel like these Palestinians can.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trollstein
Once you go Schwartz, you never go back baby
10:17 AM on 11/01/2010
Not everyone who is displaced becomes a legally defined "refugee". There are specific criteria to be met. Except if one is a Palestinian-Arab, in which case all the rules are flushed and new rules are composed just to apply to them. For example, no other group claiming refugee status has ever been permitted (let alone encouraged) to pass their "refugee" status down through successive generations. What this means is that the vast majority of the population of Arabs claiming to be refugees from 1948 have never once set foot inside Israel. Israel rightly refuses to recognize this new rule--which only applies (adversely mind you) to them. Confusing the Jewish "right of return" is a common rhetorical argument. But there is no moral equivalency since Israel is an intentional community intended as a refuge for Jews. If Saudi Arabia (for example) wished to live up to its spiritual charter, it would permit Muslims of all nationalities to freely immigrate and become Saudi citizens and maybe also share in the oil wealth. Each nation of the 192 UN members gets to pick-and-choose who to give favored immigration status to. Israel is no exception in that regard.
11:38 AM on 10/29/2010
Muslims Arab governed by Arabs–Jews governed by Jews
--
Lesson to be implemented while defining the boarders between Israel and the new Arab state to be invented in addition to the 22 Arab states

A:CONCLUTIONS FROM THE UNSOLVED CONFLICTS
*PEOPLE DESIRE TO BE GOVERNED BY THEIR OWN
*ARTIFICAL OR IMPOSED BOARDERS ARE NOT PERMANET SOLUTIONS
*THEY ARE THE SEEDS OF ONGOING CONFLICTS

1:Minimize the creation of conflict continuation while defining boarders
2:Muslims governed by Arabs. Jews and others governed by Israel.
3:Israel will hand over to Palestin government land inhabited by Arabs from Israel and the Jews from settlements will be governed by Israel.
B:Example of unsolved conflicts created by the European&Muslim Emperial period.
Hopefully American will not be trapped to the same mistakes.
1:Vive le Quibec Frances
2:Belgian Valones and Flames separation desired
3:Scottish independence from UK
4:All Balkans wars and conflicts
5:Wars in Caucuses
6:Tibetan independencies desire
8:African wars as result of European policy of slip /unite tribes
10:Kashmir
11:Chasing of Christians&non Muslims people in Muslim countries
12; he civil wars Lebanon artificially created by France.

C: Solutions example
1:The peaceful split of Czechoslovakia into Czech and Slovakia
2:In Swiss a canton has been split into:Jura-France and Bern-German
3:Turkey&Greece don’t fight the last 90 years following the population exchange.1.5 million Greeks from Turkey and0.5 million Muslims from Greece were uprooted
4:Turkey force partition of Cyprus into a Christian and Muslim areas is a problem or the solution? on the ground no casualties
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JibberJabberwocky
04:29 PM on 10/29/2010
I'm not a fan of ethnic cleansing, personally.

Citizens of Israel should be governed by a soveign Israeli government; Citizens of Palestine should be governed by a soverign Palestinain government.

While they have legitimate claims for the 1948 borders, it seems the Palestinains have conceeded that Israel's soverignty should be allowed to extend to the pre-1967 borders. Given the number of israeli citizens living between the 1948 and 1967 borders, I think that is an appropriate concession, and one that should be acknowledged by Israel.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BcemXAHA
אני כלום בלעדיהם
06:53 PM on 10/29/2010
I fully support Israel moving back to the borders as they were pre the Six Days War. But I don't think that it will happen.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trollstein
Once you go Schwartz, you never go back baby
10:26 AM on 10/31/2010
"I'm not a fan of ethnic cleansing, personally."
Its not "ethnic cleansing" if both sides cooperate. Its merely doing what we teach evry k/garder kid. People get into fights, seperate them.
03:58 PM on 10/31/2010
I can't make much sense of this post, but as a Scot, can you explain to me what "Scottish independence from the UK" has to do with anything?
11:12 AM on 10/29/2010
Here's another $62 billion dollar doondoggle to our "special ally.";

http://www.economyincrisis.org/content/us-officials-celebrate-nations-oldest-fta
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trollstein
Once you go Schwartz, you never go back baby
10:45 AM on 10/31/2010
Its not 62 billion in cost its 62 billion (over 25 years) in disparate sales, where the American public (now 300-million) have purchased Israeli made items.
Israel (today) has like 7-million people. Just who was this trade deal intended to benefit?
10:39 AM on 10/29/2010
I don't think Israel will ever allow right of return. And I strongly suspect that when push comes to shove, if and when Israel ever gets serious about peace right of return will be forfeited for a contiguous, viable state along the basic 1967 borders for a monetary payout at best. That said - it's a bit rich to be discussing what the occupied group should be willing to verbally forfeit for nothing in return when Netanyahu as the one in the position of power isn't even willing to agree to what basically amounts to a symbolic temporary freeze despite being offered rich and plentiful incentives.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BcemXAHA
אני כלום בלעדיהם
01:29 PM on 10/29/2010
*I don't think Israel will ever allow right of return.*

I agree with this. You are correct.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JibberJabberwocky
06:49 PM on 10/29/2010
And honestly, I don't see why this statement by the UN official is such a big deal. Israel ignores UN resolutions and international law quite often. recognizing that Israel will likely continue to do so, regardless of the human toll, is not a surprise.

I am sure to some it is a disappointment, but it can't be a surprise.
07:59 PM on 10/29/2010
"And honestly, I don't see why this statement by the UN official is such a big deal. Israel ignores UN resolutions and international law quite often."

Exactly.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trollstein
Once you go Schwartz, you never go back baby
10:47 AM on 10/31/2010
I have yet once to hear you acknoledge that resolutions of the General Assembly have no weight of law. Is this your understanding?
photo
YafoDalet
a secular Jew
09:44 AM on 10/29/2010
I think this is one of the first pragmatic views I have ever seen expressed on HP. Point in case - generations of Palestinians are kept in poverty because of an intangible goal used for political manipulation by their leaders. I only hope more Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan will get exposure to these common sense opinions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StCuthbert
Anytime the mods are ready...
10:51 AM on 10/29/2010
And yet, we don't see any suicide bomber attacks against Jordan, Lebanon or Syria now do we?
01:48 PM on 10/29/2010
This is such a grossly ignorant statement that shows no understanding of anything and means nothing. And is actually completely incorrect - only a few years ago we saw an uprising by a militant Palestinian group in Lebanon that the Lebanese army crushed...and yet, we saw no outcry by the international community against the Lebanese army using force against Palestinian terrorists, now did we?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NTT
Fighting rants with facts
09:43 AM on 10/29/2010
The hypocrisy of the Palestinian Authority "leadership" is clearly reflected in their refusal to adopt the "two states for two peoples" concept. A concept universally regarded (minus Hamas, Hezboullah, Al-Qaeda and a few other extremists) as offering the only road to an agreed solution.

The PA talks about "two states", by which they mean "1 x Palestinian state & 1 x state with Palestinian majority through 'the right of return'".

PLO formally recognized Israel, because it was (together with cessation of terrorism) the condition set by the civilized world for any dialogue with it. It was also "the price" of Israeli concessions, such as allowing PLO access & control of territory in West Bank & Gaza. Once established in those territories as the result of that recognition, the PLO is attempting to renege, suggesting that it "recognized" something that should not exist BY RIGHT.

The avoidance of any reference to "two peoples" is telling. It signals clearly the PA's refusal to recognize the Jewish people's inherent right to national self-determination in their ancestral homeland, while at the same time hypocritically demanding the same right for the Palestinians.

By reneging on its commitments, the PA demonstrates that it's no partner for peace, since it cannot be relied upon to fulfill agreements it signs. In fact, the PA is increasingly turning away from negotiations to unilateral steps. Consequently, since an AGREED solution is not on the table, it's time for Israel to also re-assess its options.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
courtb
08:44 AM on 10/29/2010
"All I will say is this: those who call themselves peace advocates could prove themselves by encouraging the liberation of the Palestinians from what, to the western flotillistas and their ilk, seems like a noble dream, but is, for the people living the reality, a quixotic struggle with no end."

It is easy to demand the Palestinians keep up the struggle from comfortable American and European homes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MarcEdward
likes all cats more than most people
09:43 AM on 10/29/2010
I don't think the Palestinians are keeping up their struggle for the benefit of Europeans and Americans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
courtb
12:33 PM on 10/29/2010
Did I say they were?

I said Americans and Europeans are demanding they keep up their struggle, especially in face of any form of compromise with Israel that may lead to peace, until they get "justice" or the right of return or all of Israel (depending which supporters you talk to). How many Americans and Europeans on here support a one state solution, for the Palestinians of course, despite the overwhelming Palestinian support for the two-state solution (last numbers I saw were 74%).
05:22 PM on 10/29/2010
Which Americans and Europeans have "demanded" that Palestinians keep up their struggle? Well?

One of the silliest comments I have ever read on Huff Post.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
courtb
08:18 PM on 10/29/2010
Hahaha, you must be new. Give it time, you shall see. Especially if the peace process starts again, you get the comments about how there shouldn't be peace without "justice" or calls for a one-state solution for the Palestinian because that is the only "just" thing, even though that isn't what the Palestinians want.

You should check out the articles on here from September and the subsequent comments and you'd see what I mean.

It does sound silly, doesn't it? I think it makes it even sillier that there are people out there like that...
11:30 PM on 10/28/2010
It woul be so convinient for Israel if the Palestinians were to give up and leave the land that is left, why all the problems would be solved. Sorry, I don't think they will give up the right to keep what was left in 1967. And why should other countries in the area take them so Israel can have it all. I'm all for a secure Israel inside the 1967 borders. It is time there is a secure Palestine too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NTT
Fighting rants with facts
09:20 AM on 10/29/2010
The author does NOT advocate the Palestinians "give up and leave [...] what was left in 1967". In fact, nobody of any significance advocates that. That's YOUR invention -- completely unrelated to the author's point.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StCuthbert
Anytime the mods are ready...
09:32 AM on 10/29/2010
It would be convenient for everyone if the Palestinians gave up their struggle to destroy Israel and take the land they can get.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MarcEdward
likes all cats more than most people
09:43 AM on 10/29/2010
Blame the victim isn't much of an argument.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tobias Riepe
03:13 PM on 10/29/2010
"They can get" meaning "Israel will let them have", right?
Yes, I can see how that would be awfully convenient... for Israel. It would be more convenient for everybody else if Israel just agreed to the 1967 lines as the basis for any peace agreement.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
10:52 PM on 10/28/2010
The Palestinians may or may not be allowed to return to their homeland. But we have to acknowledge their right to return. At minimum they are entitled to compensation for the ethnic cleansing they have suffered and are suffering.
09:11 AM on 10/29/2010
There was no ethnic cleansing, as proved by the 20% Arab population is Israel. nevertheless, monetary compensation should probably be on the table.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tobias Riepe
03:19 PM on 10/29/2010
"There was no ethnic cleansing, as proved by the 20% Arab population is Israel."
This argument is akin to claiming that there was no Armenian genocide since there are still Armenians remaining in Turkey.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BcemXAHA
אני כלום בלעדיהם
10:02 AM on 10/29/2010
It is not their right, nor would they be returning if they were allowed in. The land was not theirs to begin with. You can't just prance into an area draw a circle in sand and expect the authorities to pat you on the back.

There will be peace, that peace will not have any mention of any return. The Pals will get the WB and Gaza, maybe parts of EJ.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JibberJabberwocky
01:23 PM on 10/29/2010
If they are expected to give up the RoR, how can they be expected to give up any part of East Jerusalem? Isn't a negotiation supposed to include concessions from both sides, and not just one side giving up everything and the other giving up nothing?

Real and lasting peace is going to have to include both sides of the conflict making sacrifices -- and seeing the other side making sacrifices as well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BcemXAHA
אני כלום בלעדיהם
09:03 PM on 10/28/2010
Thank you for posting this article and video, I saw it two days ago and was hoping that it will make it here.

Many thanks for a factual accurate article Mr.Cohen.
05:33 PM on 10/28/2010
i'm still not sure why everyone's convinced that the only issue at hand is the problem with the settlements.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BcemXAHA
אני כלום בלעדיהם
09:05 PM on 10/28/2010
I tried responding to you earlier but the mods felt that you shouldn't see my reply :).

Anyway, what I was trying to say, I would be the last person on these boards to suggest that the settlements are the only problem, it's not like they were there all the time. In my 43 years, I've seen the Pals and the Arab position change so many time that no matter what there is always a reason for NO, while Israel continues to reach out and ask for peace.
photo
Vlady
Better Late
05:23 PM on 10/28/2010
>> UN official who made a perfectly reasonable observation ...

Gradually, the concept of Palestinian refugees used as pawns in Arab game to de-legitimize and cast out Israel is loosing its grip on world community. At some point Arab countries will see more benefits in cooperating with Israel than in confrontation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StCuthbert
Anytime the mods are ready...
04:43 PM on 10/28/2010
I was hoping you'd post that video here, Mr. Cohen. Nice work.
photo
YafoDalet
a secular Jew
09:39 AM on 10/29/2010
How on Earth is your comment abusive?

An idea for HP: I think if you allow people to vote comments up and down (YouTube style), you'll make a lot of your readers happier, since they won't have to resolve to this absurd behavior of making a totally fine comment as abusive, just because they disagree with its content.