Remembering April 24th, Israeli Palestinian Memorial Day

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Igor Gonev on May 3, 2012 at 7:08pm

Posted on YNET

 

This month a meeting took place with little fanfare, addressing a subject that has sat on the sidelines throughout the peace process, having received only the slightest media attention. The topic of the meeting was about refugees.

No, not Palestinian refugees; Jewish refugees.

British View

Stop yelling at Israel / Chas Newkey-Burden Op-ed: World's insistence to constantly lecture, criticize Israel hypocritical and unhelpful Full Story

For many years the world has heard about the "right of return." This refers to Arabs who became displaced during the defensive war Israel was forced to fight when the surrounding Arab countries attacked it the day after declaring independence in 1948.

The plan was for Israel to be destroyed "in a few weeks," allowing Arabs to return to their home. Yet these plans were dashed as Israel won the war. After Israel's victory, not a single Arab country took these Arabs in - they were intentionally left to become "refugees," so the world would perceive Israel as the villain.

For more than 60 years now, most of them have lived in camps. As part of any peace agreement with Israel, Mahmoud Abbas has demanded that they and their descendants be allowed to return. Today they number more than five million. Their return would mean Jews would no longer be the majority in the only country designated as their homeland.

If they are not allowed to return, Abbas has demanded compensation.

Compensating those complicit in a plan to destroy Israel seems a logical absurdity.

Mutual compensation

What is virtually never given media attention is the issue of Jewish refugees. For centuries, Jewish communities existed in many Arab countries. Their combined numbers were estimated to be roughly 850,000. The UN partition vote in 1947 brought tremendous upheaval for them.

The creation of the tiny state of Israel brought about a harsh reaction from Arab countries where Jews lived. They lost jobs and had their homes and land taken away. Their assets were frozen. Many were jailed, and some were killed. Virtually all of them were eventually forced to flee with just the clothes on their backs, and whatever they could carry.

The recent meeting, which seeks to raise awareness of the Jewish refugee issue, was hosted by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Attendees included individuals from numerous organizations representing Jews from Arab countries.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon opened the meeting by calling attention to the injustice done to the Jewish refugees.

Ayalon also asked the Arab League to take responsibility for giving birth to the Palestinian refugees by declaring war on Israel, which caused their displacement. He insisted that if compensation is part of future negotiations, it will be addressed only on a mutual basis, which includes Jewish refugees.

This meeting represents an attempt by Israel to counter the Arab revisionist agenda by presenting documented facts designed to bring fairness and media attention to this long overlooked component of the "peace process." Whether the balance of opposing narratives will shift remains to be seen.

While much remains in dispute, there is one indisputable fact about the peace process. There has been far too much "process," and far too little "peace."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Upham on May 3, 2012 at 9:06pm

First, of all we all have our own political beliefs, so that does not mean we have to dehumanize each other.  Just because my political beliefs are not the same as yours,  does not mean I view you as a lesser human being.  So hopefully, you do not see me as something less than human either.  But what I was hearing from people was too personal, and not valid to what I am as a person.  Mizrahi claims are coming from within the israeli government, and also about dropping them is coming from within Israeli government.  So it depends on which you are going to lobby for.  Reparations have been coming in from the Federal Republic of Germany, but not the former German Democratic Republic or Poland.  So unless their is a lobby that wants to approach the current Polish government about reparations.  But it would really be no different, than approaching the Austrian government, and that is this art object belonged to my family, we lost it during the war, and now it is in a state museum, and we want it back.  So reparations are not a blanket issue.  It is just like the Armenians that took out insurance before 1915, and their descendants are still battling today over possessions.  Reparations can look great on the surface, but underneath it can really be a headache.  It has been headache on trying to compensate the Roma, and they too were victims of concentration camps.  So that is why in this particle case, go along with what the British Foreign Ministry is suggesting, and that is to simply drop it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Igor Gonev on May 3, 2012 at 10:57pm

As for Israel, dropping the claims of Mizahi Jews, that is coming from within the Israeli government as well.  From Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon,

iS THAT NOT WHAT YOU SAID. I just debunket it, so you should make the correction and not hide behind White  Hall that does not make policy for Jews,Israel ,or its ministers. It has nothing to do with Jews or Israel. The Mandate is OVER.

 

BTW. Sephardim in Turkey do speak Ladino while Sephardim in Bulgaria speak Yddish. The Jews of Egypt spoke maily French as did thr Jews of Lebanon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Upham on May 3, 2012 at 11:20pm

Elias Canetti, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1981, was born in Bulgaria to a Ladino speaking family.  Ladino was spoken in Bulgaria, and I have know families that trace their origins back to Bulgaria, and Ladino was spoken.  French was also spoken by Jews in Morocco and Algeria, because it was the colonial language.  So these non-stop accusations that I am the enemy trying to destroy the Jewish people is getting quite old.  The only thing I am the enemy of is your right-wing extremism.  So do you want to hire a hit man to knock me off.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Upham on May 2, 2012 at 12:03am

When you look at Resolution 242, the opening paragraphs states "Inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security."  It does not mention the Palestinians at all.  The resolution was authored and drafted in 1967, right after the Six Day War.  But does Resolution 242 supersede anything after that?  Does it supersede the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, or the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty, or the Oslo Accords?  In the Oslo Accords, Palestinian is specifically mentioned, and Israel never nullified signing it either.  Which means Israel is still held accountable for signing it.  Israel can cancel it, but it has not.  Have you ever met a Mizahi, who said this the value of my home and business, that I left behind in Morocco.  I never have, so I must have not been associating with the right ones.  I have met Mizahi, who said I am glad to get out of Yemen, and that life is better in Israel, but not that I want to go back to Yemen, and claim my house and business.  So I get from them a sense of relief, not a sense of revenge.  For that is what is really driving this is a sense of revenge.  Revenge has it place in capturing and executing Adolf Eichmann, but not for what is not unattainable.  For either the Mizahim or Palestinians to demand compensation is unattainable, so it is best to go along with what White Hall  is striving for, to simply drop it.  Because hanging on to it, will just nurture the feelings of revenge.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Igor Gonev on May 2, 2012 at 3:34am

in 1948 the land was held in Trust for A Jewish National Home as per the Mandate for Palestine given to Britain by the League of Nations.The Partition Plan was rejected by the Arabs and without a meeting of the minds it fell through . The Trust therefore CONTINUED. Jordan invaded and captured Judea,Samaria and Jerusalem and annexed these areas-the true meaning of acquisition of territory by war. This land was never theirs ( and neither was Trans Jordan). Only Britain and Pakistan recognized that annexation.

In 1967 Jordan again was the aggressor and lost these lands to the Jews (Jewish National Home in Palestine). So how did Israel acquire territory by war. Some experts claim that this clause means that you cannot territory through a war of aggression. The Israeli-Egypt Peace treaty and the Israeli-Jordan Peace treaty is part and parcel of resolution 242. Oslo never said that there will be a Palestinian State in all of Judea and Samaria and 242 and Oslo talk about secure borders. Israel offered all that in 1967,1993,2000 and even as we speak if only the Palestinians agree to secure borders, end of conflict , demilitarized state and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and no further claims on Israel in regards to refugees.

So whats holding up an agreement?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Upham on May 2, 2012 at 5:15am

The Oslo Accords never states that there is to be a Palestinian state.  It states that certain areas will be given Palestinian self-government, and after a 5 year interim period, will be expanded.  President Clinton tried to finalize that with the Camp David Accords in 2000, which would recognize Palestinian statehood.  But the Camp David Accords collapsed because of rivalries between Al Fatah and Hamas.  After the collapse of the Camp David Accords, that is when Labor, headed by Ehud Barak was voted out.  What is holding up the agreement is:  1.  The rivalries between Al Fatah and Hamas still has not be fully resolved.  2.  The lack of international mediation, like what President Clinton gave.  3.  Likud saying it will not deal with Al Fatah if it include Hamas, even though Hamas leaders have either resigned or announced they will not see re-election. The Palestine Liberation Organization recognized Israel as the Jewish state in 1993.  According to the Interim Agreement of 1995, the only armed forces that would be allowed into either Gaza or the West Bank will be either the IDF and Palestinian police forces.  But that changed when Israel did the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, so now it is only the West Bank.  Shimon Peres is stating that peace with the Palestinians is urgent.  So there are still numerous ramifications to be resolved.  But are they being resolved now with everybody sitting on their hands.  Peres really cannot do anything as ceremonial figurehead, he cannot bring down a government.  Only approve one being formed.  But to say the Palestinians will never recognize Israel is myopic, because they have to, just as much as Israel must recognize them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Igor Gonev on May 2, 2012 at 2:24pm

There is a giant leap between self government and statehood. The problem is that both Europe and the USA interject themselves and demand something that is not part of Oslo. The PLO recognized Israel as a Jewish state in 19993, that's what you said, so why is Abbas and others in the PA going around telling everyone that Palestinians will NEVER agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as that would abrogate the Palestinian right of return,?

The Arabs must negotiate without preconditions and in the end agree to an "end of conflict clause", be demilitarized and sign off on Israel as the Jewish State. The problem is that the Palestinians insist on preconditions and that is why the last summits failed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Upham on May 2, 2012 at 10:14pm

When the Palestine LIberation Organization voted in 1993 to recognize the State of Israel, it was vastly covered by the media.  The media has never covered them rescinding that action.  So unless there is proof they have done so.  Hamas has claimed they it will never recognize Israel, but they are being backed into a corner, by both Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  The Oslo Accords was a beginning step, that gave a five year interim period, to be finalized.  One of those steps was the Interim Agreement of 1999, which stated that the only armed forces to be in both Gaza and the West Bank, was the IDF and the Palestinian police force.  As for the the Palestinians' right to return, that is being pressured by White Hall -- Britain's foreign ministry, -- and part of the Quartet, to be dropped, because it simply is not realistic.  So the problem is not preconditions, but getting both sides to simply sit down with each other.  King Abdullah started this, but either he or somebody else needs to finished it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Upham on May 2, 2012 at 9:57pm

The situation with the Cubans, is that they came into the United States as refugees, and sought U.S. citizenship, not to try to make Florida into an extension of Cuba.  But living in Florida, they have recreated their culture there, just like the Russians who came to the United States.  The Mexicans are a whole different situation, for many of them are illegal.  The driving factor for them coming into the United States, is not they are looking for jobs, but jobs that pay more than what they make in Mexico.  So with them it is more economics, then trying to make Mexico an extension of the United States.  The last time Mexico was an extension of the United States was before the Mexican War from 1846-1848.  The Albanians did not cross over from Albania and took Serbian land.  After Serbia lost the Battle of Kosovo to the Ottoman Empire in the 14th century, the Ottoman Empire took control of that part of the Balkan peninsula, and did what was done to Biblical Israel by both the Babylonians and Romans.  That was move entire populations.  The Ottomans moved out the Serbs, and Albanians moved in.  So how would you correct, the conflict over Kosovo?  Return to the past, or deal with the present?  The present is that 92% of its population is Albanian.  Trying to force the Albanians out, is what caused the NATO bombings of Serbia in 1999.  Israel will defend itself with vigor, but I think that vigor will not be over forcing out a population.  I think that vigor will be defending its population, like what it used at the beginning of the 1973 war, before the tide turned in Israel's favor.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Igor Gonev on May 2, 2012 at 11:32pm

Is there a time limit to correcting historical injustices or the perpetrator just reaps the rewards of his misdeeds? Keep in mind that the allied powers did just the opposite in allowing the French, the Czechs and the Poles to  expel their ethnic Germans even though they lived there for close to a Thousand years.

You did not even touch on the Basques, the Corsicans, the Kurds.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Upham on May 3, 2012 at 12:21am

There are many groups of people, with their own unique histories.  But notice how the American invasion of Iraq, never transpired into an independent Kurdistan.  So is the answer for the Kurds, an independent Kurdistan, or how Kurds are treated in Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria?  In Iraq, it is the Anfal Campaign and the use of poisonous gas on civilians in Halabja.  Those are good reasons within themselves for independence from Iraq.  But trying to unite them with areas within Iran, Turkey, and Syria.  You are looking at four different countries.  But with Israel and the Palestinians it is just the West Bank and Gaza.  Israel is no longer in Gaza, but it is still in the West Bank.  So if Palestinians living in the United States want to go back, then that is up to them.  But what about Palestinians living in the West Bank.  Just force them all off to Jordan?  Meir Kahane was stating that in his Kach party, and it was banned by Israel's Supreme Court, so it never ran in an Israeli election.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page