" />

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

The Right’s Curious New Tack on Palestinian Statehood

Print Friendly

In some quarters of the neoconservative media, commentators are experimenting with a surprising new objection to the Palestinian statehood bid: its exclusion of Palestinian refugees.

 

In an interview with Lebanon’s Daily Star, a PLO diplomat told a reporter that Palestinian refugees living outside of the Occupied Territories were unlikely to receive citizenship in a new state, which Commentary blogger Evelyn Gordon called “simply unbelievable.” She continued, “For years, the world has backed a Palestinian state on the grounds Palestinians are stateless people. And now…most Palestinians will still be stateless.”

 

This critique was echoed by David Meir-Levi, a columnist for David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine, who wrote, “The leaders of the Palestinian Authority are abrogating their own supposedly ‘sacred right of return,’ their hitherto uncompromisable demand.”

 

This is, at first glance, a curious critique. On the one hand, it resembles a progressive critique leveled by Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah, who has argued that the bid “would effectively cede the 78 percent of historic Palestine captured in 1948 to Israel and would keep refugees from returning to what would then be recognized de facto as an ethnically ‘Jewish state.’” On the other, it would seem to overlook the Israeli government’s much more prominent role in maintaining the status quo for Palestinian refugees.

 

Gordon and Meir-Levi, however, reach a different conclusion altogether: that the statehood gambit is less about Palestinian enfranchisement and more about the elimination of the state of Israel. “The refugees can’t be given citizenship,” writes Gordon. “[T]hat would undermine [the Palestinian leadership’s] demand to resettle them in Israel, thereby destroying the Jewish state demographically.” Meir-Levi is even more apocalyptic: “This admission clarifies beyond rational doubt that support for a Palestinian state is support for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its Jews.”

 

The right of return largely concerns refugees and their descendants from what is now Israel proper, not Gaza or the West Bank. Although pro-Palestinian voices certainly debate the relevance of the statehood bid to these refugees, gaining citizenship in a state defined outside Israel’s 1967 borders would do nothing to resettle these refugees in their erstwhile homes in Israel itself—something required by UN Resolution 194 but never implemented by the state of Israel.

 

Furthermore, Abbas at least rhetorically affirmed his commitment to the rights of refugees in his address to the General Assembly. For this he was criticized by Commentary editor Jonathan Tobin: “If he gets his way,” Tobin wrote, “Abbas will have a Jew-free state in the West Bank and Gaza next to a Jewish state that will have to live under the threat of being deluged with Palestinians who would transform it into yet another Arab state.”

 

Abbas’ critics have damned him if he does and damned him if he doesn’t. But this seemingly unreasonable insecurity reflects a seldom-spoken political fact: that much of Israel exists on land obtained by the displacement of Palestinians, and Israel’s security will never be assured until the status of these people is resolved in a fair and just manner.

 

—Peter Certo

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share