" />

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

Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is one the Senate’s more ardent supporters of militaristic U.S. foreign policies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share