" />

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

Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney is a vocal critic of Donald Trump, whom Romney he a threat to “a safe and prosperous future.”


Clare Lopez is a former CIA officer and rightwing activist who has argued that the Muslim Brotherhood and a shadowy “Iran Lobby” are working to shape Obama administration policy.


Michael Ledeen, a “Freedom Scholar” at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has long been obsessed with getting the U.S. to force regime change in Tehran.


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney has emerged as the most visible advocate of hardline security policies in the Cheney family.


Bret Stephens is a columnist for the New York Times who previously worked at the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative flagship magazine Commentary.


Joe Lieberman, the neoconservative Democrat from Connecticut who retired from the Senate in 2013, co-chairs a foreign policy project at the American Enterprise Institute.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


Print Friendly

Trump’s reorganization of the foreign policy bureaucracy is an ideologically driven agenda for undermining the power and effectiveness of government institutions that could lead to the State Department’s destruction.


Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


RightWeb
share