Comments on: Did Spain recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland?

By: Bosko

Bosko — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 20:16:19 +0000

“what was “worrying” in my opinion was the harm that accepting such a precondition would do to the prospect of ever reaching an agreement – an agreement which is clearly in Israel’s own interest”
.
Lets be accurate about this. The only ‘precondition’ here is the insistence that the so called right of return MUST be accepted. I repeat what we said above, nowhere else was it accepted. Not between India/Pakistan, not after WW2 and certainly not with regards to the 700,000 Jewish refugees that the Arabs created. But if Israel WOULD be foolish enough to accept it, even only in principle, it would create a rod for it’s own back. It would offer the Arabs another pretext to attack Israel anytime they choose to. Not that they need an excuse, but why legitimise what they do?
.
The only way that there ever will be peace between Arabs and Jews is when we convince them that in order to be respected, they need to offer respect too. The only way Israel will compromise on some things is if they compromiae too, like on the issue of the so called right of return.

By: Roi Maor

Roi Maor — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:45:23 +0000

Regarding the right of return – there is a fundamental difference between recognizing the right *in principle*, and deciding its practicality as part of solving a conflict. The point of my example regarding Bosnia was exactly this – that despite the numerous precedents of refugees not returning in practice, this right is still considered valid. I have specifically argued that Spain is opposed to the right of return in practice, but has difficulty coming out against it in principle. Whether this position is consistent or reasonable, it is nonetheless clearly the position of almost all international actors.

Regarding Jewish state – I did not say, nor imply, nor can my words be interpreted to imply, that I deny Jews’ right to self-determination. The argument is over whether the fulfillment of this right must entail downgrading Israeli Palestinian citizens to second-class status. Anyhow, what was “worrying” in my opinion was the harm that accepting such a precondition would do to the prospect of ever reaching an agreement – an agreement which is clearly in Israel’s own interest.

By: RichardNYC

RichardNYC — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 06:21:52 +0000

@Roi
“Yet, they still find it very difficult to come out and say it. Why? Because it is very hard to deny the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim. The right of people who were forced to flee from their country to return to it, after the conflict ends, is a widely accepted principle, and a strongly intuitive one at that. It was of the cornerstones of the agreement on Bosnia, 16 years ago.”
—>Huh? Its very easy to deny the claim – your data point is an outlier and an anachronism.

By: Bosko

Bosko — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 04:31:02 +0000

Hey then, why wasn’t it so between India and Pakistan? And how come nobody is jumping up and down about that? But back to the Arab Israeli conflict. How come the people who are waxing lyrical about the Palestinian Arab refugees never bother mentioning the 700,000 Jewish refugees who had to flee from various Arab countries? How come … ???

By: Hostage

Hostage — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 03:56:03 +0000

“The right of people forced to flee from their country to return to it, after the conflict ends, is a widely accepted principle” this statement is nonsensical.

Well At you had better tell that to the 193 states that have ratified the 4th Geneva Convention. It has been recognized as a codification of customary international law.

The authors of the official commentary on Article 8 Non-Renunciation of Rights. Yhey said: “This Article, although entirely new, is closely linked with the preceding Article, and has the same object — namely, to ensure that protected persons in all cases without exception enjoy the protection of the Convention until they are repatriated. It is the last in the series of articles designed to make that protection inviolable — Article 1 (application in all circumstances), Article 6 on the duration of application, and Article 7 prohibiting agreements in derogation of the Convention.

By: AT

AT — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 03:14:36 +0000

“The right of people forced to flee from their country to return to it, after the conflict ends, is a widely accepted principle” this statement is nonsensical. Tens of millions of refugees who fled their homes during WWII were settled right where they fled, to avoid future ethnic conflicts. And millions upon millions of refugees were created in the Indian subcontinent during it’s partition. None have been or will ever be resettled. And you can be sure the Arab countries will not be taking back Jewish refugees who fled in 1948. Resettlement only happens in rare circumstances when the refugees have only recently been exiled.

By: Bosko

Bosko — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:39:45 +0000

“If that was an accurate depiction of Spain’s position, it could be an important (and, in my opinion, worrying) harbinger of an international inclination to accept Israeli demands on these topics”
.
No, can’t have that. After all, the Jewish people are not entitled to a state of their own. Most other historically oppressed national groups who vie for self determination are classified as liberation movements. But when it comes to the Jewish people, nah, it’s a worrying trend. Amazing.

By: pabelmont

pabelmont — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:58:52 +0000

The Spanish phrase “allowing the preservation of Israel’s current character” is very interesting. What on earth can it have meant to signify?

Israel’s present character is, for example, to make vastly destructive war and attacks on weak neighbors. does Spain mean that THAT should be preserved? How about discrimination against non-Jews inside pre-1967 Israel? to be preserved? How about consistently and brazenly violating international law for 44 years? Israel’s “character”? Sure. To be preserved?

Just because some Israelis like to speak of “Israel’s character” and make it clear that by this phrase THEY mean a Jewish majority (or a Jewish VOTING majority, if the residents of the occupied territories are ALL counted, and not just the Jews who are present illegally), it does not follow that Spain means the same thing.

I hope that Spain does not clarify this obscurity. diplomats are used to obscurity and are also used to not clarifying.