Re: [Marxism] Different kinds of return

["Lüko Willms" <lueko.willms@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:47:09 -0300, Nestor Gorojovsky wrote:
replying to my message
  Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 11:52:02 +0200 (MES)
  Message-ID: <1FpMcU-03qxV30@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  Subject: [Marxism] Uri Avneri against the "One-State-Solution"


> But the basic point of dissention, and on _this_ point Avnery is _on
> our_, not on _the Zionists'_ side, is that the State of Israel must
> by force reject the constitutional right of every child of a Jewish
> womb to become a full Israeli citizen.

  While it is true, that Uri Avnery has tried to register himself as
being of nationality "Israeli" instead of "Jewish", which turned out to
be impossible in Israel, I can't remember the slightest utterance by
Avnery against the Israeli "Law of Return" which guarantees Israeli
citizenship for every person recognized as Jew from whatever point on
this globe.

  But what I have actually read quite often, and just quoted some very
recent statements by Avnery on this subject, is his rejection of the
actual right of return for those people driven from their homes since
1948.

> IMHO, this is the divide in Palestine today.

  As far as I can see, this is not really subject of much debate.

> Avnery's position starts from the assumption that the Israelis, once
> delinked with the Jewish communities the world over (that is, once
> _de-Zionized) will have to take care of their own "national" interest
> against fully understandable but impractical "ultimatist" positions
> by Palestinians.

  But this will be, even according to Avnery, a "national interest" of
the prevailing majority "ethnic group", i.e. of a "Jewish state" which
is ruled not by a "government of the people, by the people and for the
people", but still and always by a "government of Jews, by Jews and for
Jews". Otherwise he could have no objections against the return of _all_
refugees.

  He might object against unconditionally giving back all houses and all
plots of land to their former owners of 1948, but in favor of a new
redistribution of the available land, as I would suggest, but he could
not object against the return of all instead of one which is subject to
approval of each and every single returnee.

  Referring to an Palestino-Argentinian:

> His way to explain the "quid pro quo" that history had imposed on the
> Palestinian people was quite vivid.  "My father", he told me once,
> "found it hard to accept that the burial grounds of our own family
> would never be in our land again.  It took me a hard time to explain
> him what was involved there.  At last, even my father understood"

  Well, think about Ireland. It is now more than 300 years ago that
England imposed its will on the island, and introduced the protestant
settler community as a divisive element, and the national question is
still not settled.

   I am deeply convinced that none of the plans which Avnery lists in
his article on the "missed opportunities" would have worked in the long
run. It is illusionary to believe that one can impose by force a
national humiliation and get away with just some small concessions,
while keeping the bulk of the conquests. I am convinced that the
national question in Palestine, the Israel problem, can only be solved
when the there is a democratic and secular state in Palestine, where
nobody is discriminated against because of his sex, color of skin,
nationality, mother tongue, religion, etc, and when each refugee can
return to his home without being subject to approval of a foreign body
like a "Jewish state".


Yours,
Lüko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------
visit http://www.mlwerke.de Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotzki in German

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism