This is a good overview of the history of what Israel has done to the Palestinians.

The Geneva Bubble
Ilan Pappe on the prehistory of the latest proposals

What catches the eye, not only in this preface but in the document as a whole, is that while the refugees' right of return is an obstacle that has to be removed if peace and reconciliation are to be achieved, the Jewishness of Israel - i.e. the Jewishness of the original state with the annexed blocks of settlements in the Occupied Territories and greater Jerusalem - is not an obstacle at all. On the contrary, what is missing according to this logic is Palestinian recognition of the new greater Israel. And what is offered to encourage the Palestinians to recognise the state built on the land from which they were ethnically cleansed in 1948 and that was taken from them in 1967? What is the generous offer the Israeli peaceniks loudly urged their counterparts on the Geneva campaign not to pass up? A mini-state, built on 15 per cent of what used to be Palestine, with a capital near Jerusalem and no army. On close reading, the authority and power vested in the aforementioned state bear little relation to any notion of statehood we might derive from global reality or political science textbooks. Far more important, the Geneva project would leave the refugees in exile. The small print says that the Palestinian refugees would be able to choose either to return to what's left of their former country or stay in their camps. As they will probably choose to wait until the international community fulfils its commitment to allow their unconditional return under Resolution 194, they will remain refugees while their compatriots in Israel continue to be second-class citizens in the remaining 85 per cent of Palestine. There is no acknowledgment of the cause of this conflict, the 1948 ethnic cleansing; there is no process of truth and reconciliation that will make Israel accountable for what it did either in 1948 or afterwards. Under these circumstances, neither the Palestinians nor the Arab world at large will feel able to accept a Jewish state.

[more]

This is a very touching piece.

The power of apology

Thus the chances for long-term peace and reconciliation would be greatly advanced if the Israeli government were to finally face the truth. As remote as peace seems today, halting the 55 years of cover-up and apologizing would place peace negotiations between the two people on an entirely different ground. At this stage, the dream of return to Palestine is for many Palestinians a shield against despair, and recognition of the right to return a matter of great principle. A sincere Israeli apology would be a milestone toward reconciliation that no Palestinian could ignore.

[more]

Here are some interesting responses to an interview with Benny Morris I posted a few days ago.

Right of reply / The judgment of history
Last week's interview with historian Benny Morris ("Survival of the fittest" by Ari Shavit, Haaretz Magazine, January 9, 2004) has generated a deluge of readers' responses. Here are some selected comments.

Their faces say it all
A regular day at the checkpoints of the West Bank - the sick, the elderly, parents, children, teachers, merchants, truckers. Go home, you can't cross, go to bed, come back tomorrow.

To the edge and back

When the Knesset met for a political session the next day, it became clear again how little impression Abu Ala's warning had made on Israel. Most speakers ignored it. The prime minister's remarks contained not the slightest reference to Abu Ala in particular or demography in general. Only Shimon Peres was bitterly sarcastic. "Yesterday the prime minister said he wasn't worried about the demographic problem. I'm bursting with envy. How can you not be worried? Between the Mediterranean and the Jordan there are now 5.1 million Jews and 4.9 million non-Jews. Will they vanish in thin air? Will they disappear? Are you planning a transfer?" Sharon sat there slumped in his chair. In answer to these questions, many members of Sharon's coalition are thinking, and increasingly saying: yes, yes, and yes. But what of the more moderate right, those who do not advocate such cruel or apocalyptic solutions (or at least not consciously)? These rightists, it seems, are still fighting the wars of the past on the battlefields of demography, waxing nostalgic over the great victories of yesteryear, basking in the illusion that what used to be, will go on forever.

[more]

Controversial move
Qurei's recent comments have retrieved from the annals of history the controversial one-state solution. But is his intervention serious?

Indeed, the prospect of a bi-national state, however remote it may be, has become Israel's greatest fear, as expressed in a plethora of recent conferences, seminars and statements by leading Israeli intellectuals and politicians warning that Israel is losing its demographic majority. Ironically, this is the same argument used to justify the construction of the wall; the very act that sparked renewed interest in the one-state solution. Hard-line right-wingers who are gaining ground, as was apparent in their huge demonstration in Tel Aviv on Sunday night, don't hesitate to propose brazenly fascist scenarios to "solve the Palestinian issue once and for all". Their proposals include ethnic cleansing, apartheid and even genocide. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, despite his purported commitment to the US-backed roadmap for peace, favours separation, but one on his own terms. In real terms, this separation means confining the 3.6 million Palestinians into cage-like enclaves. Palestinian fears are not exaggerated. Even Israeli peace groups such as Peace Now realise that Sharon's Israel is slowly but definitely pushing the Palestinians to the brink of "a Warsaw ghetto", if not to the "edge of Treblinka", as one Peace Now leader put it recently. While the international community continues to reiterate idle statements about the need for both sides to fulfil their obligations as spelt out in the roadmap, the grim reality haunting Palestinians simply continues to grow more nightmarish. Hence, Qurei's desperate and frustrated statements. This frustration is also prompting many intellectuals and public opinion leaders to demand the dismantlement of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Detractors argue that the reason for the PA's very existence is to realise the goal of Palestinian statehood; but as achieving that goal is becoming increasingly unrealistic, the PA is losing (or has already lost) its raison d'être. One of the main proponents for dismantling the PA is Hani Al-Masri, a PA official and regular columnist in the Ramallah-based Arabic daily, Al-Ayyam. In his column on 13 January, he wrote that Palestinians would have seriously to study the idea of terminating the PA as its very existence allows Israel to continue to impose unilateral measures in the West Bank. "In this case, we will have no choice but to abandon the choice of establishing a Palestinian state on the territories occupied in 1967 and revert to the option of establishing a secular, democratic state in the entirety of Palestine where Jews, Muslims and Christians live on equal footing."

[more]