Posted on 04/19/2007 10:43:25 AM PDT by Nachum
(IsraelNN.com) A two-installment article by Saudi Arabian columnist Yousef Nasser Al-Sweidan calls upon the Arab states to give up the efforts to arrange the transfer of the families of refugees from the Israeli War of Independence into the Jewish State. Such a population transfer would violate Israeli sovereignty or lead to anarchy in the Palestinian Authority, according to the author. Rather, Al-Sweidan writes, the Arab states hosting the refugee families have the obligation to absorb them.
The "right of return" is "nonsense and deceit." - Al-Sweidan
Al-Sweidan's model for such immigrant absorption, he notes, is Israel.
The columns, recently made available in English by the Middle East Media Research Institute, were published in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa on March 5th and March 16th. The articles were titled "On the Impossible [Idea] of the Right of Return" and "Naturalization is the Solution" respectively.
Noting that "the slogan 'right of return'" - the flooding of Israel with millions of Arabs currently elsewhere throughout the Arab world - "is brandished by Palestinian organizations," the Saudi columnist writes:
"It is patently obvious that uprooting the descendants of the refugees from their current homes in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and other countries, and returning them to Israel, to the West Bank, and to Gaza is a utopian ideal and [a recipe for] anarchy. More than that - it is an idea that cannot be implemented, not only because it will upset the demographic [balance] in a dangerous and destructive manner, and will have [far-reaching] political, economic and social ramifications in such a small and constrained geographical area, but [mainly] because the return [of the refugees] stands in blatant contradiction to Israel's right as a sovereign [state], while the Palestinian Authority lacks the infrastructure to absorb such a large number of immigrants as long as the peace process... is not at its peak..."
Al-Sweidan goes on to blame "cumulative mistakes" made by countries such as Syria and Lebanon, "which have isolated the refugees in poor and shabby camps lacking the most
basic conditions for a dignified human existence. Instead of helping them to become fully integrated in their new society, they let them become victims of isolation and suffering.... Later, the worst of all happened when Arab intelligence agencies used the Palestinian organizations as a tool for settling scores in internal Arab conflicts that probably have nothing to do with the Palestinians...."
The Saudi writer savages Syria, in particular, for its "lies... and its trading in slogans like 'right of return,' 'steadfastness,' 'resistance,' 'national struggle,' and all the other ridiculous [slogans]...." The Arab refugees in Syria, as well as in Lebanon, Al-Sweidan insists, "have for many long years been fed by their Arab hosts on impossible dreams and on shiny promises that were soon broken...." These refugee families "do not need another 60 years of misery, wretchedness and suffering... in order to figure out for the thousandth time that all the talk about the 'bridge of return' is [nothing but] nonsense and deceit - a fairytale that exists only in the old, worn-out demagogy of the Arab propaganda...."
In contrast, Al-Sweidan suggests looking to the model of absorption of refugees presented by Israel in the post-1948 upheavals in the Middle East. The Israelis, the columnist declares, "were civilized and humane in their treatment of the thousands of Jewish refugees who had lost their property, homes and businesses in the Arab The two sides must "direct their joint energies... towards confronting the Iranian nuclear threat." countries, and who were forced to emigrate to Israel after the 1948 war. The Israeli government received them, helped them, and provided them with all the conditions [they needed] to become integrated in their new society...."
The answer, Al-Sweidan writes, is "a realistic, unavoidable and bold decision... naturalizing [the refugee families] in the host countries, such as Syria, Lebanon and others." The author calls such a decision to integrate the refugee camp residents "a humanitarian [project]" no longer "leaving the responsibility [of caring for them] to others, while marketing the impossible illusion of return [to Palestine]...."
Rather than promoting the unrealistic flooding of Israel with destitute Arabs, Al-Sweidan uses his article in Al-Siyassa to encourage peace and normalization with Israel. Such a relationship, he warns, is imperative in light of the common threat faced by the Arabs and Israel from Persian Iran. The two sides, the Saudi columnist writes, must "direct their joint energies and efforts towards confronting the Iranian nuclear threat, which imperils us all."
Yousef Nasser Al-Sweidan??
they’ll be cutting off his head with a rusty knife any time now.
Doesn't Islam speak out against homosexuality?
Certainly a refreshingly different perspective.
Understatement of the year.
The linchpin of this newfound "enlightenment." The Persians are making the Arabs nervous and the Saudis suspect that a nuclear Iran will come for them first, if for no other reason than to seize their oil. A hudna with the Israelis until the Persians are no longer a threat.
Yousef Nasser Al-Sweidan - Dead Man Walking!
A clue has been found in ali-baba land. Somewhere, a pig has found its wings.
Let's Restore Medina to the Jews
ML/NJ
MEMRI translation of the articles
“The Right of Return - An Idea that Cannot Be Implemented”
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=reform&ID=SP154007
Of note - these articles were published in a Kuwaiti newspaper.
“This guy doesn’t get it. The Palis know this is an impossible condition and that is precisely why they include it as a non-negotiable demand - so they can continue at war with Israel while claiming to want peace and the gullible suckers in the Western left will believe them.”
No, he gets it and mentions this in the article. You have some good old common sense from this fellow and I hope it catches on throughout the middle east. Israel is not a real threat to anybody and some countries/people in the middle east are awakening from their brainwashing. They also realize that a nuclear Iran could very well be the end of their own civilizations and have started picking sides. I wouldn’t wage against Israel in a true regional conflict.
Unfortunately, I see Iran getting the bomb and using it on Israel, igniting a nuclear war with far bigger ramifications to the middle east and world. Some of these countries also see this coming and wisely are either allying with the West or at least shrewd enough to stay out of it.
“I agree a nuclear Iran would attempt to incinerate Israel. After that, however, the Sunni states with Shia minorities, like Saudi, would either submit or face the consequences. Instead of bloviating that the U.S. shouldn’t move on Iran, the Gulf states ought to think about what’s down the road and be afraid, very afraid.”
Indeed. King Fahd made some very bellicose statement about our involvment in Iraq and cancelling his visit to the Bush ranch. Since Saudi Arabia has long relied on the West for protection, at least part of his rhetoric had to be based on the the UK’s spinless response to Iran and our own Congress making proclamations of how they would not fund a war in Iran. The US should do one of two things:
A) Attack Iran, all out - no games and overthrow the leadership.
B) Leave a defense force in Iraq, but withdraw most of the troops. Make energy independance the national priority and seal up our borders and sea lanes. Double ground-based intelligence to track movements of nuclear material and issue a direct ultimatum to Iran saying we will incinerate Tehran if we detect any movement of nuclear material being moved outside of the country.
I choose “A” although I don’t believe a ground campaign is necessary - I’d just use some spec ops to take out Iran’s gulf naval, port and refinery assets. An air campaign should be able to take out the nuke facilities and neuter the leadership.
“I choose “A” although I don’t believe a ground campaign is necessary - I’d just use some spec ops to take out Iran’s gulf naval, port and refinery assets. An air campaign should be able to take out the nuke facilities and neuter the leadership.”
Hmmm. I don’t think we could eliminate the leadership without boots on the ground controlling Tehran. The rest of what you mentioned will likely occur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.