Hi Mr. Bahour,
I recently had the chance to peruse ePalestine.ps where you blog. There I saw an October 28 pre-Israeli election congratulatory note from you to Bibi Netanyahu. Netanyahu did barely squeak by but I noted in your note your Palestinian negotiating stance:
1. Palestine from the River to the Sea OR a Palestine in the West B…
I recently had the chance to peruse ePalestine.ps where you blog. There I saw an October 28 pre-Israeli election congratulatory note from you to Bibi Netanyahu. Netanyahu did barely squeak by but I noted in your note your Palestinian negotiating stance:
1. Palestine from the River to the Sea OR a Palestine in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.
2. A right to return “home after 74 years” of the Palestinian refugees. In fact this is not so much a negotiating position this is a promise as you write further in this congratulatory note “you can open the door for them, or one day they will knock the doors down”.
3. You sign this as Sam Bahour 1 of Israel’s 14.3 million nightmares”.
What is the point of such a note? Is this designed to bring Israel, in this case Bibi, to the negotiating table? Why would you be surprised if Israel elected a government that will take the threat and promise “to knock the door down” seriously and look for ways to be rid of such a threat.
It begs the question of why bravado is the primary approach chosen by Palestinians.
Thanks for reaching out. My intention was to show that continued ignoring of international law and common sense will catch up with Israel. The tone of the post you refer to emerged out of 74 years of dispossession and 55 years of military occupation; you can imagine, or maybe not, the accumulative feeling of that. For more writings, not posts, of mine, may I direct you to the tab "From Sam's Desk" at my blog, ePalestine.ps, which you have already found?
I was sent this by a friend and found it most fitting to reiterate: ""In response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and its aftermath, (Edward) Said penned “Permission to Narrate” for the Journal of Palestine Studies in 1984. In it, he notes: “A disciplinary communications apparatus exists in the West both for overlooking most of the basic things that might present Israel in a bad light and for punishing those who try to tell the truth.” In short, Said’s argument can be summed up as such: despite declassified archives, countless human rights reports, international organisation inquiries and both official and ethnographic accounts of Palestinian plight and dispossession from Nakba to diaspora and from Nakba to military occupation, the Palestinians have been denied the right to narrate their own stories." And I add--They have also been denied the privilege of speaking their truth.
I intend to periodically check your site and learn from it. While I understand your frustration, you must realize that Jews could easily respond that they too had 2,000 years to wait during which they were hunted down much of the time and then another 100 before achieving Israel.
I don’t know if you are familiar with Connor Cruise O’Brien; he was the Irish representative to the UN and sat between the Iraqi and Israeli representatives in the UN General Assembly and got an earful from both. It motivated him to write a book called The Siege. He spends a significant amount of time in the book discussing what kind of Arab leader might emerge that would cut through the hatred and penetrate the Siege mentality that now extends to both sides—such a leader would show up without a gun.
I am not a diplomat, just a student of history and by the way we do share some background—I was born in Israel/Palestine. I too had a successful software consulting firm in America and followed it with a non-profit effort in Cleantech. But I am convinced that if Palestinians want a state NOT a replacement state, it could be easily achieved as soon as a decision is made to renounce all violence and in fact disarm completely. Israel has developed a peerless expertise in war making, they are neophytes at making peace—your odds increase with the latter approach.
You will see from my talks and writings that I promote non-violence resistance. Many issues in the conflict have been revealed over the last 7 decades, it's up to us to accept fact and the rules in today's world, the ultimate security strategy. I'll check out O’Brien, thanks for the referral.
The onus is on the Palestinians. They must publicly state their desire for a side by side, non-militarized country, willing to live in peace with Israel. No more of the "right of return" nonsense, but an acknoledgement that the descendeants of refugess will live in the new state of Palestine, not in Israel. If and when a Palestinian leader announces this, acknowledging that times have changed since 1948 and 1967 and borders must reflect these changes (the Palestinians have only themselves for less land than they could have gotten at Camp David or Taba), there will be peace. But, if the Palestinians continue to push 'from the river to the sea', they will continue to live in this state as Israel and its neighbors move on.
I have noticed that when you discuss Palestine with “Jewish Israelis” the conversation always stops on the right of return. You believe international law provides that right. Where was it implemented?
More important why argue for a state of your own in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem when in fact part of your solution is the return to Israel of almost 14 million people. Hey why bother with the state of Palestine when in fact 14 million Palestinians will simply overwhelm the Jewish population of Israel. That sounds like a non-starter for any negotiations.
I am sure you are aware that 19th century Palestine saw tremendous population changes and I do not mean the Jews. The Jews were a decidedly small number and only in the last quarter of the 19th century did they start to come. At the beginning of the 19th century the population ranged from 200,000 to 275,000 depending on whose estimates you would like to accept. These people are a mixture of Arabs who came from Arabia (7th and 11th century) and the “indigenous” local population consisting of Greek Syrians and Jews who became Christians and later Moslem.
In 1832 Muhammed Ali, the Egyptian ruler (Khedive), invaded Palestine with 200,000 on his way to try to unseat the rulers in Constantinople. He failed in his main objective but stayed in Palestine for almost 10 years and anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 of his Army stayed behind in Palestine.
Also in the 19th century as Ottoman Empire shrank a significant number of Algerians, Bosnians Kurds, Circassians were imported to Palestine. And of course, as the British and the Jews came in the 20th century even more people came as Palestine grew commercially. As you can see many of these people have a very short history in Palestine.
Why can they not go back to where they came from? Are you a Palestinian because of a newly advanced international border regardless of your heritage? If so, why not stay where you are now in a newly created international border.
I am familiar with Khalidi’s books and writings. And read your article “Palestinians just want to go home”. First, I am not one who would deny Palestinians their identity. In my piece I just wanted to point out that the history of the people now called Palestinians is disparate. What is so unique about the Palestinians that they must move across the border a few miles from where they live now. After all isn’t the West Bank the heart of Palestine?
As for resolution 194 which you partially quote “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which;” there are two caveats “live in peace with their neighbors” and “compensation as the alternative.
Given that the Palestinians and Israelis have been fighting for 75 years and more it strikes me that the notion of a peaceful return is a non-starter—these people have been and continue to be at war with each other—the children of these two communities are not taught to love or befriend each other to the contrary they are taught to hate each other. But I do totally buy into the compensation part of the paragraph. It strikes me that is very much negotiable and implementable.
The multiple "and[s]" and the word "choosing" are crystal clear. You are entitled to your preference and opinion, but to be honest here, yours, and mine for that matter, don't matter. It is the refugees' voice that drives.
I credit you with at least stating in your article "Palestinian refugees and their descendants returning to Israel", because according to the UNHCR, "Refugees are people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country." There is no precidence for descendants of refugees to be returned -- this is a Palestinian definition and one that has kept its people in this predicament for 70 years. Millions of descendants are not going to be allowed into Israel and the sooner Palestinians leaders stop this fiction, the better the chances for its people to live in their own state.
With that selfish attitude, the people hurt are the Palestinians. Israel and its neighbors are moving on. If the Palestinians agreed to live in their own state and stop the non-starter of right of return, the people would thrive. Denying them that is only about enriching the corrupt Palestinian leaders, people be damned. Shame…
Hi Mr. Bahour,
I recently had the chance to peruse ePalestine.ps where you blog. There I saw an October 28 pre-Israeli election congratulatory note from you to Bibi Netanyahu. Netanyahu did barely squeak by but I noted in your note your Palestinian negotiating stance:
1. Palestine from the River to the Sea OR a Palestine in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.
2. A right to return “home after 74 years” of the Palestinian refugees. In fact this is not so much a negotiating position this is a promise as you write further in this congratulatory note “you can open the door for them, or one day they will knock the doors down”.
3. You sign this as Sam Bahour 1 of Israel’s 14.3 million nightmares”.
What is the point of such a note? Is this designed to bring Israel, in this case Bibi, to the negotiating table? Why would you be surprised if Israel elected a government that will take the threat and promise “to knock the door down” seriously and look for ways to be rid of such a threat.
It begs the question of why bravado is the primary approach chosen by Palestinians.
Thanks for reaching out. My intention was to show that continued ignoring of international law and common sense will catch up with Israel. The tone of the post you refer to emerged out of 74 years of dispossession and 55 years of military occupation; you can imagine, or maybe not, the accumulative feeling of that. For more writings, not posts, of mine, may I direct you to the tab "From Sam's Desk" at my blog, ePalestine.ps, which you have already found?
I was sent this by a friend and found it most fitting to reiterate: ""In response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and its aftermath, (Edward) Said penned “Permission to Narrate” for the Journal of Palestine Studies in 1984. In it, he notes: “A disciplinary communications apparatus exists in the West both for overlooking most of the basic things that might present Israel in a bad light and for punishing those who try to tell the truth.” In short, Said’s argument can be summed up as such: despite declassified archives, countless human rights reports, international organisation inquiries and both official and ethnographic accounts of Palestinian plight and dispossession from Nakba to diaspora and from Nakba to military occupation, the Palestinians have been denied the right to narrate their own stories." And I add--They have also been denied the privilege of speaking their truth.
A new narration that is a MUST READ is this book by Fida Jiryis:
https://epalestine.blogspot.com/2022/09/Stranger-in-My-Own-Land.html
I intend to periodically check your site and learn from it. While I understand your frustration, you must realize that Jews could easily respond that they too had 2,000 years to wait during which they were hunted down much of the time and then another 100 before achieving Israel.
I don’t know if you are familiar with Connor Cruise O’Brien; he was the Irish representative to the UN and sat between the Iraqi and Israeli representatives in the UN General Assembly and got an earful from both. It motivated him to write a book called The Siege. He spends a significant amount of time in the book discussing what kind of Arab leader might emerge that would cut through the hatred and penetrate the Siege mentality that now extends to both sides—such a leader would show up without a gun.
I am not a diplomat, just a student of history and by the way we do share some background—I was born in Israel/Palestine. I too had a successful software consulting firm in America and followed it with a non-profit effort in Cleantech. But I am convinced that if Palestinians want a state NOT a replacement state, it could be easily achieved as soon as a decision is made to renounce all violence and in fact disarm completely. Israel has developed a peerless expertise in war making, they are neophytes at making peace—your odds increase with the latter approach.
You will see from my talks and writings that I promote non-violence resistance. Many issues in the conflict have been revealed over the last 7 decades, it's up to us to accept fact and the rules in today's world, the ultimate security strategy. I'll check out O’Brien, thanks for the referral.
The onus is on the Palestinians. They must publicly state their desire for a side by side, non-militarized country, willing to live in peace with Israel. No more of the "right of return" nonsense, but an acknoledgement that the descendeants of refugess will live in the new state of Palestine, not in Israel. If and when a Palestinian leader announces this, acknowledging that times have changed since 1948 and 1967 and borders must reflect these changes (the Palestinians have only themselves for less land than they could have gotten at Camp David or Taba), there will be peace. But, if the Palestinians continue to push 'from the river to the sea', they will continue to live in this state as Israel and its neighbors move on.
It really takes a new level of chutzpah for someone to think their opinion rises above facts and international law.
FACT: Palestinians formally recognized the State of Israel, back in 1993 (three decades ago!). Did Israel ever recognize Palestine yet?
INTL LAW: A refresher on refugees:
https://sbahour.medium.com/palestinian-refugees-just-want-to-go-home-after-protracted-exile-958db5cf563d?sk=e7a32dfaabaf33415e6675fc54f87b88
Hi Mr. Bahour,
I have noticed that when you discuss Palestine with “Jewish Israelis” the conversation always stops on the right of return. You believe international law provides that right. Where was it implemented?
More important why argue for a state of your own in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem when in fact part of your solution is the return to Israel of almost 14 million people. Hey why bother with the state of Palestine when in fact 14 million Palestinians will simply overwhelm the Jewish population of Israel. That sounds like a non-starter for any negotiations.
I am sure you are aware that 19th century Palestine saw tremendous population changes and I do not mean the Jews. The Jews were a decidedly small number and only in the last quarter of the 19th century did they start to come. At the beginning of the 19th century the population ranged from 200,000 to 275,000 depending on whose estimates you would like to accept. These people are a mixture of Arabs who came from Arabia (7th and 11th century) and the “indigenous” local population consisting of Greek Syrians and Jews who became Christians and later Moslem.
In 1832 Muhammed Ali, the Egyptian ruler (Khedive), invaded Palestine with 200,000 on his way to try to unseat the rulers in Constantinople. He failed in his main objective but stayed in Palestine for almost 10 years and anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 of his Army stayed behind in Palestine.
Also in the 19th century as Ottoman Empire shrank a significant number of Algerians, Bosnians Kurds, Circassians were imported to Palestine. And of course, as the British and the Jews came in the 20th century even more people came as Palestine grew commercially. As you can see many of these people have a very short history in Palestine.
Why can they not go back to where they came from? Are you a Palestinian because of a newly advanced international border regardless of your heritage? If so, why not stay where you are now in a newly created international border.
You've not read enough of my writings. As for our history, try https://bookshop.org/books/palestinian-identity-the-construction-of-modern-national-consciousness/9780231150750
I will read your book and even the legal book.
I am familiar with Khalidi’s books and writings. And read your article “Palestinians just want to go home”. First, I am not one who would deny Palestinians their identity. In my piece I just wanted to point out that the history of the people now called Palestinians is disparate. What is so unique about the Palestinians that they must move across the border a few miles from where they live now. After all isn’t the West Bank the heart of Palestine?
As for resolution 194 which you partially quote “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which;” there are two caveats “live in peace with their neighbors” and “compensation as the alternative.
Given that the Palestinians and Israelis have been fighting for 75 years and more it strikes me that the notion of a peaceful return is a non-starter—these people have been and continue to be at war with each other—the children of these two communities are not taught to love or befriend each other to the contrary they are taught to hate each other. But I do totally buy into the compensation part of the paragraph. It strikes me that is very much negotiable and implementable.
The multiple "and[s]" and the word "choosing" are crystal clear. You are entitled to your preference and opinion, but to be honest here, yours, and mine for that matter, don't matter. It is the refugees' voice that drives.
I credit you with at least stating in your article "Palestinian refugees and their descendants returning to Israel", because according to the UNHCR, "Refugees are people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country." There is no precidence for descendants of refugees to be returned -- this is a Palestinian definition and one that has kept its people in this predicament for 70 years. Millions of descendants are not going to be allowed into Israel and the sooner Palestinians leaders stop this fiction, the better the chances for its people to live in their own state.
It's an international definition. Like it or not, you'll need to get over it. Please read the hook. You'll learn a lot.
With that selfish attitude, the people hurt are the Palestinians. Israel and its neighbors are moving on. If the Palestinians agreed to live in their own state and stop the non-starter of right of return, the people would thrive. Denying them that is only about enriching the corrupt Palestinian leaders, people be damned. Shame…