Law of Return

By Stanley Walinets
October 9, 2011

Extract from a JC news item, Sep 30th:

"21,300 people moved to Israel last year under the Law of Return, compared to around 17,900 the previous year. They came from places as far flung as Hong Kong, Honduras, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Monaco, Suriname,China, Angola, the Philipines, Thailand, Japan, Malta, Congo, South Korea and Nicaragua ... including a "10% jump in immigration from North America".

Return? RETURN? All those individuals were actually returning to a country they used to live in? Well now, what a wonderful law that Law of Return must be. It must clearly mean that all those Palestinians who used to live there, and whose families had lived there for generations, are also entitled to return to this land they used to live in. What an honourable law - well done, Israel!

Or have I misunderstood something?


Michael Gottlieb

Mon, 10/10/2011 - 16:52

Rate this:

0 points

Jews should be allowed to return to their ancestral homeland - Israel.

"Palestinians" are not native to this land but were imported by the Ottoman Turks for cheap labor. As far as I'm concerned, the Pals don't have to be removed, but they should not ever get sovereignty rights to the land - that right belongs to the Jews only.

Details here:

Stanley Walinets

Fri, 10/14/2011 - 11:44

Rate this:

0 points

Michael - You must equally recognise that the huge number of Jews now living in Israel are also not "native to this land". They too have been imported, the purpose being in their case to swell the land's occupation by people Israeli Governments have preferred.

A big difference however has been that for whatever reason those foreign Jews have been 'imported', they have not lived in the land as long as those 'Pals' who you say were imported way back in the Ottoman period.

Those people have thus been inhabitants for generations and are surely entitled to be regarded as natives, at least as much as the post-1948 imported Jews are. (I'm not talking here of the Sabra Jews, who lived alongside the Palestinians before the State of Israel was established).

You say: "Jews should be allowed to return to their ancestral homeland - Israel". How far back would you say 'ancestry' entitles ANY people to possession of a land they currently occupy? What would you say, for instance, if the UN now recognised that America was the ancestral home of the Indians (which it was, long before European immigrants pushed them out of their land and called it America); and required today's US population to be herded into some small corner of that land - or even to be expelled back to the European lands of THEIR true ancestors?

We can go on forever claiming ancestral rights. But the rights of people in a land where they've lived for generations, must also be recognised. Recognised as 'natives of this land' at least as much as the people who are just 'Law of Return' immigrants.


Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:51

Rate this:

0 points

The Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate and UNSCOP recommending of partition into a Jewish and an Arab state are all premised on some kind of right of Jewish return, which Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians Resisted ab initio, and continue to do, even to this day; even as they Resisted Jews existing in the land in over the tiny numbers imperial Christian and Islamic apartheid decreed, as their punishment for rejecting Jesus and the prophets, for most of the last 2000 years.

When they recognise an ror of Jews to Palestine, doubtless Israeli Jews can recognise an ror to Israel.

As of today, the P.A. Resists even the formula 'two states for two peoples', lest one of those peoples be interpreted as the Jewish.


Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:57

Rate this:

0 points

'Return? RETURN? All those individuals were actually returning to a country they used to live in?'

For most of, from the beginning of, Christian and Islamic history, not only Jews have regarded themselves as a people exiled, so have most European, North African, Asian and, above all, Palestinian Christians and Muslims, as a punishment for their rejection of Jesus and the prophets.

With a result that, in the 19th and 20th centuries, most European, North African and Asian Jews were regarded as, not so much nationally European, or Arab, but Judean, that is to say, 'Palestinian'.

With a further result that most were either exiled from this world; or effectively even from the lands of exile; before 1914, mostly to America; after 1914, mostly to Palestine or what became Israel.

Which is why Israel is the second or largest Jewish community in the world today.

By all means try to persuade Israeli Jews their narrative of Jewish exile and dispossession is fundamentally wrong or mistaken. I doubt you'll have much success.


You must be logged in to post a comment.