Well, not in so many words, of course. That would be sooooo tacky. Instead, a recent statement on the Middle East by the United Methodist Church’s General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) couched it in the language of rights:
Israel’s invasion of Gaza reminds us of the critical need for a just and durable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We pray that new U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell can facilitate a peace settlement. It is our conviction that an accord must ensure the following: a safe, secure Israel; a safe, secure viable and contiguous Palestine; an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory; a recognition of Palestinian refugees’ right of return; and a shared Jerusalem.[Emphasis added.]
If there has been any issue on which Israel has been absolutely uncompromising, it is the so-called “right of return” (which isn’t actually about “return,” since the vast majority of present-day Palestinian refugees have never lived in Israel). Allowing millions of Palestinians to move to Israel would effectively destroy that nation as a Jewish state. By using the mechanism of Israeli democracy, it would be possible for the Muslim Arab majority to eventually reduce the Jewish minority to dhimmitude, or else to simply expel it, as has happened in most of the Arab world since the founding of Israel. By calling for the right of return, the GBCS has effectively said that Jews are not entitled to a homeland of their own.
Of course, that’s not at all surprising, since the United Methodist Church as a whole has made the same call. I suspected that the GBCS had gone off on a crusade of its own, so I started looking to see if there were any other United Methodist agencies that had taken a similar stance. Imagine my surprise when I found that the entire denomination, meeting in General Conference in 2004, had passed a resolution stating:
WHEREAS, the church continues to work with ecumenical and interfaith bodies to advocate for Palestinian self-determination and an end to Israeli occupation; to affirm Israel’s right to exist within secure borders; to affirm the right of return for Palestinian refugees under international law; to call for region-wide disarmament; to urge Israelis and Palestinians to stop human rights violations and attacks on civilians, such as targeted assassinations and suicide bombings; and to urge the U.S. government to initiate an arms embargo on the entire Middle East region; [Emphasis added.]
I missed this at the time of its passage, and I’ll bet most United Methodists did as well. So my former denomination (1983-1992) is on record as supporting the demise of Israel as a Jewish state. Who’d a thunk it?
April 7, 2009 at 9:20 am
To be fair, that isn’t really what right of return means, is it? Doesn’t every Jew in the world have the right of return, no matter where they were born? As to the rest, I agree with you, to give right of return to all Palestinians would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
April 7, 2009 at 10:16 am
Actually, it is. If it were a matter of allowing Palestinians who were living inside the present borders of Israel to go back, I doubt that would present any problem. But both the Arab states and their mainline supporters in the West mean some very different–they want all Palestinians who lived in what is now Israel in 1948 and all of their descendants to have the right to move to Israel.
As for the Jewish “right of return,” you’re correct about its meaning (there are exceptions, for instance for people like me). The difference has to do with why Israel was formed in the first place. A history of persecution and expulsion from other countries, combined with the Holocaust, convinced the world in 1948 that a homeland for Jews, where they could exercise the right of self-defense, was necessary. The Arab world disagreed, believing that 22 Arab nations were not enough, that the world needed one more, and that just because the Nazis hadn’t finished the job was no reason to abrogate their birthright (the one they had conquered in the 7th century). In fact, the expulsion of Jews from Arab states following World War II is one of the best arguments for why a state to which all Jews have the right to flee if threatened is necessary.
April 7, 2009 at 11:06 am
I don’t think I was being clear – I do absolutely agree with you that a Jewish state is necessary. But, in your post, you seem to me to be implying that the right of return is only for people who were born in Israel and left. That is what I was taking issue with. Am I misunderstanding you? I do understand that the Palestinians are asking for the right of return that the Jewish people have, and I agree that it is unreasonable.
April 7, 2009 at 11:40 am
Oh, sorry, no. The right of return is for all Jews, not just those who have lived in or were born in Israel.
April 7, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Does anyone remember when the “Palestinians” actually showed up from Jordan and surrounding states? It was after Israel made the desert bloom and brought commerce and industry to an area devoid of economic success. Thats when the Arabs decided to live there in numbers. Honest, look it up. In the 1940′s the Palestinian orchestra was 100% Jewish.