Eccentricities of Being 'Palestinian'

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Mar 11, 2011 at 16:12

Here we have the quasi-political question that can be posed: why aren't 'Palestinians' allowed better chances or opportunities for employment in supposedly friendly neighboring (host) countries? Maybe there is the still lurking mentality that the 'refugee' status of those people and their relatives that used to live in the areas now part of the state of Israel are supposed to return, in someone's lifetime. Do we see the reluctance of absorption being overshadowed by the continuing call for Israel to continue to relinquish land erroneously thought to be non-Israeli?

Historically, though the evidence I weak, there is maybe three (or maybe four) generations that can legitimately called 'Palestinian' by indigence, that population having lived in the 'Holy Land' prior to the British Mandate and being given that appellation for a lack of a better term after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. So when Israel was reborn into its land of the Abrahamic heritage, uncounted 'Palestinians' fled into neighboring countries (and to other places like America), so as not be associated with Israeli rule. What: did they think they would be welcomed with open arms?

No, from abroad, refugee leaders plotted the retaking of the land they once thought was theirs exclusively, and tried to enlist the sympathies of those nations to which they fled. Those nations then had an incentive: return the 'Palestinians' to whence from which they came so that they are not the host nation's problem, especially if they are of a differing ethnicity.

Lebanon has an especially difficult time, for they are a composite nation as it is; and there is no room for spreading out misery. But in this is a dichotomy; that if the refugee is a professional that could be a participating resident alien in the Lebanese higher economy, why not take advantage of that while they live there, instead of the imposition of restrictions that add a further burden to the lesser ranks of indigent peoples. Therein lays a conundrum.

So to which political mindset do we attribute this imposition of caste? Could it be that in the above assertion, whatever pressure necessary to get a 'right of return' implemented is justified? Could it be that Hizbollah influences are at play in making sure the 'Palestinian' does not get comfortable in a host nation (like so many that do in the United States)? Or maybe it is more intrinsic than that?

Now for those that do remain under the cover of Israeli government, as long as they are participating citizens and not disaffected malcontents trying to upset Israeli rule, the report is that many live pretty well (that is until being targeted by the malcontents for 'collaboration'). So how is that going to be reconciled? This is now a generations-old bone of contention, very visibly not to be solved anytime soon.

From an outsider's perspective, an opinion not shared by too many, the 'Palestinian' question is one that does not have any acceptable solution, and certainly not a 'road-map-to-peace-two-state' solution. So the powers that be are locked in their own struggle (like perfecting a hostile alien environment to force outsiders out) to find a place and a way to drive back the refugees; and Israel remains the preferred target of interest.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".