Dear Dr. Pappé,

I watched the recent airing of “The Doha Debate” on BBC (Saturday 14th April at 1210 GMT) and I would like to applaud you and your fellow speakers for a very informative and interesting debate.
But I would like to put forward a question to you that I missed during the debate: “What is the raison d’être of Israel?”
Regardless of the atrocities and the ethnic cleansing that, as you so compellingly show in your recent book, occurred when founding Israel: Doesn’t the right to return eliminate the reason of the UN-based founding of Israel? Every religion/faith has de facto at least one country or state where it holds a generous majority. This gives many of those countries, esp. the Christian ones, the luxury of secularism. Jews probably don’t have that luxury. As much as I personally dislike the idea of a religious state – I’m fiercely secular myself – I think that Israel has to be predominantly Jewish. Or Israel will not be what it is supposed to be: a refuge for Jews in case of danger.
(I would think you would either question that raison d’être altogether or would say it cannot prevail over the right of return, which would amount to the same. But of course I’d like to hear your reasoning.)

I would also like to comment about a parallel you drew during the debate: I do not buy into your reference to South Africa and apartheid: while South Africa was born out of colonialism with the white man believing to be superior (the very basis of racism), Israel was founded on very different grounds: South Africa’s raison d’être was for the white man to rule over the black man, to be his superior (and subsequently live off his labour). Israel was founded as a refuge for a battered people as a safe haven, seen – and approved by the UN – as the historic homeland. That raison d’être – while conveniently ignoring the fact that there happened to be another people in the same area – is by itself not inherently racist.
By drawing that parallel you are not only obscuring that fundamental difference – which might by some be regarded as purely academic, but I believe to be morally valid and important – but also burdening the process to a just peace instead of promoting it. The parallel is as catchy as it is false. And I have to agree with Mr. Beilin: let’s not burden the process further by calling names: it’s bad enough as it is. Reconciliation will only be possibly by unconditionally admitting to the atrocities committed. And the situation as of now has to end – it is particularly unbearable for the Palestinians. But you also have to accept the facts created in the past: returning to the 1967 borders will be hard enough. Trying to turn back the wheel to pre-1947 (and that’s what right of return would de facto amount to) will be simply impossible – and unjust too. And will cement instead of solve the current situation.



Dear Mr. Beilin,

I watched the recent airing of “The Doha Debate” on BBC (Saturday 14th April at 1210 GMT) and I would like to applaud you and your fellow speakers for a very informative and interesting debate.
The low support in the audience of your position of the right to return must have been disheartening.
I believe it doesn’t have to be, for two reasons:
Firstly, because the question put forward was (unintentionally) biased: it was about holding on to what many not only see as a right but as at the very core of their identity on the one hand. And what on the other hand? Giving up that right - and what for? The price to pay was very present, the gains not. Had BBC decided to phrase the question differently, for instance, “If the right of return was the only remaining obstacle in giving Palestinians their own, fully sovereign state on the West Bank and in Gaza, should Palestinians give it up and be compensated instead?” I would have anticipated another response.
Secondly, I think yours and Mr. Eids’ argument lacked the emotional leverage to gather a pull in the audience. While you argued against the right because of it’s unfeasibility and Mr. Eid because of pure exhaustion and current misery, your opponents operated with morally and emotionally much stronger arguments, describing the current situation as apartheid, calling on the ultimate democratic principle of one man, one vote and adding with the human touch of letting one’s mother live next door.
I agree with you that these arguments will not bring us any closer to peace; some might not even be altogether valid. But as long as your and Mr. Eids’ arguments smack of defeatism, pragmatism and false compromises, it will not inspire much of a following, especially in a debate that is so highly emotional. “Peace” might be a compelling word, but on its own it probably has been overused in the region to be trusted or to inspire any dreams.
You argue that politicians are not in the business of dreams, but in the business of solutions. To that, I disagree: A politician should inspire, in order to sell the solutions.
You argue that the Geneva Accord is the most detailed and most feasible plan for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at hand. 30% of Israelis and almost none of the Palestinians (many because of lack of knowledge of the Accord in the first place) agree. To increase that number, you’ll have to find a different wording, a different story in order to sell that idea.