Q&A: The Right of Return
The Right of Return
Question
Have a good week, Rabbi,
regarding the right of return, I saw on Wikipedia that it says the following:
In a government discussion held on June 16, 1948, Sharett said: “If someone had arisen among us and said that one day we must get up and expel all of these people—then that would have been a mad idea. But if this happened amid the upheavals of war, a war that the Arab people declared against us, and as a result of the flight of the Arabs themselves—then this is one of those revolutionary changes after which history does not return to its previous state.” Sharett stated in the discussion: “Our policy is that they do not return.”
In your opinion, what is the moral basis for the State of Israel’s refusal of the right of return?
Answer
It is written here.
Expulsion is our initiative, and that is an immoral act. But if they started a war and lost, then they should bear the consequences. To bring them back here so that they will not bear the consequences of their actions is not only something morality does not require; it is itself an immoral act. A wrongdoer should bear the consequences of his actions, so that others will see and be warned. Beyond that, there is also concern about what will happen to us as a result of their return. The danger posed by their terrorism and by their becoming a majority here.
Discussion on Answer
In my opinion, no. The civilians have the same status as the fighters. They all have the status of a pursuer, and they must bear the consequences of their actions. However, according to the law, if there is property registered in their name, then it is theirs.
Why do the civilians have the status of a pursuer?
But from what I understood from your approach in other issues, like the Defensive Shield dilemma and even the fighting in Gaza now, you argue that every person has two hats or identities, an individual hat and a collective hat, and therefore uninvolved civilians should not be harmed except where there is a need for it. How is this different from straightforward collective punishment of the Palestinians nowadays? And further, why is the status of those who fled different from the status of those who remained? If Arab civilians have the same status as the fighters, would it have been proper to expel the civilians who remained as well? Or at the very least not to give them citizenship status but rather resident status without voting rights?
There is a collective pursuer status on the entire public that fought against us. Once they lost their property, that is their problem. If they went out to war, they must bear the consequences.
I did not harm them. They lost their property in the war, and that’s that. Those who remained still have their property in their hands, and it is forbidden to rob them. But if they lost their property, there is no duty to restore it.
At least in retrospect, it is clear that it would have been better to expel them all. But that is not practical. The same applies to the right of citizenship.
Following up on this question, shouldn’t one distinguish here between Arabs who fought and uninvolved civilians who fled their homes and are now asking to return?