I am writing in response to Abdul-Wahab Kayyali's Viewpoint ("Sharon: A murderous prime minister," 2/20.) In his piece, Kayyali explains that Barak's concessions were not far reaching because there was no inclusion of a right of return for Palestinian refugees. In fact, Barak's concessions were more far reaching than any other leader in Israel's history, and they did not include a "right of return" because, as Florice Engler explained ("Good Luck Ariel Sharon," 2/8), such a demand is indeed "unfeasible" and "insulting."
Throughout history, peoples, like Palestinian refugees, have been both forcefully and voluntarily displaced. This may be "unfair," but it is a fact of life. My family history is actually analogous to the current situation of many Palestinian refugees. Before immigrating to Israel in 1948, my grandparents were ordered to leave Iraq by an anti-Jewish government. Can my grandmother now, 53 years later, demand land back from Saddam Hussein? Is Spain's government required to give land back to Jews that it seized in the Inquisition? If Native Americans from Boston demanded the city back, would President Bush have to comply?
Of course, the answer to all of these questions is "No." So by what right can anyone demand a right of return for Palestinians? According to Kayyali, "the number of Palestinian refugees is six million, not four million." Well, according to the Israeli government, the total number of Jews in Israel is 4.7 million. Does Arafat really expect Israel's Jews to become a minority in their own homeland?
Absurdly, I fear that he does. I fear Arafat was unsatisfied with Barak's far- reaching concessions because he wants not just the West Bank, Gaza, and parts of Jerusalem, but Tel-Aviv and Haifa as well. For Arafat, or any future serious potential negotiator to have the courage to make peace, they must first have the insight to drop this illogical demand.
Adam Halperin, LA '01
