We Say:

While refusal to relinquish the principle of a "right of return" is the prerogative of the Palestinians, demands that the principle be implemented inside Israel are tantamount to a demand that Israel cease to exist as a Jewish state. Successive peace initiatives - including the Clinton parameters, the Geneva Initiative, and the Arab League Initiative - all make clear that a solution to the issue must be found that is acceptable to both sides. Such a solution will have to respect both the sensitivities of the Palestinian refugees and Israel's sovereign right to determine who may live within its borders. This is the right approach, and it is guided by moral, political, and strategic concerns.

It is clear that any solution to the Palestinian refugee issue will have to be found within the borders of a future Palestinian state, rather than inside Israel. It is also clear that any effort to resolve the conflict without addressing the needs and grievances of these refugees will almost certainly fail, sowing even deeper frustration and creating fertile ground for the growth of future violence. The issue has wider impacts, effecting the stability of countries of the region that are home to the refugee populations (including those who have made peace with Israel) and providing a powerful point around which extremists rally support. Allowing the refugee issue to fester is a dangerous approach.

We Say:

The uniquely political nature of the Palestinian refugee problem means that none of the options available under UNHCR would work.

UNHCR's first preference is always to return refugees to their original homes. With respect to Palestinian refugees, whose original homes, for the most part, are inside Israel, this is an option that would be unacceptable to Israel.

UNHCR's second preference is to settle refugees permanently in their current country of residence. This option is opposed, with varying degrees of vehemence, both by the Palestinian refugees and by the countries hosting the largest numbers of them - Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan - each of which have their own domestic political calculations in mind.

UNHCR's third preference is to settle refugees in a third country. However, third countries cannot be forced to accept Palestinian refugees, and outside of the scope of a broader political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is unlikely that all or even most Palestinians would willingly leave, or that third countries would welcome them.

UNHCR does not have the authority to impose any of these options - it can neither force refugees to go anywhere, nor can it force any country to accept them.

We Say:

Despite the fact that Israel has agreed that the Palestinian refugee problem is an issue to be resolved in final status negotiations, some people insist that the refugee problem simply doesn't exist. They argue that the real problem is the UN and that the refugee issue could be easily "resolved" by the UN ending its "special treatment" of Palestinians.

Some demand, for example, that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) - the UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees - be dissolved. Some insist that the term "refugee" be amended in the Palestinian context such that, by a stroke of a pen, most Palestinian refugees would be redefined out of existence. Such efforts are simplistic and misguided. After more than a half century of limbo, the Palestinian refugee situation remains an explosive political issue. Efforts to use technical or bureaucratic means to bypass a negotiated solution, as part of a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, are doomed to fail, could exacerbate the conflict, and could ultimately make resolution of the issue more difficult.

Moreover, the continued effective operations of UNRWA, until such time as a permanent and mutually acceptable solution for the Palestinian refugees can be achieved, is thus vital to the welfare of the refugees and to both American and Israeli security interests. UNRWA plays a vital role as a source of stability and humanitarian assistance - food, medical care, education - to a population living under severe stress in the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. In the West Bank and Gaza, it is UNRWA that, in effect, absolves Israel of responsibility for the day-to-day humanitarian needs of this population.

We Say:

The Torah makes the case that having a right to something does not necessarily mean that right ought to be exercised under any and all circumstances. God's promise, God's gift, does not come with a requirement that we exercise our right to every inch of the land - for example, if doing so means constant conflict. The lesson of the Torah is that if pragmatic considerations of peace and justice require otherwise, such considerations prevail.

Turning to Genesis (13: 1-11), we learn that Abraham and Lot are finding themselves unable to get along and share the land. To resolve the conflict, Abraham offers Lot half of the available grazing land - an act whose righteousness is clear when God immediately blesses Abraham once more, and reconfirms his promise. Thus, the Torah makes clear that while God's promise of the land to the Jewish people is firm, that promise accommodates the shifting of boundaries. For the sake of good relations with our kin, we are indeed permitted to give them land, even if they are not directly included in the covenant.

Likewise, many important rabbis state unequivocally that Pikuach Nefesh - the saving of lives - overrides the imperative of holding on to the land. The late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef of Shas, the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel, has written a famous tshuva (legal response) citing many sources that show that trading land for peace is permissible if one can make a case that it will save lives. The main points of the case are this: The Talmud rules that the saving of a life takes precedence over all other mitzvot, positive or negative, except idolatry, murder and sexual violations. This is reinforced by numerous other commentators and texts. There are many secular sources making a good case that land for peace will indeed save lives; if that case can indeed be made, we should do so. "Great is peace, for it is equal to everything." (Sifre Numbers, 42)

We Say:

While some Jews today believe that the miracle of Israel's establishment represents the dawn of a Messianic age, many Jewish authorities are wary of conflating Israeli control over territory with any Biblical commandment. After all, the State of Israel is a secular creation and its policies do not have any direct bearing on our responsibilities towards the Divine. Rather, Israeli policies vis-à-vis the West Bank and Gaza should be determined on the basis of what makes Israel and its citizens more secure as a Jewish state and a democracy.

Likewise, the claim that our theological truth is superior to the truths or traditions of others has no place in the real world of political discourse or international relations. It is an invitation not to peace but to perpetual conflict.

Even if we do believe that the Land of Israel is God-given, it still doesn't mean that Jews must retain and exercise full sovereignty over it. Many prominent Jewish scholars agree that there are values - namely the sanctity of human life - which supersede the value of exercising Jewish presence and sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel.

We would be wise to remember the commandment conveyed by the Prophet Jeremiah after the destruction of the First Temple: "And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away... for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace" (Jeremiah 29:7). We are, of course, entitled to believe that ours is, indeed, the supreme truth, but for the sake of the peace of the city, we are forbidden from proclaiming that superiority in the public spaces, where we, and all others, must behave as if ours is just one of a number of truths. Otherwise, the result is chaos and death.

We Say:

We weigh all activism in light of our primary mission and concern: preserving Israel's future and its security and viability as a democracy and a Jewish state. From this mission, we, as a Jewish, Zionist organization, derive our conviction that settlement expansion must stop, the settlement enterprise must be rolled back, and the occupation must end - for the sake of Israel's own security and its own future. Consistent with this mission, we have always opposed boycott, divestment, and sanctions efforts targeting Israel itself. We believe such campaigns are misguided and counterproductive. They target the average, innocent Israeli citizen -- who may well support an end to the occupation and a two-state solution -- rather than the Israeli government policies that are ostensibly the target of the campaigns. They have caused many Israelis and supporters of Israel -- people whose voices are vitally needed to oppose the policies that such campaigns target -- to feel compelled to defend Israel, regardless of the policies in question.

We also categorically oppose the efforts of organizations and activists whose goal, explicit or implicit, is to undermine Israel's existence. Historically, much of the pressure for BDS campaigns originated with anti-Israel sources not interested in Israeli security concerns or Palestinian behavior, giving rise to concerns about global anti-Semitism and the perception that the campaigns are not truly (or only) about Israeli policies but rather reflect a deep-seated hatred for and rejection of Israel.

Consistent with our mission and our convictions, APN has long argued that activism should be targeted across the Green Line separating Israel and the occupied territories. We believe that for activism to be both effective and morally defensible, activists must make clear, emphatically and unambiguously, that their target is the occupation and its manifestations - like settlements and acts of collective punishment - and not Israel proper, innocent Israeli civilians, or legitimate Israeli security practices. Doing so underscores the fact that such activism is not anti-Israel, but rather is opposed to specific policies and practices related to Israeli behavior in the occupied territories.