First, an illustrative anecdote: A little over a year ago, Iraq’s prime minister Nuri al-Maliki arrived in Washington and addressed Congress. The event was supposed to be a booster for the elected Iraqi leadership, showing U.S. support for the new government. But at the time, Israel was pummeling Beirut in response to Hizballah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers, so U.S. legislators naively tried — and failed — to get Maliki to condemn Hizballah. And, revealing the extent to which Washington is encased in a bubble when it comes to matters involving Israel in the Middle East, Senators Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin wrote Maliki a letter saying the following: “Your failure to condemn Hezbollah’s aggression and recognize Israel’s right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East.”
To cut bluntly to the chase, there is scarcely a single politician in the Arab world willing to endorse Washington’s definitions of the problems or the solutions when it comes to Israel’s impact on the region — and that even among the autocrats with whom the U.S. prefers to work, much less that rare breed that Maliki represents, i.e. a democratically elected leader. It is the U.S. leadership that is in denial about what is needed to create security in the region.
Indeed, the grownups in Washington know this better than anyone. In response to the same crisis in Lebanon, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft wrote:
Hezbollah is not the source of the problem; it is a derivative of the cause, which is the tragic conflict over Palestine that began in 1948.
The eastern shore of the Mediterranean is in turmoil from end to end, a repetition of continuing conflicts in one part or another since the abortive attempts of the United Nations to create separate Israeli and Palestinian states in 1948.
But nobody in power listens to Brent Scowcroft any more. Washington’s Israel bubble so detaches it from an objective view of the Middle East that Howard Dean’s 2003 call for the U.S. to adopt an “even-handed” position between Israel and the Palestinians has longsince entered the U.S. political playbook as an example of foot-in-mouth campaigning. (See my earlier entry on how well Barack Obama has learned this lesson.)
Like the tech-bubble and real estate-bubble, Washington’s “Israel bubble” is unhealthy and dangerous — in fact, it not only jeopardizes U.S. interests throughout the region and beyond (by serving as Exhibit A for any anti-American element anywhere in the Islamic world to win the political contest with America’s friends), but it is also exceedingly bad for Israel: Particularly over the past decade, the U.S. has essentially enabled Israeli behavior so self-destructive that it may have already precluded any chance of it being able to live at peace with its neighbors.
It is the lancing of this Israel bubble — in the best interests of the United States, the Arab world, and Israel’s own prospects for peaceful coexistence with its neighbors — that John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt have dedicated themselves, first in last year’s London Review of Books essay and now in a new book, titled “The Israel Lobby.”
They argue, firstly, that the absolute bias hardwired into U.S. policy towards Israel is neither a rational foreign policy for the U.S. or even particularly helpful to Israel. And they further make the case that this policy has been maintained and extended with increasingly destructive effect by the interventions and activities of a network of groupings they broadly define as the Israel lobby, which actively puts Israel positions (rather than American ones) at the forefront of U.S. policy (on issues ranging from the Palestinians to Iran), and which uses its considerable reach in the political process in Washington to ensure that challenging the U.S. bias towards Israel, as Dean did, is considered political suicide for a politician with presidential ambitions.
Their book is a comprehensive scholarly work, but its purpose is unashamedly political. The book has a number of weaknesses — I find its analytical approach often static and institutional; insufficiently dynamic and, dare I say it, insufficiently dialectical. On the nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship in last summer’s disastrous war in Lebanon, for example, I disagree with their denial of responsibility on Washington’s part — the original impulse to take some form of action may have come from the Israeli leadership, but as I made clear at the time, it was hard to avoid the suspicion that the scale and objectives of the operation became defined by Washington, and they were plainly goals for which Israel had not prepared its forces.
Also, the process of skewing U.S. bias towards Israel may reveal the machinations of a lobby, but they have also become deeply-entrenched tropes in U.S. political and civil society — tropes which now function quite independently of the lobby’s interventions.
But regardless of a number of specific instances that I might analyse somewhat differently, I have no quarrel with its central argument that U.S. policy on Israel and its neighbors is grotesquely biased in favor not only of Israel, but of Israel’s most self-destructive impulses. As such, it is a policy dangerous to U.S. interests and ultimately to those of Israel itself. This biased is maintained and policed in substantial part by an aggressive lobbying effort by an elaborate pro-Israel political infrastructure. Despite its analytical weaknesses, it is a refreshingly candid and courageous (given the all too common fate of those who tackle this taboo — just take a look at the important logging of this stuff at Muzzlewatch) embrace of what has long been the “third rail” of American foreign policy, insisting that a debate be conducted where none has been tolerated until now.
And, its significance may be measured in part by the response it has elicted. Not so much the predictable fulminations of Abe Foxman in his prebuttal of Mearsheimer and Walt, The Deadliest Lies, or the manic chatter of Haaretz’s resident arbiter of all things Hebrew Nationalist in America, Shmuel Rosner — all of that may be par for the course. But M&W share with Jimmy Carter that ability to call forth a rather unfortunate habit among sections of America’s liberal punditocracy, in which sharp and fundamental criticisms of Israel must be discredited and squashed, even at the cost of the cool reason for which the pundits in question are usually known. To put it unkindly, when Israel is under the spotlight, many liberal commentators feel compelled to embarrass themselves in its defense.
I noticed this phenomenon last year when Jimmy Carter made the entirely valid comparison between Israel’s West Bank regime and the apartheid system that prevailed in South Africa until 1994. That prompted Michael Kinsley — a well-known and generally smart liberal pundit — to denounce Carter’s comparison in an op-ed that only served to show how little he knew about either the Middle East or apartheid South Africa. Clearly, though, the idea that Israel was committing crimes equivalent to apartheid clearly made Kinsley so uncomfortable that he felt compelled to blurt out something — anything, really, to negate Carter, and make the discomfort he caused go away. (I critiqued his lame response to Carter in an earlier post.)
This phenomenon is reflective of a trend that has been confirmed to me anecdotally dozens of times, both in the U.S. and at home in South Africa, where some Jewish liberals of faultlessly progressive politics on every other issue turn into raving tribal belligerents of the Ariel Sharon hue when the conversation turns to Israel. We’ve all seen it, dozens of times, I’m sure — although I’m pleased to say I know a lot more whose politics are consistent, and are not prone to being possessed by Zionist Mr. Hydes.
David Remnick is not among them, unfortunately. In response to Mearsheimer and Walt, New Yorker editor Remnick offers a fresh specimen of the denial pathology.
What is most strking about his piece, however, is that it is more of a kvetch, designed to discredit M&W in the eyes of New Yorker readers, than a serious engagement with their argument. For example, Remnick notes that M&W are realists, i.e. they make their case for a foreign policy based on national interests. Remnick writes:
“There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel’s existence,” [M&W] write, but they deny that Israel is of critical strategic value to the United States. The disappearance of Israel, in their view, would jeopardize neither America’s geopolitical interests nor its core values. Such is their “realism.”
The latter line seems to be dropped in with a note of bitter irony, as if it somehow damns the authors, who repeatedly make clear their belief that the U.S. should support Israel where it’s right to exist is threatened, but note that its existence is not actually under threat, right now — instead, the U.S. is being called upon to underwrite its brutal occupation policies. But the argument that Israel’s disappearance would not substantially harm U.S. national interests is a perfectly legitimate one in the realist framework, bereft of emotion: Israel safeguards no vital national interests of the United States, and is more of a liability than an asset in the broad U.S. strategic approach to the Middle East. Those who argue that Israel has value as a U.S. ally can point only to tactical advantages, e.g. Israel’s intelligence services can better infiltrate radical groups than can their American allies. No doubt. But on the strategic plane, such advantages are negated by the fact that by unconditionally backing Israel and its regime of occupation over the Palestinians, it becomes virtually impossible for any Arab leader to openly associate with U.S. goals.
It was precisely this recognition of Israel’s limited strategic value to the U.S. in a post-Cold War world that led Yitzhak Rabin, a longtime hawk, to embrace the Oslo deal presented to him by Shimon Peres. Like the leaders of apartheid South Africa in the late 80s, Rabin had come to recognize (particularly in the era of the first Bush administration) that Israel could no longer count on unconditional U.S. backing given Washington’s interests elsewhere in the region. As a result, it was compelled to seek an accomodation with the Palestinian national leadership. Of course, this was an exceedingly good thing. Unfortunately, Rabin needn’t have worried, because the changing domestic political atmosphere in the U.S. — the success of the Israel lobby beyond its wildest dreams, particularly as a result of the backing of perhaps its latterly most important constituent, the Evangelical Christian Zionists, had meant that Israel could count on U.S. backing regardless of its behavior in relation to the Palestinians. M&W are simply pointing out that this does not accord with an accurate reading of U.S. national interests.
Remnick notes that M&W “are right to describe the moral violation in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands. (In this, most Israelis and most American Jews agree with them.)” But then he complains that they reveal a nefarious agenda in blaming Israel for all ills in its relationship with the Palestinians, and the Arab more broadly.
The narrative rightly points out the destructiveness of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and America’s reluctance to do much to curtail them, but there is scant mention of Palestinian violence or diplomatic bungling, only a recitation of the claim that, in 2000, Israel offered “a disarmed set of Bantustans under de-facto Israeli control.” (Strange that, at the time, the Saudi Prince Bandar told Yasir Arafat, “If we lose this opportunity, it is not going to be a tragedy. This is going to be a crime.”)
But while Remnick may satisfy his liberal conscience by conceding the idea that the occupation is bad, what he’s not answering is M&W’s case that it is bizarre to the point of inexplicable that the U.S. no longer bothers to even threaten to take steps to restrain Israel from this “moral violation.” U.S. support for Israel is unconditional, settlements and all. The sad fact, for the likes of Remnick, is that the occupation is not some aberration on Israel’s part; there really is no longer any real distinction, in practice on the ground, between Israel and its occupation of the lands it captured in 1967. As Henry Siegman recently explained in an excellent piece in the London Review of Books, Israel quite simply has no inclination to withdraw from the occupied territories, and its ideas of a “peace process” are essentially limited to the pursuit of Palestinian surrender.
As for evoking the authority of Prince Bandar, oy. Remnick himself had suggested that debate on U.S. Middle East policy was welcome, and that it should include questions such as “whether we should be supplying arms to the Saudis.” Uh, Dave, those deals are typically negotiated by Bandar. And by the way, since when did this Bush-Cheney acolyte become a voice of Arab authority? How many Arab leaders were willing to publicly endorse the deal offered at Camp David? (Bandar himself wouldn’t, you can be sure. And nor would Mahmoud Abbas.)
Remnick is entirely correct that most American Jews would agree with M&W about the occupation, but that simply underlines a point they make throughout the book — that the positions and interventions of the Israel lobby are not representative of mainstream American Jewish opinion; they’re way to the right of it. It’s not a “Jewish lobby,” it’s a lobby of people — many of them Evangelical Christians — supporting the positions of the hardline nationalist right in Israel.
Remnick also attempts the rather silly argument that U.S. support for Israel has little impact on the appeal of Osama bin Laden and other radicals in the Arab world, because Bin Laden’s objective is to overthrow Arab autocracies backed by the U.S. Yes, of course it is, but the point is that Bin Laden hardly needs to break a sweat in “proving” American malfeasance to any Muslim audience — he simply needs to point for Washington’s unswerving support of Israel, and the argument is over. And that precludes U.S. allies in the Arab world from attaining any popular legitimacy.
While denying that M&W are anti-Semites, Remnick nonetheless questions the bona fides of their intervention. His message to his readers is, don’t worry about what these guys are saying, they’re just grinding an axe. Wink. “Taming the influence of lobbies, if that is what Mearsheimer and Walt desire, is a matter of reforming the lobbying and campaign-finance laws,” but he suggests that, intead, the authors are a product of a polarized political moment, reducing all ills to a single cause — the Israel lobby. But Remnick hasn’t honestly engaged with their arguments aside from clucking over the settlements: Does Remnick agree, for example, that the U.S. should leave Israel no choice but to withdraw its West Bank settlements, by threatening to cut off the spigot if it doesn’t stop and reverse its colonization of the West Bank? Should the U.S. not use its considerable power over Israel to march it back to its 1967 borders? That, really, is what’s at issue here.
Remnick’s own Israel bubble has been taking a bit of a battering of late: Just three weeks ago, he found himelf compelled to write a subtle smear of Avrum Burg, largely attributing the former Knesset speaker’s renunciation of Zionism to his supposed personality defects! Plainly, Remnick has little appetite for engaging with Burg’s notion that, as he put it, he had always considered himself a human being, a Jew and a Zionist until he began to recognize that his Zionism negated the other two aspects of his identity.
Burg, like Mearsheimer and Walt, had clearly made Remnick uncomfortable. But he’s substantially correct in challenging the M&W idea that the lobby is singularly responsible for policing America’s public discourse on Israel. After all, nobody asked Remnick to write these pieces. Nor did anyone tell Kinsley to try and shoot down Jimmy Carter’s apartheid argument. Just as important as challenging the Israel lobby is drawing attention to the deep-rooted tropes of knee-jerk defensiveness in sections of the liberal-Jewish intelligentsia that allows them to avert their eyes and cling to fantasy when Israel is an agent of oppression.
Shlomo
Even if your point 1) were true, and I’m not sure that it is except in a marginal sense, “cultural transmissions from Europe” of the type of which you talk would only have happened in the modern era, i.e. in the late 19th century. Hardly supporting a claim that Jews and Arabs share a blood soaked history when, in fact, for hundreds of years we were a lot safer in the Arab world than in Europe. Moreover, how do you explain the fact that the majority of the Arab Jews had no interest in Zionism? Many, even in Israel, are still resentful of Zionism for the fact that they had to move to Israel.
2) Shlomo, sorry, this is a sentimental notion that for most Jews has meaning only in a spiritual sense. Most Jews have shown no interest in living in a Jewish state.
3) It starts with defining what the problem is, and your evasion here simply reinforces what I’m saying about the fact that even the Zionist “peace camp” struggles to acknowledge the human rights violations that occurred not as a by product but as an essential condition for the founding of a Jewish state in a territory in which Jews were a minority.
4) Don’t make me laugh. You want evidence? Israel has been in control of all the territories west of the Jordan River for two thirds of its own history, and it has shown no serious intent to relinquish that control — not talking about withdrawals here and there but ceding sovereign control of territory. Apartheid South Africa was a democracy, too. For white people. A state based on law, institutions, democratic elections etc. And yet it maintained a colonial regime over those to whom it denied citizenship. “one is the essence of Zionism; the other flies in the face of it”? I don’t think so; the displacement and dispossession of the Palestinians is the very condition of the realization of the Zionist project. “Does what happened sixty years ago have any bearing on modern events”? You don’t seriously expect an answer, do you?
5. Revenge? No, Shlomo, it’s actually about justice. Wherever Palestinians from Haifa end up living, addressing their inalienable right to justice begins with frankly acknowledging what was done to them, something you yourself aren’t really prepared to do. You’ll acknowledge it, but then dismiss it as ancient history from which the Palestinians really need to move on, learn to love their Gaza hovels and be grateful to Israel for its “generous offers”… Zionism, Shlomo, is the iron wall. I know you aspire to a progressive world view, but sooner or later you’re going to find yourself torn between the path of Avram Burg and the path of Benny Morris…
1. You’re right that for the vast majority of the history in question, Jewish Arabs were better off. Unfortunately, we’re not there now. It’s been the other way around ever since the fall of Nazi Germany.
Your next point is just twisted logic. “Majority” of Jewish Arabs were “resentful of Zionism” because they “had to move to Israel”? First, where on earth did you come up with that figure? Was it 55% opposed or 98% opposed? Or did you just make it up?
Second, your claim that Zionism in some way forced Jewish Arabs to emigrate is beyond belief. Do you think my grandmother left her hometown of Aleppo because she was afraid of what the Zionists would do to her? Or was it that the Syrian government was enacting antisemitic legislation, right after the Holocaust, and she saw the writing on the wall? Or was the Zionist lobby so powerful even then, that it somehow forced Arab governments across the Middle East to enact antisemitic legislation, as a way to force Mideastern Jews to make Aliya?
2. Maybe you’re right, althought once again, I’m wondering where you pulled those numbers from. “Most Jews” is incredibly vague, and it is extremely hard to measure someone’s “interest”. You certainly have a point about the when it comes to American Jews buying West Bank property.
Clearly, some Jews still have an interest in living in a Jewish state: the ones living there! That should count for something. It shouldn’t count for everything, to the extent that more Palestinians are displaced, but it should count for something.
3. I deny nothing. Everything you said is correct. I just don’t think it has any bearing on current events. I don’t think the answer is to turn back time sixty years. Also, I hope you realize that while perhaps the Nakhba was an essential condition, the main goal of Zionism was to establish a Jewish homeland that was democratic–not to kill Arabs. It remains so today, despite Yisrael Beiteinu’s claims otherwise.
4. I’d like to return to the example of British India. Britain had a colonial empire on the Indian subcontinent, and there were also Indians in Great Britain. Does this mean that Britain should have legislated itself out of existence, and established a new, hybrid “Britindian” state? If not, how is this situation different? It, too, “maintained a colonial regime over those to whom it denied citizenship”. But somehow, Britain and India managed to come up with a “Two-State Solution”. Why not here?
5. Honestly, I’m not a big fan of justice. If “justice” is to be the guiding principle, here’s what we have to look forward to: In 1994, Rwandan Hutus slaughtered the Tutsi minority in a vicious genocide. Eventually, however, the Tutsi rebels chased the Hutu genocidaires across the border into Congo. Genocide over? Nope. The Tutsis decided that warlordism and revenge was better than peace, and they kept chasing the Tutsis to the Congo River, then killed them all in a “counter-genocide”. Oh yeah, and they also enflamed Hutu-Tutsi tensions within Congo, sparking a devastating civil war that killed millions.
I’ve acknowledged what was done to Palestinians a hundred times. I do think they need to move on, and that Israelis need to move on from the suicide bombings. But you never actually addressed the question I posed. All you did is put words in my mouth (“learn to love…’generous offers'”), then tell me I’d understand when I’m older (“sooner or later…”). So I’d like to pose the question again. Yes, I’d actually like an answer, if you don’t mind.
Tony & Shlomo: I find that the application of the White Man Rule cuts through all cant. Simply stated, the rule judges every proposition by how it would be viewed if it were applied to a white man. For example, imagine if the Cherokee stated that the Wind and the Moon gods required them to return to their ancestral homes and “redeem” the land. Do you think any White American would vindidate this “national liberation” theology?
Like Manifest Destiny, Zionism is only benign if you utterly discount the other side. The reason that the Benny Morris’s conclusion is necessary because Morris–unlike the silver- tongued Abba Eban–know that Zionism, like Manifest Destiny, can only succeed by brutalizing the natives. And the violence is intrinsic, not extrinsic, to its success. And if I’m wrong, question this: the followers of Hertzl tried buying Palestine. If purchasing it would have worked, don’t you think they would have continued?
Shlomo is wrong when he says Palestinians residing in Israel have (nearly) equal economic rights. They cannot legally live in the same apartments, except some of the time, in some places. Every year, racist (look at any given year and their polled attitudes – seriously, among the most racist people on Earth) Israelis spend an inordinate amount of time dreaming up new laws to Jim Crow the Palestinians further. Shlomo is a cracker. Americans heard the same lies from his ilk in the Deep South, and they still hear them.
Pingback: Court: Israel must re-route barrier (AP via Yahoo! News)
I have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the Zionists here. They validate their inhumane treatment of the Palestinians while talking about Nazi brutality. Sure, Zionists “cleansed” the Palestinians. And Hitler “cleansed” the Jews. The only difference is that it’s ok to treat Palestinians as sub-human. However, if you dare to criticize a Jew or Israel policies, you’re labeled “anti-Semetic.” What rubbish!
If the Palestinians have no right of return, or any other claim on their property that was taken from them from Israeli Zionists, then the Jews should have no claim on any property that was lost or taken from them in WW2.
After all, it has no bearing on today’s events, except for revenge. (Sound familiar?)
Some people might not like my post, but I just changed a few groups to show certain people here the hypocrisy of their own posts.
Any Jew anywhere in the world has NO right to use the Holocaust to justify any position, if they then turn around and sanction Zionism and it’s consequences to the Palestinian people. If I’d had my property taken, forced to live in a ghetto under severe economic deprivation for years and years, seen my kids and grandkids grow up in extreme poverty and discrimination, have the Israeli government send in tanks and the army to “search”, I’d be apt to fight back, too. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto fought back, too.
Shlomo,
“Second, your claim that Zionism in some way forced Jewish Arabs to emigrate is beyond belief. ”
I have pasted a link to a testimonial from an Iraqi Jew. He states that in l951 the Zionists threw the bombs that started the panic and mass immigration of Jews to Israel. I am no expert on this history, but I found the piece compelling. I hope you find time to read the article. It is a fascinating and complex picture of the cross currents of history in the Middle East.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/impact/iraqijews.cfm
Bob, there are many more like that about Iraq specifically. But also what Shlomo doesn’t seem to understand is that many Jews from the Arab world recognized that the arrival of Zionism on the back of European colonialism in the Middle East stirred up the antagonisms and backlash that forced them out of their homes in the Arab world where many families had lived for centuries.
I am a Zionist. I am an American patriot. It is not in spite of this but because of this that I criticize both my home countries; the fundamental principle of democracy is loyal dissent. Take that away, democracy dies.
Posted by Shlomo | September 2nd, 2007 3:14 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“No man can serve two mistress”…this is a “truism.” Truisms are called truisms specifically because they have proved to be true through out all the centuries
of both ancient and modern man.
In all kindness I must suggest you are self deluded by your desire to believe the US Zionist propaganda that the US and Israel are one in the same, or culturally similar, or share similar values, or have the same interest .
We aren’t and we don’t.
And this “exceptionalism” that Jews claim entitle them to have the right to equal loyalty to two countries and for some Jews an even higher loyalty to their foreign “homeland” will be their undoing in this country.
I read somewhere (James Petras I think?) that young American Jews are statistically far more likely to sign up for the I”D”F than for the US Army. I have no way of knowing if this is true, but if it is, it’s very interesting indeed. Imagine the hysteria if it were known that US Muslims are more likely to enlist in the Pakistani or Saudi army than in the US Armed Forces?
Very interesting discussion. It is sad that this degree of frankness about U. S. relations with Israel cannot be shown in Congress or the news media. Until there can be an open debate in our society on the issue, without the usual emotional charges of “anti-semitism” from Israeli supporters, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
I just finished reading “The Israel Lobby”. I recommend it highly.
It’s factual and unemotional.
It shows frankly the adverse effects the Lobby has on America thru our foreign policy.
The only fault I could find is that they should have also written more about the corruption of our elected representives who allow this perversion because of either their own idealogy, in the case of jewish congressmen and other religious, and the self interested political ambitions of others.
Matthew,
I agree with you. Zionism, like manifest destiny, can only succeed by brutalizing the natives. Same with the Palestinian Right of Return. Israeli Jews will not appreciate a huge influx of Arabs to Israel, just as Palestinians did not appreciate a huge influx of Caucasians seventy years ago. The end result will be that the two sides come into conflict (The Hebron Massacre, the King David Bombing, etc.) until one side (Likud or Hamas) wins a dominant position and massacres the other. Maybe the Jews will win again, and complete the Nakhba. Maybe the Palestinians will, and get their revenge. In any case, it will be very bad—far worse than a two-state solution.
Marion,
I did not know about an of the discriminiatory laws and practices you listed. Could you give me more info on this?
Obie,
Your comparison (Palestinian Right of Return versus Holocasut Jews’ property) does not make sense. Holocaust survivors have received reparations for the genocide and displacement, but they were not given the right to rule Germany after WW2. Similarly, Palestinians should receive reparations and an end to the “extreme poverty and discrimination” you mention, but there is no reason why they should rule Israel—save for revenge.
Bob and Tony,
I’m working on Bob’s article, but now there is one point I would like to make. The idea that Jews should gain equal status (instead of being second- or third-class citizens) was indeed quite an antagonism for their Arab overlords. Yes, overlords. Arabs were much better for most of the history of Dhimmitude, but not in the 20th century.
One thing I don’t understand. Zionism “stirred up” a backlash?! What, did the evil colonialists brainwash Arabs into hating Jews, and in this way cause a “backlash”? If not, then the attitudes necessary for anti-Semitic expulsions must have been latent already…
I’ll stay out of the rest of his arguments, but Shlomo’s reply to Matthew regarding what might well happen if there is a one-state solution might be right. I have no way of judging the likelihood, but there are a fair number of haters in both communities, or so it seems to me sitting several thousand miles away, and mixing them all together into one nation might be a recipe for another Middle East civil war.
Or not. Frankly, I’d happily accept correction on this, because one state with equal rights for everyone is the ideal solution, just as it would have been great if everyone on both sides had felt this way back in the early part of the 20th Century.
I basically agree with Tony Karon’s criticism of Zionism, but whether a one state solution is the way to go now isn’t clear to me. I’m guessing Tony is heavily influenced by what happened in South Africa, but whether that example can carry over to the I/P conflict I couldn’t say.
I don’t have a firm position on a binational vs. two state solution, although I do believe the era of a two-state solution being possible may have ended.
Shlomo, Zionism arrived in the region on the back of European colonialism, it associated itself entirely with the colonial mission and from the Arab perspective, the notion that there would be a formalized Jewish state in Palestine begins with the defeat of the Ottomans and the British betrayal of the Arabs.
What I find cute about your reasoning is how you try to create this moral equivalence between Palestinians returning to homes from which they were violently evicted in recent memory, and Jews who hadn’t lived in the region for more than a millennium suddenly turning up and claiming the homes of others. The logic is: I steal your home, then tell you to get over it because I’ve had it for 60 years, and if you came to claim it back now, that would annoy me, so let’s just move on, shall we?
Tony: the greater irony is that what is a virtue in Zionists, i.e., longing for the Return after 2000 years, is a vice in Palestinians, i.e., longing for a return after 60 years. Shlomo strikes me as nice person, so I think I would like to focus my stronger feelings on those Zionists (unlike him) who actually are malignant.
OK,
This is beginning to upset me. I keep talking about the future; you guys keep talking about the past. From what I’m reading, neither of you are not primarily interested in peace, or in the future of Palestinian youth, so much as you are interested in making the Israeli grandparents pay for their crimes. I am forced to conclude this after hearing you both speak over and over about “moral equivalence” and “justice” and “virtue”.
When an Israeli kintergardener is killed by a rocket hitting his nursery, and when a Palestinian child is shot to death for throwing a stone or a tank, it is a veritable assault on our sense of justice, and of morality, and of virtue–whether you follow the Declaration of Human Rights, the Halacha, or the Shari’a.
Oh, sorry. You’re not concerned with morality so much as with “moral equivalence”. So if some Palestinians are killed, some Israelis should die also. It is morally repugnant in both cases, but since it is equally repugnant, we have reached the Holy Grall of “moral equivalence”. Do the parents burying their children get a prize for this?
Instead of whipping out al-Nakhba the way AIPAC people whip out the Holocaust, can someone actually answer Donald’s question? How will we resolve this conflict in a manner that ensures neither side faces ethnic cleansing, or genocide, or terminal denial of fundamental rights in the FUTURE? What is the best solution that can work?
“When an Israeli kintergardener is killed by a rocket hitting his nursery, and when a Palestinian child is shot to death for throwing a stone or a tank”
Must of your post is standard straw-man whining, but this sentence requires comment. Note how you differentiate between your two hypothetical child fatalities: one (the Israeli child, obviously) is entirely innocent, and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The other, (the Palestinian child, of course) cannot be classified as a victim quite so neatly. No, he or she was not shelled while at her desk in school (this has happened in Palestine) or bombarded on the beach with his entire family (ditto): no, he was “throwing a stone or a tank” (sic).
In other words, you are perpetuating the standard hasbara line: While Israelis do sometimes kill Palestinian children, this is either ‘accidental’ or because they were ‘terrorists’. When Palestinians kill Israeli children, however, it is always from pure malice.
Any differention was accidental. I do not think lethal force should be used against a kid for throwing rocks, and am strongly opposed to the practice. That’s why I used that example.
Murphy, how is my post straw-man whining in any way? You talk a big game for someone who hasn’t offered a word of refutation. If it’s wrong, shoot it down. You’re invited.
“Any differention was accidental. ”
Hmmmmm….. if you say so.
“I do not think lethal force should be used against a kid for throwing rocks, ”
But ‘non-lethal’ force is OK? Anyway, my point was that your choice of hypothetical victims was interesting i- and telling – n that the Israeli child was unambiguously innocent, while the Palestinian child, while not deserving of ‘lethal force’, was still engaged in violence (though I must confess I’m not entirely sure what ‘throwing a tank’ means).
“Murphy, how is my post straw-man whining in any way? You talk a big game for someone who hasn’t offered a word of refutation.”
Well, I did say I wasn’t going to engage in your straw-manning. And you don’t refute a straw-man, that would be to give it more credit than it deserves. If you need to know, I thought your post was straw-manning because of your silly claims that nobody wants “peace” except for you.
Shlomo, actually, you can’t move on to peace and the future until you acknowledge what the past is about. The Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust; Israel had everything to do with the Nakbah. That’s the source of the problem. Until Israelis can acknowledge that, they’re unable to find a way forward, because the bubble of denial over the past — which you insist is irrelevant — is actually what locks Israel into the stupendously arrogant mindset of imagining that what it is offering are “generous concessions” when it suggests a partial withdrawal from the West Bank, for example, and then claim the Palestinians are being deceitful and duplicitous when they don’t accept these offers. I agree entirely with Jimmy Carter that the operative principle has to be international law. But Israel has not shown any intention to comply. So you talk of the fate of Palestinian youth in a bubble. Why are you so afraid of acknowledging the past? The reason, I think, is that many Israelis, even liberals, believe that if they acknowledge what happened in 1948, that means they deny their own right to be there.
Tel Aviv University psychologist Carlos Strenger recently argued (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/868469.html) that Israel’s is unable to make peace with its neighbors in no small part because it is unable to acknowledge its role in creating the Palestinian refugee problem in 1948. He writes: “Israeli public discourse and national consciousness have never come to terms with the idea, accepted by historians of all venues today, that Israel actively drove 750,000
Palestinians from their homes in 1947/8 and hence has at least partial responsibility for the Palestinian Nakba. This has not happened to this very day because this idea is seen as undermining the foundation of the Zionist enterprise and the legitimacy of Israel’s existence. It is as if we were locked into an insoluble dilemma: Either we deny responsibility for the Nakba, or we need to accept that we have no right to be here.
“This is the source of the deep fear that prevents Israel from meeting the Arab world face to face and saying ‘we are here, and we believe that you accept our existence.’ Since Israel has not come to terms with its part in the historical responsibility for the Palestinian Nakba, it cannot truly believe that Arabs could accept our presence in the Middle East. We are locked into a vacillation between self-images of either all-good or all-bad, and hence continue the occupation of the territories, with all the horrors it includes, because the idea of Israel being guilty of anything is still equated with the denial of our right to be here.
“The only way out of this deadlock is to raise the question of how Israel can live with its responsibility for the Nakba into public discourse. The dilemma of ‘either we are morally impeccable, or we have no right to be here’ needs to be replaced with a narrative that accepts that Israel’s moral, historical and political reality is as complex and multilayered as that of most nations.
“In the best of all possible worlds, an Israeli statesman (a rare commodity in an age of mere politicians) would arise and tell the Palestinians: ‘Israel came into existence in tragic circumstances that inflicted great suffering and injustice on your people. We accept responsibility for our part in this tragedy, even though we cannot fully rectify it. Let us sit together and see how we can end the vicious cycle of violence and suffering and live side by side.’
This is not likely to happen in the immediate future. A Jewish Israeli politician who would say such a thing would become unelectable. “
You’re right, my choice of hypothetical victims was very telling, and in fact was meant to convey a message: there is no difference between the two deaths. I consider both victims to be equally blameless. In fact, the end of that sentence states explicitly that both deaths are an outrage and an affront to our morality. Good job quoting me wildly out of context, though.
Just so this is lost on no one, the thread started with discussions of the need to have an open debate on Zionism, and the insistent manner in which Zionists shut down the debate. It ended with myself, a Zionist, attempting to make sense of and debate the anti-Zionist position–and with a refusal of the anti-Zionists to engage me!
Has it occured to any of you that if you wish for even one iota of success, at some point you will have to engage with Zionists far more belligerent than myself? And has it occured to you that although I am open to your perspective, I have grown up hearing nothing but the opposite, and that much of what seems obvious to you is quite foreign to me?
And Donald,
Why on earth do you feel a need to “stay out of the way” of my arguments?
This is quite disappointing. Just tell me. How is the Palestinian Right of Return essential for peace? I know it’s obvious. Just spell it out.
Tony,
I actually agree with everything you said, almost to the letter. In addition, I now see why invoking al-Nakba is more logical than invoking the Holocaust. Acknowledging the damage Israel has done, and its continued culpability, is clearly a fundamental building block for coexistence.
However, this answer does not entirely satisfy me. I think that we need a more comprehensive answer for the following reason:
There are a variety of groups and individuals that are pushing for Israel to acknowledge the Nakba. Some of these truly are committed to ending the “vicious cycle of violence and suffering.” Others are not. As you yourself pointed out, right-wing Zionist groups are very aware of the Nakba and its effects. But their acknowledgement of the Nakba has, if anything, made peace even more distant.
Many antisemitic individuals also push for greater acknowledgement of the Nakba on Israel’s part. They do this not for the sake of peace, but so that they can gain moral credence for a more violent and counterproductive attack on Jews. I will not name specific organizations or individuals, because it is not necessary to. But surely we can agree that in some number, these Jew-hating individuals exist. Such individuals gain strength by hiding among, and then hijacking, more peace-loving Palestinian movements. Furthermore, right-wing Zionists use the presence of these individuals, however small, as justification for ignoring the vast majority of peace-loving Palestinian advocates.
Therefore, even though we all have peaceful motives for wishing Israel to acknowledge al-Nakba, I think it would be worthwhile to differentiate ourselves from the more violent movements that wish the same. Doing so would not only knock the wind from AIPAC’s sails, but would also ensure that progressive individuals do not mistakenly support the forces of destruction.
So after we get all the Zionists to acknowledge the Nakba, what is our second step, and third, and fourth? How do the steps after the first one make it clear to all that we are for peace?
Pingback: Ännu en suverän kommentar av Klas Sandberg « Rawia Morras Blog
I stayed out, Shlomo, because I don’t feel the need to insert myself into every single interesting argument I find online, especially when I’m not sure how I feel about it. Ideally, I’d like to see the one state solution, but my impression is that majorities on both sides reject it. Or anyway, I know that’s true on the Israeli side and I think I’ve read claims it’s even true on the Palestinian side, though I’m not sure what that means–surely they’d want the right of return. Perhaps there’s too much bitterness involved for them to want to live as one big happy family. Or I could be wrong in what I remember. (I’m not going to go googling for the answer–no time.) And anyway, it only takes a significant minority on one or both sides to cause a civil war.
I do agree you’re getting overly rough treatment here–for instance, I didn’t take anything you’ve said as elevating one set of innocent lives over the other.
Great blog, and interesting discussion here.
This is my first post.
I think it’s necessary to address a couple of factual claims that have been made by some of the less frequent commenters:
– Janie says:
“Israel’s population is around 6 million. 4.8 million of them are Russian. Eighty percent (80%).”
But An article in today’s New York Times mentions “nearly 1.2 million immigrants to Israel from the former Soviet Union”. And almost every commentator I’ve heard talk about Israeli demographics has mentioned that the majority of the Jewish population there today are of Sephardic or Mizrahi origin.
– Murphy says:
“I read somewhere (James Petras I think?) that young American Jews are statistically far more likely to sign up for the IDF than for the US Army. I have no way of knowing if this is true, but if it is, it’s very interesting indeed.”
Yes, it would be interesting, so I tried looking this up. How many Americans join the IDF?
See a Ynet news article from a month ago, “150 American youths to join IDF”, which quotes an official saying that “The number of soldiers who will arrive here this year, is larger than ever before”.
According to this article, in 2005 there were at least 2,750 Jewish U.S. service personnel, because that’s how many were sent copies of the Psalms and Torah.
So these figures suggest that American Jews are a lot more likely to serve in the U.S. military than in the IDF (unless the average Jewish U.S. serviceman serves for more than 18 years).
And I’ll be another one to pile on to Shlomo. He writes:
“Britain had a colonial empire on the Indian subcontinent, and there were also Indians in Great Britain. Does this mean that Britain should have legislated itself out of existence, and established a new, hybrid ‘Britindian’ state? If not, how is this situation different? It, too, ´maintained a colonial regime over those to whom it denied citizenship’. But somehow, Britain and India managed to come up with a ´Two-State Solution’. Why not here?”
To give the obvious answer: the biggest difference is that Britain and India were separated by thousands of miles. And there was no conception among the British colonists in India (or in the political leadership in Britain) that substantial bits of India should become permanently legally part of Britain, such that their residents would have all the same rights as British people in Britain. There was certainly no desire to have the native inhabitants go away so that British people could move in and annex parts of India.
“Palestinians should receive reparations and an end to the ‘extreme poverty and discrimination’ you mention, but there is no reason why they should rule Israel — save for revenge.”
I would think that if Palestinians are a majority of the population in some piece of land called Israel, then that fact in itself (if it is a fact, or at such a time when and if it becomes a fact) would be a pretty good reason why Palestinians should rule Israel.
“The best we can do now is ensure maximum happiness for the grandchildren of Nakhba and Holocaust survivors. I believe the best way for this is to recognize both Jewish and Palestinian claims to the land. The Palestinian Territories are the only place of refuge for Palestinians, who face persecution in virtually every place they are exiled to. … In the future, neither group should have a repeat of the exile and persecution they’ve gone through. Both deserve separate states, and a homeland that is uniquely theirs.”
This is the thing that Zionists don’t seem to understand, or pretend not to understand: individual Palestinians want to be able to return to specific homes in specific towns or villages. Contrast this with the Zionist idea of individual Jews “returning” to some place in some general region (i.e., the Land of Israel). In principle at least, these two conflicting wishes to return are not necessarily incompatible.
“Evanj, you hit the nail on the head about how crazy the logic behind a ‘Right of Return’ is. That’s exactly why it’s absurd to be talking of the ‘inalienable Palestinian right of return’ sixty years later. It has no bearing on today’s events, except for revenge. Am I wrong? Would someone care to convince me otherwise?”
To state the obvious again, evanj was referring to the Jewish law of “return” and how it applies to anyone who is considered part of the worldwide Jewish community, however that is defined. The unfulfilled Palestinian right of return is about specific people returning to specific homes in specific towns and villages. And they (and the UN) have been talking about it since 1948. Was it absurd then? If not, when did it become absurd? 1957? 1967? 1977? 1987? 1997?
“Good job quoting me wildly out of context, though.”
How so?
“with a refusal of the anti-Zionists to engage me!”
Again, I think you’re straw-manning here. “Engaging” with someone in no way implies you have to agree with all – or any – of their beliefs. It means that you are prepared to at least listen to them and to debate them. That certainly has been going on on this thread.
“And has it occured to you that although I am open to your perspective, I have grown up hearing nothing but the opposite, and that much of what seems obvious to you is quite foreign to me?”
Yes it has, and I dare say most people here appreciate how far you have travelled from the received wisdom of your own environment. Again though, acknowledging that does not mean anyone has to agree with you. And while I’m sure most of us can appreciate that it’s not easy for you to hold opinions which probably seem outrageous to many of the people you meet every day, I’m not sure how that fact should be allowed to shield you from disagreement and debate.
““When an Israeli kintergardener is killed by a rocket hitting his nursery, and when a Palestinian child is shot to death for throwing a stone or a tank”
Murphy, you conveniently ignored the end of the sentence, which stated explicitly that both deaths were an affront to justice. My judgement that both of these deaths were a “veritable assault on our sense of justice” should have made it clear I was not attempting to differentiate between the two. If anything, my more “ambiguous” example of a Palestinian victim is sympathetic to the Palestinians, because I go on to reaffirm that even in this case the death is unjust.
In other words, if I am ambiguous, you can say that my comment was meant to IMPLY something. But not when I state EXPLICITLY the opposite thing.
And I don’t want to be shielded from debate in any way. I’ve been waiting three days now for you to stop yelling “straw man” and engage my arguments. Perhaps you do view them as “straw men”. I personally know hundreds of people who would view many of your arguments as “straw men”. These same people also believe these “straw men” arguments, and fervently so, not with the skepticism that I do.
Eventually, you have to engage the straw men. Might as well start with me.
How is Hamas a straw man? How is it a straw man that Hamas seems bent not only on the Right of Return, but also on killing Jews? Last week a rocket landed less than thirty feet from a nursery. Was that just Hamas playing around? A practical joke? Those children are blameless!
I’m still waiting. Lay it on me.
Peter,
1.”To give the obvious answer: the biggest difference is that Britain and India were separated by thousands of miles. And there was no conception among the British colonists in India (or in the political leadership in Britain) that substantial bits of India should become permanently legally part of Britain, such that their residents would have all the same rights as British people in Britain. There was certainly no desire to have the native inhabitants go away so that British people could move in and annex parts of India.”
OK, so you think that this is different because Israel and the Palestinian Territories are contiguous, and because Israel wants to annex more territory. It is true that this is a difference–this is a dispute over territory, while in British India it was more about natural resources–but is this a difference that makes a two-state solution impossible? I don’t think so. If you do, please explain how.
“I would think that if Palestinians are a majority of the population in some piece of land called Israel, then that fact in itself (if it is a fact, or at such a time when and if it becomes a fact) would be a pretty good reason why Palestinians should rule Israel.”
I agree. It so happens that Israelis are a majority of the population in Israel, and Palestinians are in the West Bank/Gaza. Therefore, ASSUMING A TWO STATE SOLUTION, Israelis (Jewish or Arab) should rule Israel, and Palestinians should rule the West Bank and Gaza.
If you assume a one-state solution, then Palestinians are the majority population between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, so they should rule. I thing we agree that the question of who should rule Israel (excluding the current Palestinian Territories) is dependent on whether or not a Two-State solution is reached. Therefore, we should address that question first.
“This is the thing that Zionists don’t seem to understand, or pretend not to understand: individual Palestinians want to be able to return to specific homes in specific towns or villages. Contrast this with the Zionist idea of individual Jews “returning” to some place in some general region (i.e., the Land of Israel). In principle at least, these two conflicting wishes to return are not necessarily incompatible.”
I’m not sure what your point is here. Jews have a whole religionationalist mythology about very specific places, such as Beersheba and Jericho, such as Palestinians wish to return to Deir Yassin, Akko, etc.
But you’re right, in PRINCIPLE the two conflicting wishes are possible. Jews can have access to Jericho, and Palesinians to Akko–only if we establish a one-state solution. But a one-state solution might well be a bloodbath given the attitudes of certain radicals on both sides.
“And they (and the UN) have been talking about it since 1948. Was it absurd then? If not, when did it become absurd? 1957? 1967? 1977? 1987? 1997?”
Jews have been talking about returning to Zion for the past two millenia, including present-day Jericho and Ramallah. When did this become absurd? 500? 1000? 1500? They should have unmitigated right of return, no?
Also, and this is very unfortunate because the UN is great, I don’t think UN resolutions can be so useful in resolving the conflict. To be blunt, many Jews don’t care about international law, because it failed us utterly when we most needed it. Many Palstinians, including the elected government of Gaza, also seem rather cavalier about violating international law. Sad but true. The UN won’t get us out of this mess.
Oh yes, and welcome!
Uh, Shlomo, Jews have been talking about returning to Zion WHEN THE MESSIAH COMES for the past two millennia. Still no sign of him, eh? (Unless it really was Schneerson, in which case you have to wonder what all the fuss was about…)
I don’t understand how that is at all relevant. If people have been ethnically cleansed from the land, they have a “Right of Return” according to a certain ideological perspective. Applying this perspective in a remotely consistent manner would show that both Jews and Palestinians have this right, because at some point both were cleansed from the land. This holds independent of what Isiah said as the Temple was burning.
Pingback: Mearshimer, Walt and the Erudite Hysteria of David Remnick
Maybe I can be a peacemaker between Shlomo and Murphy. 🙂 Shlomo, would you agree with the following?
When an Israeli kindergartener is killed by a rocket hitting his nursery, and when a Palestinian child is killed by an IDF bomb hitting his family on the beach, it is a veritable assault on our sense of justice, and of morality, and of virtue — whether you follow the Declaration of Human Rights, the Halacha, or the Shari’a.
Shlomo writes:
“How is it a straw man that Hamas seems bent not only on the Right of Return, but also on killing Jews?”
We could ask equally how it is that the elected Israeli government seems bent not only on rejecting the Right of Return but also on killing Palestinians. In both cases, killing people is a means to an end (return or non-return). In 1945, the U.S. government quite deliberately caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of residents of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo, but I don’t think any of us would say that Americans did this because they were bent on killing Japanese.
“OK, so you think that this is different because Israel and the Palestinian Territories are contiguous, and because Israel wants to annex more territory. It is true that this is a difference — this is a dispute over territory, while in British India it was more about natural resources — but is this a difference that makes a two-state solution impossible? I don’t think so. If you do, please explain how.”
I don’t know about impossible, but you have to acknowledge there is a huge difference with the British in India. Just think about this: Who do we mean when we talk about “Palestinians”? The term refers to non-Jews (and their descendants) who 60 years ago lived in what is now Israel and its occupied territories. And 60 years ago, the majority of those people lived in what is now Israel.
“I thing we agree that the question of who should rule Israel (excluding the current Palestinian Territories) is dependent on whether or not a Two-State solution is reached. Therefore, we should address that question first.”
OK, we agree on democratic rule then. But additionally there is the question about undoing ethnic cleansing.
“I’m not sure what your point is here. Jews have a whole religionationalist mythology about very specific places, such as Beersheba and Jericho, such as Palestinians wish to return to Deir Yassin, Akko, etc.”
If you hear a Palestinian talking about his right of return and then ask him where exactly he thinks he has a right to return to, he’ll tell you a specific place — Deir Yassin or Akko or wherever — where he or his parents or grandparents lived. He’ll likely tell you about that neighborhood and might even show you a property deed and a key to the house. If you hear an immigrant Jew talking about his right of return and then ask him where exactly he thinks he has a right to return to, what are the chances that he’ll give you the name of some village where his ancestors lived?
“But you’re right, in PRINCIPLE the two conflicting wishes are possible. Jews can have access to Jericho, and Palesinians to Akko — only if we establish a one-state solution. But a one-state solution might well be a bloodbath given the attitudes of certain radicals on both sides.”
My experience of talking with Palestinians is that the number of states in a solution is nowhere near as important to them as the right to return to their own home village, whether that village be assigned to a “Palestinian” state or to a “Jewish” state or to “one” state.
“Jews have been talking about returning to Zion for the past two millenia, including present-day Jericho and Ramallah. When did this become absurd? 500? 1000? 1500? They should have unmitigated right of return, no?”
Not sure whether this is sarcastic or not, since you oppose the right of non-Jews to return to the homes they or their parents or grandparents lived in in 1947. But in answer to your question, I would say that it became absurd at least when there was no longer any memory within families of where exactly in Zion their own family came from.
“How is Hamas a straw man? How is it a straw man that Hamas seems bent not only on the Right of Return, but also on killing Jews?”
More of a red herring than a strawman, since neither Hamas nor its ‘charter’ were mentioned in the post of yours that I was referring to.
“Last week a rocket landed less than thirty feet from a nursery. Was that just Hamas playing around? A practical joke? Those children are blameless!”
Now this is a strawman because, to the best of my knowledge, nobody on this thread mentioned Hamas rocket attacks, much less defended them. Of course, the I”D”F regularly kills Palestinian children (the Hamas rockets caused no injuries, let alone deaths, though of course they were intended to do so) and indifference to Arab life pervades the Israeli military, and some would say Israeli society as a whole. So your outrage over Hamas putting the lives of Israeli children in danger, must, in all fairness, be tempered by your knowledge that Israel kills – rather than ‘panics’ – Palestinians routinely. It barely even makes the newspapers, which is more than you can say for the ‘panic’ caused to one small Israel town.
Ok, I’m pressed for time, so I’m just going to try and address what seems to be that main argument.
I don’t think the IDF are a bunch of angels. It is quite possible that, if there were a one-state solution, ISRAELIS would end up massacring the Palestinians (again). But it is also possible that Hamas would end up killing all the Jews. It should be clear to everyone here, given recent history, that significant elements within Israel have no problem killing many Palestinians, and that significant elements within Palestinian society have no problem killing many many Israelis.
I understand Palestinian Right of Return, just as I understand Israeli Right of Return. If the situation were different, I would love for both to be given Right of Return in a single, unified state. But at this moment in time, genocidal tendencies on both sides would seem to make this solution impossible.
Everyone here seems to favor right of return. So do plenty of suicide bombers and lunatic settlers. This was meant in no way to imply any of you are crazy, but what do you sane people plan to do after Israeli and Palestinian lands are merged, and the fanatics go on a rampage? How will you stop them, given that when you try to, they will probably go after YOU? What’s the plan?
I can’t see one state now. Maybe a coequal confederacy that is merged in fifty or a hundred years, but not now. I’m not seeing it. Can anyone show me?
Shlomo, you are probably right about no one-state solution now. But like the EU, this issue will only be solved when it is “enlarged,” i.e., the peoples involved believe in a bigger, less parochial future. Unfortunately, the religious elements have a stake in NOT solving this problem because historically compromise solutions have a way of eroding religious absolutism. As you probably know, the old joke is is that what is good for Jews is not always good for Judaism. I certainly believe that is true for Christians and Christianity. And I suspect it also applies to Islam and Muslims as well.
It appears that there’s no room for one state right now, Shlomo, but things can and will change and the alternative may be worse. The status quo of ever increasing Jewish settlement in the occupied territories in concert with confining Palestinians to discontinuous Bantustans connected by IDF patrolled roads is intolerable – actually it’s simply horrific. As Tony and many others have pointed out it is impossible for Palestinians to have any kind of independent state under these conditions. Not to mention that it seems unlikely that Israel will abandon the settlements (do you want to try and forcibly evict those people?). This really narrows the options to continuous conflict and the psychologically and morally corrosive repression that Israel as a society is engaged in, or, the one state solution. The latter option requires great courage and there will be setbacks but if real peace can be made with real equality and inclusion of Palestininians in the state and real contrition on the part of the State of Israel for what was done to the Palestinians then there is hope. The former option is a complete and utter dead end leading only to the ethnic cleansing and genocide by Jewish or Palestinian fanatics that you say you fear, Shlomo. Acknowledging Israeli responsibility for the Nakba with no qualifications or excuses is a good starting point. Hell I’d go one further and acknowledge that it was wrong to even create the state of Israel on land already occupied by another people. I don’t think that this will result in the magical disappearance of Israel anymore than it would the existence of my country (Canada) . The rest of the journey towards the one state solution is achieved by a long (10, 20, 50 years?) process of negotiation and integration of the occupied territories into greater Israel/Palestine overseen by international observers. Reparations and compensation would have to be made by the state of Israel to the victims of the Nakba and the subsequent repression (owners of bulldozed homes and olive groves, parents of children killed and maimed as a result of Israel’s targeted killing policy, etc) . Palestinian security forces, government and social services would have to be integrated with those of Israel. Arms caches would have to be located and destroyed under independent supervison. Recalcitrant factions on both sides will have to be identified and neutralized and the question of Palestinian refugees outside of the territories would have to be addressed. Perhaps if Israel was no longer a pariah state in the region negotiations could begin on how many Palestinian refugees could return to Israel/ Palestine and how many can be integrated into the countries that they now live in – paid for by the state of Isreal/Palestine (heck you could get the Yanks to put their money to good use for a change). Anyway, Shlomo, that’s how these processes seem to work and I’ll acknowledge that there is an appalling amount of hatred and resistance to overcome but I think it’s an option that offers hope for all the parties concerned. Anyway that’s my two bits. Hey Tony can you write something new so we can all move on? – what about Petraeus and the surge?
Another perspective on ‘right of return’ issues. Due to beurocratic neglect in Poland (they forgot to complete the paperwork on oficial transfer of properties to new polish owners from previous german ones) and political opportunism in Germany (fringe politicians scoring points by encouraging demands of return of property) there is currently a danger of Germans atempting to take back their properties, which they lost when Stalin moved the polish borders to the west. There have already been a few cases when polish families had to vacate homes which they inhabited for a few generations.
Should this become more common, and should the incompetence of polish authorities in preventing it continue, I would be fully supportive of any extralegal measures taken by the locals to evict the ‘returnees’. I would possibly even participate if it was happening in my area.
I am equally disturbed by the trend of Poles settling just west of the border, in german towns now depopulated by the exodus of ‘ossies’ to the western lands.
Stalin, the murderous bastard that he was, has yet performed a miracle for our part of Europe. He took the jumbled mess of ethnicities, constantly at eachother’s throaths, and placed each one of them in a separate country, with clearly defined borders, without any ‘dangling bits’.
Look at what happened in Yugoslavia, which didn’t undergo such segregation.
Any current atempts at ‘returning’ would threaten to bring back the old mess, and so are irresponsible. We have currently more right to those houses that the Germans would want back. Why? Not becouse of any legal or moral or historical justification, no. Simply because if they do start kicking the current inhabitants out of their houses, sooner or later they will have those houses burnt, with them inside. And then if the german govt decides to ‘intervene on behalf’, the land will rightfully belong to the germans again, because they will have more guns. That’s how it works. Things that were so nicely sorted will again become ugly.
You discuss the Israelis’ vs the Palestinians’ ‘right of return’ in terms of ‘what should be done’. I read the discussion with interest and enjoiment and found it greatly stimulating in intelectual terms. I allso found it completely irrelevant. Since when is a contest over territory between two tribes decided by ‘what is right’ or ‘what should be done’? It is a simple fact that the stronger side, or the one able to gain stronger allies, will win and get rid of the weaker side.
Currently, it looks like the stronger side will be the Israelis. At some point, possibly soon and probably under cover of a wider regional conflict, they will exterminate or ‘clense’ the remaining Palestinians. That’s what nations do, that’s what they are for.
The current nazi tendencies in israel will be deepened by the deed. The chasm between the Israelis and their neighbours will widen, preserving the hostilities, so that one day, if and when the tables turn, the Arabs will perhaps exterminate or ‘clense’ the Israelis.
Inshallah
This dynamic has been put in motion the day Israel was created, and will not be stopped by actions of either sides, who both are stuck in it. Peace can be made, but only the way stalin made it in our part of europe. An outside force would have to conquer the whole region, designate clear cut borders, preferably based on geographical features like rivers or mountain ridges, resettle populations and force them to stay put long enough to grow roots in the new places. This will obviously not happen, and would be no less bloody than what it was ment to prevent. So that’s about it. The way tribes work, violence sometimes is the solution.
Pingback: Let the floodgates open at Antony Loewenstein
Unlike some of the more Darwinian posters, i don’t see why a different Israel cannot evolve into being where Arabs are given equal rights alongside a Palestinian state. There have always been small states with a different ethnicity in the Middle East, Lebanon comes to mind. The “glasnost” among the Diaspora will certainly help. There is a perception that both Israelis and Arabs cannot come to a peaceful settlement of their own accord, but in fact, the historical animosity has been actively promoted and fanned by the geopolitical players with their own agenda in the region.
Pingback: Despite a Backlash, Many Jews Are Questioning IsraelIs a Jewish Glasnost Coming to America? - CommonDreams.org
Querty hits on a major point. The phony age-old antagonism is a product of outside interference. Not only did Jews live in the Islamic World for more than 1,000 years–often in better conditions than in Christian Europe, they were the majority in Jerusalem in 1900, long before Independence. If the Arabs were innately “murderous,” etc, that would not have happened.
“Inevitable” conflicts satisfy changeable politics. It is amazing that when Britain effectively abandoned Orange Supremacy in Northern Island, the irreconcilable communities began to reconcile. There is a lession there.
Querty hits on a major point. The phony age-old antagonism is a product of outside interference. Not only did Jews live in the Islamic World for more than 1,000 years–often in better conditions than in Christian Europe, they were the majority in Jerusalem in 1900, long before Independence. If the Arabs were innately “murderous,” etc, that would not have happened.
“Inevitable” conflicts satisfy changeable politics. It is amazing that when Britain effectively abandoned Orange Supremacy in Northern Island, the irreconcilable communities began to reconcile. There is a lession there.
I do not claim the Arabs to be innately murderous. I claim all people, especially when considered and acting as ethnic groups, to be innately murderous. Once a certain set of conditions occurs (a competition over a vital resource, and it doesn’t get more vital than land and water), the killing begins and continues until one side irrevocably wins or both sides exhaust themselves. That set of conditions didn’t exist before the creation of Israel, so Jews could live in peace in Jerusalem. But it exists now, when Israelis decided and wer able to cast out the Palestinians from their land, and so the killing will continue until the full resolution or exhaustion of both sides.
I agree that such conflicts can be fuelled/maintained by external politics. I did, after all, mention ‘obtaining stronger allies’ in my first post, I perhaps should have mentioned also ‘allies’ imposing themselves, as happened in 47/48 to both sides of this conflict.
I agree also, that removal, shifting, or adding, of external influence can change the outcome of the conflict.
The withdrawal of British support for the Protestants did that, because it brought balance to the two exhausted sides of the conflict. Peace happened, but it happened within the dynamic of tribal conflict, through exhaustion of both sides and establishing of a balance.
Would that happen also if the US withdrew its support for Israeli colony? I don’t think so. The military balance would still favour the Israelis. No balance, no peace. I would rather expect the Israelis to become desperate, and use all their firepower while they still have it, and while the other side cannot respond in kind. It would only quicken the massacre.
So you got me thinking, what other options are there, that do not require changing the human nature and going against the dynamic of tribal conflict?
Stalin’s method- physically sorting the populations and keeping them separated until they forget they had some issues (ask Moses how long that takes, approximately), wouldn’t work with a nuclear power.
Withdrawing support for the Israelis would be likely to precipitate a hasty ‘resolution of the Palestinian question’ while the going was still relatively good.
So perhaps arming and training the Palestinians? Bring them to the level displayed by Hesbollah so that they too can fight the IDF to a standstill. A decade or so of that, and perhaps both sides will be tired enough, and balance established to their mutual satisfaction, to put an end to the fighting. This could be less farfetched than it sounds, if Iran or some other power decides to earn brownie points with the Sunnis.
Pingback: Tomgram: Tony Karon: Growing Dissent among American Jews by Tom Engelhardt « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: How Sh*t Works » Blog Archive » Tomgram: Tony Karon: Growing Dissent among American Jews by Tom Engelhardt
Pingback: Tomgram: Tony Karon on Growing Dissent among American Jews « SF Gray Panthers
Are you sure that nobody asked Remnick to write his little essay?
Pingback: Kill Oslo Before Oslo Kills Israel
Pingback: Israel » Blog Archive » Mearshimer, Walt and the Erudite Hysteria of David Remnick