I've just gotten word from someone I trust that Carla Cohen of Politics and Prose, under a hail of criticism, has reconsidered her decision to disinvite author Saree Makdisi. "So this story may have a happy ending. If
this all works out, I imagine it'll be a big and well-attended event," says my source.
A deep bow to Carla Cohen. She's not the only one to have made a misstep in this very complicated field. Lots of people I know have hurt others and caused bitterness. And I'm not talking about IEDs and RPGs, just words. To admit a mistake and amend it is truly divine.
(Also: My lame excuse for not calling Carla Cohen or Norton to try and confirm this report is I'm a blogger and not a paid journalist…)
The interesting thing here is that Carla Cohen is a real progressive and genuinely supports Palestinian rights, opposes the settlements and wants a two state solution. Her politics seem close to those of Phil and the J-street project. The reason she gave for disinviting Saree was because he supports a one state solution!
There are many writers who I respect that have agreed that Sharon's plan to put facts on the ground has been a resounding success and the settlement movement cannot be reversed. If that assessment is correct then it logically follows that the only solution is a single multinational state (assuming of course that genocide or transfer are excluded).
So for those that support the two state solution, then I believe there needs to be an open discussion on how it will even be possible to achieve that goal. Consider the practical political problems, the 400,000 settlers, the 35% of the population that support the transfer option, a military that has been taken over by the ultraright — things like that. And also the fact that the US is powerless to pressure Israel to do anything Aipac doesn't support.
There is still some suspicion in my own mind that the so-called 'one-state solution' is just an elegant way for unreconstructed zionists to prove to themselves and each other that the world can be fooled into surrendering what little independent Palestinian territory there might still remain. Brainwashing is after all the only really unique Jewish art form.
I really can't make sense of this Haaretz article about prisoner exchanges by Yossi Melman. First it says that Olmert persuaded the cabinet to agree to paying a "price" of 450 Palestinian prisoners for Shalit, then to approve only 70 from a list submitted by Hamas, and all the while it is deliberately confusing this question, of who Israel is prepared to trade, with the quite different question of whether Hamas is prepared to treat a Shalit trade as part of the negotiations on ending the siege of Gaza, which basically it isn't. I think they only print this type of detailed article to confuse and disinform us:
Why is talking about justice and human rights a fairly straightforward matter until it is for Palestinians, and then suddenly it's "complicated" and reality gets turned into a pretzel by normally rational people?
In the meantime, I have just heard that yet another child, this one four years old, has been killed and her mother seriously wounded in a US-funded Israeli missile strike in Gaza. And we dither on, and congratulate people for allowing a respected academic to speak about Palestine at a bookstore?
Obama's words are sickening-whatever you, Philip, divine to be his views "deep down."
Saree Makdisi gave a compelling talk last autumn at Stanford University. He was invited to speak by SCAI, a student group which attempts to educate the community about Palestine and Israel through lectures, exhibits and other actions, and is calling on the university to selectively divest from Israel. I urge anyone who can to hear Makdisi's talk.
Here is the text of my response to a friend who said "there were 2 sides to the bookstore controversy"
"thanks for your response
this is an intense debate, as other folks around DC have informed me..
let me reply to your points, in a spirit of lively discussion.
1)Yes there are 2 sides. In fact as with everything there are many different sides..
but the the sides in question are A) Author shouldn't be allowed to speak
B) Its right for author to speak..
But only one of these sides can be correct in relation to what's good for promoting democracy and peace …
Which one?
Side A is summed up: democracy and debate are based on lively discussion of many points of view, . Unpopular ones especially, should be allowed to be heard, because in many cases the popular view is based on misinformation and/or beliefs in fallacious arguments..In fact the popular view is strengthened by polemic with the unpopular, by dint of the need to present rebuttal arguments.
furthermore , we don't even know if the audience that would have attended would have rejected the book's thesis after it was presented.DC is a big place, and the author pretty expert in the field.
Side B.
the message of the book is promotion of a one sided solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Such a solution is bad cause Israel can't exist if its implemented, and besides the people that would listen to author would reject this message…
Now, the argument in question turns on the one state vrs two solution for Israel and Palestine..
The book store owner sums it up as a rejection of a democratic Jewish state..
It could be argued that for the Arabs that live in Israel and are not allowed the same property rights as Jews, eg.right to buy property; and for the Arabs who have to pass thru the checkpoints,the claim of democracy is a little weak.
But I am especially concerned that the possible outcome, of a bi national state where Jews may not be in the majority, is dismissed out of hand as unacceptable to Jews..
Perhaps, based on a premise that Jews perceive Israel as a protection for them around the world,it might be true….i.e they feel this way, but this fear may be based on incorrect facts for example the supposed statement of Iran's president that "Israel should be wiped off the map".. the translation of this comment indicates his was referring to the regime…not the Jewish people.
The stakes for the people are very high in this debate…
A debate where both sides are allowed, indeed encouraged, to present their cases…
is almost mandatory….
Its not only perceptions we are dealing with here, but real flesh and blood people, numbering in the billions who bleed and die…
We don't need another Bush kind of war, where lies and half truths fool the people into
acceptance of war….
let the debate begin.."