Today’s Times has an Obama-needs-to-give-Israel-tough-love-to-get-a-two-state solution column by Nicholas Kristof. New historian Jerome Slater sent me his take on the column. I’m going to follow that with my take. Slater:
At first glance, Nicholas Kristof’s column in today’s New York Times
might seem to be a great improvement over the poor quality of most of
the Times’ coverage and commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict—after all, Kristof does call for an American policy of “tough
love” towards Israel. Yet, it is only by the low standards of most U.S.
discourse about Israel that Kristof looks good, for actually his column
is wishy-washy, namby-pamby, highly misleading, and wholly inadequate.
Consider:
–Kristof calls for a “100 percent freeze” on Israeli settlements in
the West Bank and Jerusalem. What is really required, to
end the conflict, is a 90-95% withdrawal of all existing settlements.
–Kristof concedes to his “pro-Israel” critics that the Israeli
barriers and checkpoints throughout the West Bank have reduced
terrorism, even as he argues—correctly—that they reduce the prospect of
a peace settlement with the Palestinians. What’s wrong with this
formulation of the issue is that, in the first instance, no one knows to
what extent the reduction in terrorism in a consequence of the Israeli
barriers or, rather, to the decisions and actions not only of Abbas but
also Hamas to end terrorist attacks inside Israel. More importantly,
however, it is not just the barriers that prevent a settlement, it is
the entire apparatus of the Israeli occupation.
–Namby-pamby, wishy-washy, completely inadequate: Israel should “stop”
the settlements, “ease” the check points, allow Palestinians to move
“more freely,” negotiate “more enthusiastically” with Syria over the
Golan Heights, and with the Arab countries on the basis of the Saudi
peace proposal.
Even though his heart is in the right place, even Kristof can’t
seem to grasp—or at least, state with accuracy and candor–the
unquestioned facts in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and their obvious
implications:
1. Israel has been occupying, repressing, killing,
impoverishing, and deliberately making life miserable for the
Palestinians, at least since 1967. The way to get peace is a full
Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, accompanied by a massive
economic assistance program to the Palestinians to make it possible for
them to create a genuinely independent and viable Palestinian state.
2. Since the 1990s, Israel could have had a full peace
settlement with Syria, including normalization of economic and
diplomatic relations, if they had been willing to withdraw from all the
Golan Heights. The point is not that Israel hasn’t negotiated on that
basis “more enthusiastically,” but that they ended the negotiations
rather than make that trade-off. Every indication points to the
likelihood that they could have the same deal today—and one that is
supported by many and probably most Israeli generals, past and present.
3. Ever since the original Saudi proposal in 1982, the Israelis
could have reached peace settlements with most of the Arab world, if
only they had been willing to fully withdraw from all their 1967
conquests. Once again, it’s not that they have been insufficiently
“enthusiastic” about negotiating on that basis, it’s that they have
flatly refused to do so.
Weiss: I’m much indebted to Slater. His 1, 2, and 3 are gold–incisive and smart. The one thing I’d say in Kristof’s favor is that Here’s a good guy, a liberal, engaged on the issue. He’s getting it into the Times. I’m happy about that. I want liberals engaged here, in the wheelhouse of the Establishment. Also, who else has gone to Hebron and seen the apartheid there? Good for him. Also in his favor, consider how much angry mail he has gotten for talking about Palestinian suffering. You and me don’t work at the Times; he does. The readership is very Jewish, old, conservative. My problem with Kristof is meritocratic wishywashyness. His whole column comes down to the idea that Zionists should be clamoring for a two-state solution. True, but assumptive. Why should modern people be clamoring for Zionism? The negatives about Israel are large: it disrespects minority rights and is at dagger-points to the Arab world, which it regards with contempt, and is utterly dependent on us, whom it also seems to look down upon, having helped to entangle us in its cycle of violence. If Kristof wants to do a service, he should help American Jews think about Zionism in an honest way. If he wants to try to valorize Zionism, he should cop to it, and say, Why he is a Zionist. Or if, having seen Hebron, he’s no Zionist, and I sense that he isn’t: F–ing own it! Let’s Jews talk about Zionism!!
