We’re only hours from the Obama-Netanyahu meeting and the advice is coming fast and furious. The New York Times is all over the place today with commentary from Ali Abunimah, Chas Freeman, Daniel Levy and Jeffrey Goldberg. The discourse is truly opening up . Now it’s essential to bring 1948 into the conversation.
Hussein Agha and Robert Malley begin to do this over at the New York Review of Books. Their article “Obama and the Middle East,” takes stock of the current moment and offers some advice forward. In it, they repeat an idea that has been shared on this site – the peace process needs to be less concerned with the mechanics of two states and more focused on principles that can lead to peace. Agha and Malley:
Its starting point would be less of an immediate effort to achieve a two-state agreement or propose US ideas to that effect. Rather, it would be an attempt to transform the political atmosphere and reformulate the diplomatic process. This would entail, first, identifying and recognizing fundamental Israeli and Palestinian concerns and aspirations and then placing them at the core of the process.
Towards this end they take on the elephant in the room: 1948 and the Nakba. Writing on the day the Nakba was commemorated in Palestine, Agha and Malley explain, “The Israeli–Palestinian conflict will have to be tackled within the 1967 boundaries. But it can be resolved only if it deals candidly with its 1948 genesis.”
Despite this provocative statement, they hedge a bit by qualifying it in a confusing manner, “In fact, the more the refugees’ plight is openly acknowledged by the US, the easier it will become to end the indecent prolongation of their current misery on the dubious pretext that if their lives could be improved, this would eradicate their cause and obliterate their rights.” Are they saying the refugees need to be acknowledged so that they will give up their rights (which they admit is “dubious”)? Not sure, but the greater point is right on – the Obama administration can take the lead in redirecting the understanding and discourse of the conflict. And it needs to place the Nakba front and center.
This is essential for many reasons, but the most simple is this – the Nakba is what this conflict is about. The original dispossession and displacement of the Palestinian people has never been acknowledged by Israel and the international community and has been ignored by the peace process. Obama can change this. Acknowledging the Nakba as part of the peace process is necessary for there to be an honest discussion of the refugee issue. And while justice for the refugees is still a long way away, addressing their history and Israel’s responsibility is an important first step.
A lot of attention has been given to how the US will need to force Israel into concessions on the ground, but it is also true that Obama will have to apply pressure for Israel to even acknowledge the simple facts of the conflict. Obama can do this. Agha and Malley are correct, it’s one simple thing he can do to show the world that things have changed, and that the US is serious about ending this conflict.
Related posts:
{ 46 comments }
Absolutely, good article Adam. It's about acknowledging it. It's about acknowledging that they suffered for something that they didn't cause. Now I look into your question mark in context. ;)
It's 1917 which needs to be addressed, of which 1948 was just the necessary consequence. And the point to hold on to is that the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians needs to be "decolonised", a standard which many, perhaps all, two-state solutions do not meet.
"the easier it will become to end the indecent prolongation of their current misery on the dubious pretext that if their lives could be improved, this would eradicate their cause and obliterate their rights." I think this is referring to their conditions in Lebanon and Jordan, where they have never been accorded full rights on the basis that their claims in Palestine will be eroded.
The issues of the Nakba were left for the final agreement. The fear was that if the nakba was given equal air to the present problems that bitterness from generations' past (mythic in consequence even if true and specific) would overshadow the needs of the present. But then, we never got to reconciliation in the present. The tragedy of the nakba has been acknowledged, that Palestinians suffered deeply and intimately. But, the insistence, Phil's for example, that the language of conspiratorial intent be added to the tragedy, STOPS the process. Maybe it was a crime, maybe it was an accident, maybe it was a conspiracy of opportunists on BOTH sides. The questions of law have not yet been addressed, questions of title. Those remain in any political definition. But, the political definition likely must preceed the title questions.
Would you really squeeze the Lebanon context in here? Or is your association created by the really brilliant idea of addressing Palestinian refugees in a camp in Lebanon? Instead of Ramallah again. Couldn't it be an allusion to Netanyahu's economic whatever, freedom? It feels to me that is what they mean and negate as somehow silly. Very interesting article. At first I was wondering what Anees would tell us about the image-of-what-the-Palestinians feels, but I have to admit that after a while I got drawn into the larger scenario, so much in fact that the quote didn't stick out anymore. … And more and more I felt, brilliant. Yes. Very good.
The only fair and just solution at this point is to leave the decision to the Palestinians as to what their homeland should look like…..a single binational state, a separate Palestinian state or a state from which the Jews have been expelled. The Jews of the region, being in 60 year brutal violation of the indigenous people's basic human rights should have absolutely no voice in the decision whatsoever. As Chomsky has rightly observed, "aggressors have no rights, only obligations."
I doesn't feel they are alluding to Lebanon and Jordan, you may associate it with that due to the highly interesting idea of addressing the Palestinian refugees at large, e.g. in a refugee camp in Lebanon, instead of Ramallah again. Horrible these stereotypical and exchangable news footages and locations. It feels to me to be an allusion to Netanjahu's "economic freedom" and it is dismissed. I was beyond suspicion at this point. Admittedly. In the first part I wondered what the images-of-what-the-Palestinians-feel-now would feel like to Anees of Jerusalem. That is, I was slightly suspicious and skeptical but the more I read, the more I was drawn into the narrative. The PR adviser in me jubilates. A series of really brilliant ideas that don't only produce the same standard empty glossy surfaces but address the core problems. Very, very good.
Witty likes to prattle on about "the law." We should be quite clear about what he means when he uses the term. He means whatever formulation the racist, rogue state of israel comes up with. He is categorically AGAINST the implementation of the law called for by the entire world minus israel/Us, which states unequivocally that Israel has no right whatsoever to one sand grain of the West Bank, Gaza or East Jerusalem. ALL the settlements are completely illegal. Israel has no right to erect and maintain the apartheid wall so long as it meanders into occupied Palestinian Land. When Witty pretends that the Nakba was not pre-meditated, he is engaging in racist holocaust denial, plain and simple. However, what is of note here is the fact that from the standpoint of international law, it doesn't matter one iota whether the Nakba was premeditated or not. The refugees have inalienable right of return. Period.
Maybe you're just a fucking liar, Witless. How about this: Instead of eternally trying to equate the conflict in all respects and outright spewing superficial truths("the tragedy of the nakba has been acknowledged") – give us some FUCKING EVIDENCE that your implications (that the Nakba was an accident or a conspiracy or an opportunity on "both sides" -> which all essentially means you believe it was an accident and by simply listing all other possibilities you do your typical white-washing job on this blog of anything that runs contrary to the Zionist historiography/etc.) are correct.
4294967295 replies Sorry, does everybody see this? If so, that was me. I decided to delete after I noticed I had chosen the wrong reply button. Then I pasted it one deeper, but must have done something wrong again. So I had to write it again.
Yeah, do like Witty says: take them to court. Unfortunately Israel holds all the papers, at least the ones they haven't burned. As far as the right of return being left for a final agreement, I think that Israel has insisted on this because they thought there would never be a final agreement. They have made interim agreements and waffled and stalled until the "facts on the ground" have made such niceties irrelevant. Israel has NEVER negotiated in good faith. Begin and the Knesset even agreed to UN resolution 242 until they got to the point of having to do something, then it gets conveniently lost in the shuffle. The only way peace will be made is for it to be stuffed down their throats.
"The issues of the Nakba were left for the final agreement. " Utterly untrue. Israel's acceptance by the UN is predicated upon Israel's allowing Palestinians to return to their homes. Israel hasn't adhered to one thing required of it by the rest of the world. Not one.
The problem is deeper than simply burned records. To give you an impression: Ottoman Land Registration Law. That and the fact that not once saw I choose him an example from the Palestinian side, but always only settlers, makes me wonder if "balance" for him is a purely rhetorical device. But I am requiting suspicion with suspicion.
Obama should address the issue of the genesis of the problem. He should say, up front, that the plight of the Palestinians was due to the Arab decision to declare war on the fledgling Jewish state. He should say that the naqba was not that they lost the war, but that they chose to fight it, when they could have had their own state. He should say that any Palestinian who expects any peace process to undo Israel is sadly mistaken, and that the repeated refusal to take responsibility for their actions has led them to the misery that they face today. He should state outright that all surrounding Arab states have behaved criminally in their refusal to assimilate the refugees in their borders. He should denounce the UN's double standard special pleading for how it treats Palestinian refugees and assigns them a separate status from other refugees. Yes, there is a lot to address. Israel did a very good job over the past couple of decades opening the debate as to what happened in 1948. Unfortunately, they were the only ones that did so. Searching and honest Israeli inquiry was met by dishonest and racist Arab propagandizing. This is the reason why you see the current backlash in Israel, led by the frightening Yisrael Beitenu. Nevertheless, Israel is stronger for what it had done in that regard, even if the Phil's and the Adam's of the world choose to use this for their own hateful agenda.
And another afterthought. Benjamin Netanyahu and the Case for Peace through Economic Freedom Isn't Nethanyahu implicitely admitting that there was an economic war? Something I feel Norman Finkelstein has suggested e.g. in this book. The Rise and Fall of Palestine: A Personal Account of the Intifada Years
Around half the people displaced in the Nakba were driven out by Zionist militias prior to the Arab states declaring war on Israel, but your hateful agenda obviously keeps you from acknowledging that fact.
I guess there is no talking to you guys. So be it.
You may have been talking Witty, but it certainly wasn't to any of us. You have studiously avoided the facts and all questions put to you while carrying on a fragmented soliloquy from which it's impossible to extract any meaning whatsoever. Your constructions are bizarre and illiterate. You sound like you're on drugs.
Actually Israel doesn't hold all the papers. It was last month that Turkey I beleive opened thier files to Palestine refugees attorneys…files which proved ownership of their claims. I don't remember all the details, would have to go back and find the news report…or you can google it.
Actually the British National Acheives have all the documents necessary to prove who did what in 1948 . The British recorded and reported every single little thing…and er…btw….at that time the US and British intelligence shared "everything" on the Jewish settlement imovewment in Palestine. British reports about the Jews activities and violence toward the Palestines is one reason Truman later expressed misgivings about the Jews and the the creaton of Israel. You've never studied their documents? Figures. You would have to give up your illusions.
"The tragedy of the nakba has been acknowledged." By whom? In what sense? By Israel officially? By the U.S. officially (I believe Hillary Clinton told AIPAC during election season that she found it unbelievable that Palestinians refer to 1948 as a catastrophe). Just curious as to what, specifically, you are referring to here.
RE: "last month…Turkey I believe opened their files to Palestine refugees attorneys" ARTICLE: "Turkey's Fallout With Israel Deals Blow to Settlers" – by Jonathan Cook, March 26, 2009 Ottoman archives show land deeds forged (EXCERPT) A legal battle being waged by Palestinian families to stop the takeover of their neighborhood in East Jerusalem by Jewish settlers has received a major fillip from the recent souring of relations between Israel and Turkey. After the Israeli army's assault on the Gaza Strip in January, lawyers for the families were given access to Ottoman land registry archives in Ankara for the first time, providing what they say is proof that title deeds produced by the settlers are forged…. ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.antiwar.com/cook/
RE: "…their own hateful agenda…" MY COMMENT: Yeah, Phil and Adam are really hateful! (LOL – sarcasm intended)
Sorry Richard, we are all familiar with the UN's position on title, as well as the ICJ ruling on the wall, and we have no interest in playing make-believe with you.
In the hallway, outside the ballroom where George Galloway was giving his speech in Houston, a Palestinian organization was selling a 1948 map of Palestine with all the villages, great and small with the names in Arabic. Beautiful, huge map, printed on cloth. I wanted one in English as well. He was taking names for special orders for those. I can't wait to get mine.
President Abbas should give one such map to Obama during his official visit to Washington.
As I have often implied, you can't argue with people whose source material is found on Zundelsite and StormFront.
The "dubious pretext" being referred to here is the idea that if Palestinians are accorded full rights (or citizenship) in neighboring countries, especially Lebanon, that they will somehow forfeit the right to return. This is the reasoning that the PLO has always given to back up the position of Lebanese Christians (and today, Shi'a), which is to not give Palestinians full rights or citizenship for fear of tipping the sectarian balance here in favor of the Sunnis. Jordan is another story altogether, since somewhere between 60 and 70% of all Jordanian citizens are Palestinian, including Queen Rania. To my mind, there is no excuse to keeping Palestinians down in Lebanon. They should have full and equal rights, and they should be given citizenship, too, but that's not doable until the sectarian system is eliminated. That being the case, the fact that a Palestinian refugee has another citizenship, be it Lebanese, Canadian or South African, has no impact on their legal right to return to their homes as spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Really? Prior to 1948 far more Jews were killed than Arabs. Just in 1948 alone over a 1000 Jews were killed prior to Ben Gurion's declaration of independence. Arab massacres of Jews were pretty common. Where are the documents about the war from Arab countries. They still haven't released them. What are they hiding?
Hillary is a political whore and what she said to AIPAC is typical of hers and Bill's legacy. She will say and do anything to get the Presidency as she can smell the future, as she interprests it anyway, that her turn is next. So in the meantime she will not make enemies of those she has always ran to for support and money. If she had been elected president, SHE would be visiting Netanyahou now instead of him coming to the US. Her first action would have been to recognize Jesrusalem as Israel's undivided capital and move the US embassy there, starting the biggest fallout in US Arab relations and isolating the so called moderate Arabs. Hey..maybe that would have been good.
well, you've stated it innumerable times, because the smear by gratuitous and unproven association is your normal weapon.
Adam, You do get that focusing on 1948, which is unresolvable three generations later, is a distraction from settling 67 borders and reconciling contested title claims? That it delays peace. Why not WORK for the Arab League proposal? Really WORK for it.
oh, Leander…
You do realize how hypocritical that sounds, after we have been bombarded with all sorts of Holocaust stories all our lives and told it was the reaons that justifies Israel? You can't get over your Holocaust. But you want the Palestinians to get over the Nakba?
Great rebut to a hypocritical problem with many Jews. They can only see their history of suffering. Sad…
"Just curious as to what, specifically, you are referring to here." Sometimes, if Richard Witty sticks himself with a pin, he can work up some tears for the Palestinians. Or is it just cause he's sticking himself with a pin? Ah, but it hardly matters, since it fools the Gentiles, or so he thinks.
"British reports about the Jews activities and violence toward the Palestines is one reason" http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2009/01/a... or click sig. Read the reproduced typescript pages, the report from the British Colonial office. Basically, the Zionists got in by shelling civilian sections of Jaffa until the Arabs were chased out.
Geez, Witty, are you sure you're a Jew? You have the kind of simple-minded yet deadly hypocrasy I usually associate with Evangelicals, or 19 yr. olds who joined Bush's Crusade to "defend their country" Jews are supposed to be smarter than this. We didn't take over Russia and impose our Bolshevik-Jewish-Nazi regime by being dumb.
Only because so many of your ilk can't handle the truth. No smear, just truth.
I hope they translate the arabic faithfully. Such as the village named "Little piece of shit" and the vilaage named "Here is where Mohammed took a shit and a 9 year old bride at the same time."
They can't work for it. It disrupts their agenda.
Jews didn't. But you did.
Did you notice, sean, supports you below?
This is such a lame comment. Zündel is a nutcase. The problem is you can't differentiate. And Richard's basic problem is that he doesn't want to discuss this topic with non-Jews at all. He wouldn't bother if it wasn't a friend of his opening up to them.
You're as sick as the stormtroopers. You are just a mirror face of them. You let them define your identity.
You're right. i can't differentiate between Ed, Rykart, and Zundel.. It is like they are triplets.
Comments on this entry are closed.