People are talking about this inspired attack by Juan Cole on the "burly former Israeli military prison guard at the notorious Ketziot detention camp" — former IDF Corporal Jeffrey Goldberg.
The accomplishment of this piece is that when Cole is not pointing out the confused loyalty issue that pervades our discourse (the Washington Post worries about Obama’s approval rating in Israel; why not George Bush’s in France), he demonstrates that he is restrained with respect to Palestinian rights (would extinguish right of return with compensation), but when you look at the other side, that portion of the Israel lobby that claims to believe in two states, they are extremists. By failing to criticize Netanyahu on a colonial project, by lining up behind the vigilant organizations and political thugs who want no daylight between the US and Israel, by denying that Palestinian grievances have anything to do with our woes in the Middle East, by always arguing against ANY pressure on Israel, etc.–what credibility do these peaceniks have? None. They will always line up with Israel out of parochial concern, even Israel the oppressor.
If these folks had any credibility, they would emulate Indiana University professor Rafael Reuveny, who wants two states, and has boldly denounced the settlements for what they are: a "colonial" project that is rejected everywhere in the world. Or they might openly call for regime change (per AFP, and Bruce Wolman); for everyone knows that Netanyahu has no desire to make a Palestinian state. As Cole says, the only way you can say you favor two states is if you actually are working to create a viable Palestinian state alongside the Jewish one; and Goldberg is doing none of that difficult labor. J Street is trying, but even its plan seems Bantustanish. And so no wonder Cole suggests, as any realist does, that we have passed the point of partition, and the future is either apartheid or a binational state. (And maybe American Jews who enjoy minority freedom should be deploying their liberal history and imagination, rather than their militant ethnocentrism, on behalf of the two peoples of the Holy Land.)
The real issue here, as Cole states, is not about states as such; it is that you can’t dither on a people’s freedom forever through a "peace process" that delivers only more dispossession. Jewish refugee camps in Europe demanded a moral response, and Truman favored partition on that basis, and lo, the Jews got a state within three years. The complete denial of the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people for 60 years now as everyone else and their brother have gotten states is a moral outrage. Their condition is something that all American moderns should wake up to. You cannot endlessly deny political rights to a group that has national identity. And as Petraeus has said, that’s why they hate us.
I notice that no one is saying anymore that this little teapot tempest won’t set back the “negotiations.” Which, given that BYahoo has declared every issue related to a Palestinian state as nonnegotiable, is just as well.
The choice between “apartheid or a binational state” is a false dichotomy. It assumes, falsely, that the settlements cannot be dismantled. It certainly assumes that they cannot be dismantled before a peace treaty is negotiated.
In fact, there can be no peace unless the USA forces somebody to do something. USA could (maybe, for Palestinians are resilient and trained to SUMUD) force the Palestinians to accept some West Bank/Gaza “state” with huge settlement incursions. But equally, perhaps with he3lp from Russia and EU and UN, USA could force Israel to comply with international law by removing all settlers and the wall. Early. Before a “peace” has been negotiated.
Not likely, but possible, because international law calls for it and because Gen. McCrystal seems to think it would further US interests (and who knows that better than the military these days?).
It assumes, falsely, that the settlements cannot be dismantled. It certainly assumes that they cannot be dismantled before a peace treaty is negotiated.
There is more to dismantling the settlement structure than its technical element: there is also the issue of its human factor: the ultra-Orthodox settlers, the most extremist front of Judaism and Zionism who have the self-proclaimed God given right to settle on the land. There has been a contention that simply retreating military support would result in the rollback of the settlers. That would account for those who are not in for religious purposes, but that still leaves the major problem there. Remember, these settlers (of the religious variety) heavily protested even being removed from Gaza, much less an area that is believed to have some the holiest Jewish sites. Their callousness have been emblazoned by American support, the Israel First establishment and of course the Israeli government and powerful settler groups in and outside Israel. If put in the predicament of being denied military assistance, this widely-armed and religiously motivated group is likely either going to engage in civil war or, as I predict, self-governance. The structures of separation from the West Bank Palestinians and the Israeli occupation is already remarkably clear, evident in the annexation barrier and the highways, businesses and residential structures designed with the explicit intention of being kept divided from the Palestinians.
SHERBRSI- I’m not so sure that the problem of the settlers is as big a problem as it is made out to be if Israel was serious about resolving the issue. Simply by eliminating all settler subsidies (financial, water preference, bypass roads, army support, etc) many would leave. How would those who stubbornly remain earn a living? With no bypass roads it would be a long commute. Mind you, I’m talking about the settlements falling under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state. As for the diehards that refuse to leave and can somehow earn a living, let them stay. If they behave themselves, they can become citizens of the state of Palestine. Of course, they would have to give up their Israeli citizenship. Law of Return? Not for them if they stay. Visit Israel? Sure, if they possess a valid Palestine passport. Easy? Obviously not, but not intractable either.
To clarify my original comment, I am not implying that the road to peace is not difficult. Far from it. I personally feel that the situation is close to irresolvable, but not because of the settlers, per se, which are being used as a sort of red herring to divert attention away from the real problem.
The real problem is Zionism and Israel itself. The ideological basis of Israel as divine redemption of the land of the bible, combined with the militarization of the society and the spiritual debasement that flows from the occupation has created a profoundly unwholesome society. Yitzhak Rabin offered the Palestinians very little at Oslo, but was denounced in Israel and the Diaspora as a traitor, eventually assassinated.
My initial comment was based upon Israel being serious about resolving the issue. Aye, there’s the rub! There are those that feel that any serious attempt by Israel to resolve the issue in a fair and just manner would precipitate a civil war in Israel. This fundamental rejection of a just settlement is what is being hidden from view. Israel would, at best, settle for the peace of Apartheid (by another name, of course). For Israel, peace and justice is off the table.
” The complete denial of the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people for 60 years ”
The Palestinian people have been denied their right to self-determination ever since the Australians (with Arab help and a British general) won the battle of Armageddon and took Palestine from Turkish control. That was in 1918.
I think it’s relevant to mention that during 19 of those years the Palestinians’ right to self determination was denied by Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza Strip).
Relevant, in that it only cements how much greater an order of magnitude a crime it is that the Palestinians have been denied their rights for so very long?
Or were you about to embark on another “those evil undemocratic Aye-rabs” canard?
Let’s see now.
1918 to 1948 – Thirty years in which the Zionists and the British co-operate in acting directly contrary to the clearly expressed wishes of the majority of the population of Palestine.
1948 to 1967 – Nineteen years, during which the Zionists refuse the clearly expressed wish of the Palestinian refugees to return to the homes, villages, and farms from whihc they had been drive. The Arabs of Israel are treated as second class citizens.
The West Bank is annexed by Jordan, and Gaza, full of refugees, is controlled by Egypt.
1967 to 2010 – Forty-three years, during which the Palestinian refugees are still not allowed to return home, the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza are oppressed and attacked.
1982 to 2000 – eighteen years during which the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon come under Israeli occupation (with its attendant slaughter) as well.
Yes, it was those wicked Jordanians who denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination.