While Gideon Levy sees no left ("There has never been an Israeli peace camp") Avraham Burg sees a re-energized left. Both see discrimination. Dare we call it apartheid? Burg, in prophetic voice:
Yes, the capital of the Jewish people – the people that always swore not to do to others what it would not have done to it – has become a harlot. Morally wanton, emotionally sealed-off. It is manipulated by its shepherds for their benefit and is full of law – everyone is suing everyone else, hiding behind the laws of injustice. And the judges – as though forced – issue rulings in accordance with discriminatory laws, unique to the "chosen people." Once justice dwelled here. Now the settlers do, murderers of the nation’s soul.
And no one utters a word, but for a few patriots. People of truth and morals who refuse to stand idly by while the state of Jewish refugees repeatedly throws Palestinian families into the street and hands their miserable homes over to bearded, blaspheming thugs.
These people of integrity are the leftists of Jerusalem, who have been through countless clashes with the "Jerusalem syndrome" loonies. They know only too well the city’s ugly truth, its terrible teens, and will no longer look the other way. They are committed to stopping with their body the torch-bearing brutes who seek to set it on fire.
While Gideon Levy writes coldly/brilliantly about the conceptual divide between the left’s old ideas and the Palestinians’ understanding:
the problem was rooted in the left’s impossible adherence to Zionism in its historical sense. In precisely the way there cannot be a democratic and Jewish state in one breath, one has to first define what comes before what – there cannot be a left wing committed to the old-fashioned Zionism that built the state but has run its course. This illusory left wing never managed to ultimately understand the Palestinian problem – which was created in 1948, not 1967 – never understanding that it can’t be solved while ignoring the injustice caused from the beginning. A left wing unwilling to dare to deal with 1948 is not a genuine left wing.
The illusory left never understood the most important point: For the Palestinians, consenting to the 1967 borders along with a solution to the refugee problem, including at least the return of a symbolic number of refugees themselves, are painful concessions. They also represent the only just compromise, without which peace will not be established; but there’s no sense in accusing the Palestinians of wasting an opportunity. Such a proposal, even including the "far-reaching" proposals of Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, has never been made to them.
Burg is right. The jewel needs restoration, not rejection.
They are actually speaking about the same thing, the identification, commitment and application of principles as defining law and behavior.
That is different than advantage, and different from resentment. Principle is also NOT the same as much Palestinian application “, as it is also often opportunistic, and flirts with the fascistic (so long as they describe themselves as participating in “resistance”).
The test of principle is that it is color blind, not nationalistic.
For those who need a translation into English, here’s what RW wrote:
Urgbay isway ightray. Ethay eweljay eedsnay estorationray, otnay
ejectionray.
Eythay areway actuallyway eakingspay aboutway ethay amesay
ingthay, ethay identificationway, ommitmentcay andway
applicationway ofway inciplespray asway efiningday awlay andway
ehaviorbay.
Atthay isway ifferentday anthay advantageway, andway ifferentday
omfray esentmentray. Inciplepray isway alsoway OTNAY ethay
amesay asway uchmay Alestinianpay applicationway “, asway itway
isway alsoway oftenway opportunisticway, andway irtsflay ithway
ethay ascisticfay (osay onglay asway eythay escribeday
emselvesthay asway articipatingpay inway “esistanceray”).
Ethay esttay ofway inciplepray isway atthay itway isway olorcay
indblay, otnay ationalisticnay.
Witty, the jewel in your Jewish grandeur’s crown been gone since well before 1948, and the events of that year only served to bury it deeper in the past.
Israel is the occupation. It is the apartheid. It is the Nakba. Israel does not (and cannot, by your own admission, with regards to outright refusal of Palestinian right of return) exist without these things.
It’s not really corrective surgery if the only option is to amputate a vital organ.
It’s true that principle very often differs from its application. Especially when it comes down to who is applying the rhetorically nice principle–that would be the more powerful one, Israel–we’ve seen how it has applied its paper principles for how long now? Throughout how many miserable Palestinian generations? The test of principle as applied is that Israel is ethnically nationalistic, not at all “ethnic-blind.”
The Levy piece is very good. The JSF commentary is also good and a little to its left.
link
For myself, I’m slightly closer to Levy, since as a practical matter I’ve thought that the Israelis won’t accept a fair one-state solution (though they seem able to live with the apartheid version they have now). But there’s no incentive for them to offer anything remotely resembling a decent compromise, for the reasons the JSF writer lays out.
Why would a spoiled brat change conduct when the allowance will come in any case?
I don’t think it’s up to any outsiders to decide whether to support the one state or two state solution, unless that distinction is grounded in international law and universal human rights.
In other words, in the absence of an Israeli withdrawal and evacuation of all Israeli presence east of the Green Line, Palestinians have the full right to demand equality and be granted full citizenship rights under Israeli governance – essentially, a one state solution.
If I, personally, had to agree with someone, I’d agree wholeheartedly with professor Finkelstein’s view as posted by Matt here:
link to mondoweiss.net
In neglecting to clarify what you are for, you end up making the decision for a single-state in fact, in “solidarity”.
And, then, in fact make the decision to pursue war rather than reconciliation.
“‘And, then, in fact make the decision to pursue war rather than reconciliation. “‘
This comming from someone who has supporte every war Israel has stared.
“Supported every war Israel has started”.
The only war that Israel started, the invasion of Lebanon in 1980′s I opposed. I guess Israel (in concert with France and England) started the 1956 war.
The war with Lebanon in 2006, Hezbollah started. The war with Hamas in 2008, Hamas started.
I know you think differently, but that is more common understanding.
In 1973, Israel can nowhere be said to have started that war. In 1967, there is ambiguity. 1948, Israel was attacked.
Not changing your tune I see. Not particularly successful.
In neglecting to clarify what you are for, you end up making the decision for a single-state in fact, in “solidarity”.
And, then, in fact make the decision to pursue war rather than reconciliation.
Could you jam pack more “in fact” into your comments? What the heck does the above paragraph mean, anyway?
The 1980s?
It was in 1982. You don’t even know the exact year. I’m sure your grasp of history is perfect, especially your claim that Hamas started the “war” in 2008. That, of course, is an outright lie and you know it.
No. It’s not knowledge of history you lack, it’s the ideologue in you that makes you a habitual liar.
Regarding 1956 and acting in concert, you guess?
The whole thing was coordinated to the last detail between the three states.
And finally, there is no ambiguity as to who started the war in 1967.
For fuck’s sake, by Ben-Gurion’s own admissions, a decade earlier, he was already planning on occupying the West Bank.
Nasser’s plans were defensive in nature. Menachem Begin and Dayan both admitted after 1967 that Israel started the war to capture more land. In fact, Israel attacked and bombed Egyptian air fields at a time when the Egyptians didn’t even have one airplane ready. You talk about “who started it”.
You’re an ideologue, one high on his own bullshit. Get over yourself already. It’s sickening.
“The only war that Israel started, the invasion of Lebanon in 1980’s I opposed”
Israel started the wars in 1967 (no ambiguity, just ask Menachem Begin), 1956, 2006 (Israel had already planned that war), 2008 (Israle vilated the ceasfefire and planned thatgone too).
“I know you think differently, but that is more common understanding.”
False, that is your belief, which has been entirel;y discredited.
The 1973 war was a hangover of the 1967 war.
“Not changing your tune I see. Not particularly successful. ”
Not t accepting your Hasbara and historic revisionism? No, absolutely not. Nor is anyone else on thos blog.
Stop lying.
Israel also invaded Lebanon in 1978 and 1982. And in1948 Israel had already attacked and expelled Palestinians outside of the area designated the Jewish State by the UN Partition Plan, when the Arab armies entered the scene. The vast majority of the fighting between Israel and the Arab armies took place on land designated for the Arab State, not in the designated Jewish State.
Witty really doesn’t know history. He doesn’t listen and he doesn’t let anything sink in that doesn’t already fit his fantasy vision of Israel. He will however recommend a book from the 70′s on the history of Israel if you ask. I think he stopped absorbing any new information on that subject right about the time that Simha Flapan’s book came out.
Witty is in complete denial.
Take his last sentence “Not particularly successful”. He seems to be under the delusion that his versin of events is the widely held one, even on this blog.
He is also under the delusion that anyone cares about his version of events, or any of his other opinions.
I agree with Finkelstein too, as far as Palestinians having the right to decide whether they will relinquish the right of return. They might decide this if they want their own state without having to share it with Israelis. It’s their decision. If they decide to give it up, they have the right to ask for far more than the Israelis have ever been willing to give.
I think that a thorough search (probably somewhat lengthy) will turn at least one essay by Anthony Lewis in the New York Times and one syndicated essay by Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes, both calling for a long long overdue recognition by the US and Israel of the injustices done the Palestinian people. More recently, Bill Moyers (at the very left edge, though by no means a leftist, of what is acceptable in the mainstream of US discourse) has also called for recognition of the long-standing crimes against Palestinians.
All three were inundated with hate mail after they dared to speak the truth to Israel crimes against humanity.
The sad fact is that many of even the most liberal American essayists, intellectuals and scholars draw a line a criticizing Israel. Whether they are too cowardly to stick their necks out in the vicious, vindictive atmosphere of the US and Israel or whether they are just bigots is difficult to say.
“the Jewish people – the people that always swore not to do to others what it would not have done to it ”
Sorry, but when did they swear that?
“Do unto others” is a principle applied individually (not all that consistently). Better that we model it and do it, than complain that some targeted distant others don’t.
For Palestinians and for Israelis, the questions are intimate. For solidarity, they are passive (relative to the vanguard) and distant (conveniently far far away), hopefully not opportunistic.
Witty, how many times must you be told that blogging and LSD don’t mix?