The Christian Science Monitor somehow allowed Dashiell Shapiro to publish an opinion piece and, in doing so, paid homage to Golda Meir and the supposedly deceased Israeli meme that there are no Palestinian people. One would think that today, the Palestinians would no longer need to be subjected the denial of their existence. The last politician of any real relevance that was able to resist the reality of the Palestinian people was Golda Meir who looked the occupation in the face and proudly insisted that “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people.” With the two state solution still dancing in the minds of American politicians like Terry Kiser at “Weekend at Bernie’s,” it would seem evident that there is such a thing as Palestinians and, particularly after two intifadas, such a thing as Palestinian nationalism.
In a column that would make Meir proud, Shapiro has decided that the best way to make peace between Israel and Palestine is to redefine what Palestine is and what it means:
The consensus view among parties trying to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute has been that Gaza must be part of a future Palestinian state, along with the West Bank. However, this consensus view makes little sense... Making peace between Israel and Palestine would be easier to accomplish if the only territory in dispute was the West Bank...
By offering to transfer Gaza and its Palestinian population to Egyptian control, Shapiro is singlehandedly altering the identities of the Palestinians in Gaza, stripping them bare of their collective histories and identities in an effort to separate what is Palestinian from the people and land of Gaza, thus resurrecting a racist attitude that has no place in any modern discussion.
Shlomo Ben-Ami was an Israeli negotiator at Camp David and is an avid Zionist, as he states in the introduction of his book - Scars of War, Wounds of Peace. Yet, even the one-time Zionist negotiator for Israel was able to identify the existence of a Palestinian people and Palestinian nationalism long before the establishment of the Israeli state:
The message of the conflict with the Palestinian Arabs as a clash between competing, exclusivist nationalisms, not just a banal dispute with indigenous fellahin who could be easily bought off and evicted, that has started to penetrate the Zionist discourse in the wake of the 1929 riots became now an unequivocal reality for most, if not all, the leaders of the Yishuv... They understood, just as their Arab counterparts did, the irreconcilable nature of the contradiction between the objectives of the two national movements vying for control of Palestine.
Like Golda Meir, Shapiro is implying a two-fold accusation: there has never been a Palestinian nation and there has never been a Palestinian people. While it is certainly true that Palestinian nationalism did not appear until later, the name Palestine was first used by Herodotus in the 5th century BC, and later by Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the Byzantines, and by the Ottoman Empire. Consequently, the people that lived in this region of the Empires that, one after another, colonized Palestine were called Palestinians. Thus, to say that there has never been a Palestinian people is to ignore over 2000 years of history. Secondly, the idea of nation-states was still being perfected in the 1920's with many future states fighting against the fist of colonialism. Colonies, including Palestine, may not have been classified as the modern concept of a nation-state, but this does not give others the right to define the indigenous people of the area.
Unfortunately, in his opinion piece, Shapiro attempts this exact folly. By suggesting that the post-revolution Egypt take control of Gaza ("self-rule could be allowed") Shapiro is trying to define what it means to be Palestinian in a simple and simplistic two-page op-ed piece. By ruthlessly penning such an article, Shapiro has reduced the Palestinian identity to a colonial practice in top-down diplomacy, cruelly ripping away the identity of 1.6 million people. Like the European colonialists that traded African territories like children with baseball cards, caring little for the demographic realities on the ground, creating new countries and territories while dividing families and villages from thousands of miles away, Shapiro has proudly declared that reality be damned; Palestinians and Palestinian nationalism are false concepts that can be moved around, altered and destroyed.
Not only has Shapiro attempted to reduce the meaning of the Palestinian identification, he has half-heartedly and single-handed tried to redefine the boundaries of Palestine. Forget Hamas and forget Fatah, forget the conflict between Israel and Palestine. There is a land called Palestine that cannot be divided anymore. Simply because of the land of Palestine was split physically in 1948 by the creation Israel and politically in 2006 by the Fatah/Hamas divide certainly does not give Shapiro the right to redefine the borders. On a practical level, Shapiro is echoing Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's calls for population transfer, an act illegal under international law. Yet pushing for the annexation of Gaza - and the dismemberment of what is left of Palestine - is crossing the boundaries of theoretical and psychological destruction, trying to create a second Nakbah for Palestinians in which their identities - not land, possessions and families, like the first Nakbah - are ripped away.
Fortunately, the extremism espoused by Shapiro in his article is one shared by few outside of Palestine and no one within it. Despite the political and geographical divide between Gaza and the West Bank, there is a strong sense of national unity that incorporates both territories. Removing Gaza from the Palestinian question is simply not possible. Shapiro attempts to ignore the connection between the West Bank and Palestine by dictating the identities of the people of Gaza:
"while many Gazans view themselves as Palestinians, in many ways, they are more culturally and economically connected to Egypt than the West Bank."
Despite being under the military control of Egypt from 1948 to 1967 (a partial annexation during which Palestinians never asked for Egyptian citizenship and were issued Palestinian passports), Gaza is part of Palestine and full of Palestinians who have a sense of Palestinian nationalism that has only grown stronger with the intensification of the Israeli occupation.
Despite finding many advantages (for Israel) of handing control of Gaza to Egypt, Shapiro barely mentions the resistance that would be felt in the West Bank, Israel, Gaza and the entire Arab world, caused by the hubristic redefinition of borders in such a colonial fashion. The move would be wholly rejected from Ramallah to Gaza City and from Cairo to Riyadh. Considering the nationalist sentiment that has been flowing throughout the region in recent months, exploding in revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, one would think that Shapiro would be more respectful of the power of Arab nationalism and identity.
Shapiro's unforgivable and orientalist postulations reflect an author who is profoundly out of touch with the reality of Middle East. Palestine and Palestinians are a reality that cannot be simply erased by a flick of some diplomatic pen. To think otherwise is to adopt an antiquated, colonialist approach to Palestine that should be relegated to the waste bin of history.
This post originally appeared on Notes From a Medinah
I think that we are well past the time where we the only acceptable response to a non-Palestinian telling Palestinians how to consider themselves and their nationality is this: STFU.
Sah.
What a joke. Israel took on Gaza for some unfathomable reason back in 1967. Pottery Barn rules apply.
Egypt doesn’t want Gaza anyway and in case the muppet hasn’t noticed Hosni has left the premises.
It is all headed inexorably in the direction of the binational state. And faster than Israeli Jews think.
How does Shapiro’s approach differ from those historical writers who posited that Judiasm and/or Jewishness (more especially) was/is primarily a reactionary phenomena against anti-semitism? And is one less rational than the other?
wft, this just never stops. it seems to me the same stories just keep being recycled over and over. do they think they can gloss this stuff up and make it appear rational every few months or years? didn’t we just finish reading a screed almost identical to this the other day about the WB and jordan?
do they think one day the world will wake up and reconsider the dispersal of palestine and think ‘wow, that sounds good to us full steam ahead’?
and what’s w/these publications publishing this crap. enough already. quit pandering to reality reconstructionists.
Why offload Gazans on unwilling Egyptians?
So much simpler to offload entire Israel on pre-1947 Palestine – at least Palestinians are on record saying that any Israeli who wishes to remind within it’s borders will be welcome as long as they accept Palestinian citizenship………
Chris:
I wrote the CSM piece you are responding to. I appreciate your response and actually agree with several of your points. I don’t think you are accurately characterizing my argument, however. In no way was I arguing for a forcible transfer of Gazans to Egypt or for obliterating their Palestinian identity. In fact, if you had quoted from other sections of the piece you would see that I argued that Gazans would be more likely to consent to Egyptian control if they had allies in a new Egyptian government, and that Egyptian involvement and backing could help Gazans in terms of pursuing the right of return. Mubarak was not an honest broker between Hamas and Israel, and in fact he contributed to the humanitarian problems in Gaza. A new Egyptian government with a significant Muslim Brotherhood presence might be able to function as an honest broker, in a way that Gazans would actually welcome. Simply because there would be benefits to Israel does not necessarily mean there would not be (even greater) benefits to Gazans. I was trying to propose a “win-win”, not a colonialist population transfer.
This is Israel’s wet dream and probably what they hoped to accomplish by sealing off Gaza in the first place. Create a pressure cooker until it explodes and unloads on the other side of the border.
This is only a “win” for one party – Israel. Neither the Palestinians nor the Egyptians would have the remotest interest in such a plan, which utterly disregards both of their national identities, histories, and geopolitical affinities. For one, Egypt is part of Africa and Palestine is part of the fertile crescent. You’re just lumping all “Ayrabs” into one bucket and hoping they’ll all “play nice” in the neighbor’s back yard. It’s no different than Israeli proposals to trade Arabs in Umm al-Fahm for West Bank settlers with Jews. It’s a proposal that is made out of, well, ignorance.
ds, you weren’t really serious, were you?
people here are not much taken with whimsy.
I tend to look for the humor in things despite seeing the horror, and your piece was pretty horrible even as humor.
if you going to indulge in more of those, read Swift and get more overtly absurd to avoid the confusion.
dash, look at above comment from Eva. much broader and more humorous. learn.
I recognize in the article that the idea sounds “ludicrous.” And I agree that it is unlikely any of the parties would want this. But, the current situation is ludicrous and none of the other proposals have worked. An Egypt with Muslim Brotherhood representation in government might open up possibilities for peace in the region, anywhere from an expanded Egyptian role as a go-between among Hamas and Israel to Egyptian security forces policing the border, possibly with UN assistance. I find it odd that people assume this is a right-wing Israeli idea, it’s getting trashed just as much on their blogs for proposing a partnership between Hamas and Egypt against Israel… I believe in the marketplace of ideas, clearly this idea isn’t faring so well right now in internet opinion, but in a year or two that may change, and the proposal is worth thinking about.
I recognize in the article that the idea sounds “ludicrous.” And I agree that it is unlikely any of the parties would want this.
you are so wrong, israel would love it. if you’re going to be ‘creative’ try including something in your plan where everybody but israel bends over backwards and is inconvenienced because while israel can steal palestinians land to it’s hearts content and build settlements wherever it wants it and build apartheid roads on palestinian land for it’s settlers and other jews only it can’t seems to accommodate a road from gaza to the WB so that husbands and wives and parents and children and aunts and uncles and grandparents are not divided…for little israel to feel ‘safe’.
and we all know how important that safety is..so important it keeps placing more and more buildings on palestinian land.
none of the other proposals have worked
Right. Which might have something to do with the fact that everything Israel tries to solve the “Gaza problem” is predicated on denying them their rights.
How about tearing down the walls that make Gaza a prison? How about withdrawing the IDF troops who conduct regular murders of Gazans? How about withdrawing the gunboats that strafe and sink Gazan fishing boats? How about dropping the blockade that prevents traffic from entering and leaving Gaza?
How about proposals that haven’t worked because they have never been tried?
The proposal is an Israeli wet dream. If Gaza were under Egyptian control, Israel would legally be absolved of its current obligations under international law to maintain the welfare and health of people under occupation, not that it’s ever done anything but thumb its nose at international law. It would make Egypt responsible for controlling the infamous Hamas rockets (not that Hamas is the main party responsible for the rockets) and perhaps give better legal cover for mass murders such as the 2008-2009 Gaza attack, if Egypt failed. Moreover, Egypt, at least the army, is much more susceptible to US pressure than Hamas, when it comes to controlling rockets, although Hamas has been pretty effective at that when not being shot at by the Israeli army. I can just see the Egyptian army being pressed into shooting at Hamas in Israel’s stead.
As for the claim that “none of the other proposals have worked,” most haven’t even been tried due to Israeli refusal of them. For example, UN resolution 194, the Arab peace proposal, and various Palestinian offers. I’ve no doubt myself, that if your goal is to have peace and eliminate the rockets, nothing would work better than allowing the refugees to return to their original land and homes under conditions of full equality as specified in UN resolutions 194 and 181.
Yup, it’s a Zionist/Israeli dream for Egypt to take back Gaza. As someone else said, leaving Israel much more free to concentrate on its ethnic cleansing and colonization of most the West Bank including East Jerusalem.
Anyone who repeats the shopworn lie that “Israel left Gaza and got in return only rocket attacks” is devoid of credibility, a person whose opinions don’t deserve to be heard.
Potsherd2, you took the words right out of my mouth. I was just typing a reply to Mr. Shapiro saying the exact same thing. Gaza is currently still under Israeli occupation. Also, his statement in the CSM article that “…Gaza is controlled by Hamas, a radical Islamic movement opposed to peace with Israel,…” is ludicrous and confirms again that he lacks any credibility on the subject. It’s pretty obvious where he’s coming from.
Isn’t that a standard way of referring to Hamas?
link to nytimes.com
“Hamas, a radical Islamic group classified by the United States and Europe as terrorist”
link to nytimes.com
“Hamas, the Islamic group opposed to the peace talks”
How should Hamas be referred to, when distinguishing between Hamas and the PA?
How about this: “Hamas, the legitimately elected representatives of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories…”
no Andre
“…Gaza is controlled by Hamas, a radical Islamic movement opposed to peace with Israel,…”
is factual. you’re ludicrous to say otherwise.
I’ll give you a hint.
Instead of consulting the New York Times, try to research the current conditions and the parties involved. Learn about their past and present policies, statements and actions and then try with a sober, objective and open minded approach to come up with a characterization on your own — in your own words.
Surely you can think on your own, can’t you? Why rely on others like the NYT? Why regurgitate boilerplate statements instead of displaying a modicum of interest, complexity and depth in the subject matter?
Standard for the NYT, certainly. If you want to confuse actual journalism with repeating canards and cliches.
Don’t you think you ought to actually know something about what you’re writing about in a major publication, instead of repeating the standard lies?
Why don’t you try, for a change, “Hamas, the political party that won the last Palestinian parliamentary election.”
what validity is there in empire’s labeling hamas a terrorist organization when empire itself is the world’s number one terrorist (a million iraqis, for example, dying from malnutrition and other diseases as a consequence of those sanctions, let alone how many hundreds of thousands have been killed or injured since empire (& its british lapdog) invaded Iraq? Remember, too, that empire also branded the ANC a terrorist organization & Nelson Mandela a terrorist.
yeah, the nyt because they are so…neutral when it comes to all things israel!/ NOT
And Andre’s description is not factual?
What it is, is not perjorative. Zionists simply can’t allow the mention of the name “Hamas” without coupling it with some perjorative epithet.
It doesn’t surprise me that you would refer to an obvious pro-Israel biased and morally bankrupt newspaper like the NYT to make your point. And I’m sure that most people with even a basic understanding of this conflict understand the agenda behind the U.S. and the E.U to classify Hamas as a “terrorist organization”.
Hamas is a political party that was elected in a free and fair, democratic Palestinian election. Hamas also has an affiliated military wing which in the past has committed acts of terrorism but that doesn’t make the organization as a whole “terrorists”. By this ‘logic’ we could designate most of those countries who classify Hamas as such, “terrorist organizations”, as well.
To state that Hamas is “the Islamic group opposed to the peace talks” is pure propaganda nonsense and reveals, yet again, an Israel apologist agenda that reeks of Islamophobia. Hamas has on numerous occasions offered a truce (and often stuck to it until Israel broke it) and repeatedly claimed to accept an Israeli state within the ’67 borders:
link to antiwar.com
link to haaretz.com
link to archive.arabnews.com
link to ynet.co.il
link to electronicintifada.net
As to your comment that Gaza is controlled by Hamas: I invite you to come on a fishing trip with me off the coast of Gaza, board a ship together (let’s call it “Mavi Marmara II”) to bring humanitarian goods to the Gaza people still under brutal Israeli occupation or try to land a plane on the airport (what’s left of it) there and find out up close and personal, who is actually in control of the Gaza strip.
Pots, one needn’t be a Zionist to call Hamas a gang of terrorists and murderers.
The USA, the EU, Canada,and Japan classify Hamas as a terrorist organization.
If Andre wants to deny it, he’s gonna have to paddle real hard and real long.
I think it has something to do with the gothic font that causes a sort of reflexive drool in your lower echelon punditry. Someone should write an article for the DSM about it.
Repeating memes does not make the “standard way” truth, but instead stale propaganda.
Fuster, no need for me to paddle at all here since I didn’t deny that other countries classify Hamas as a terrorist organization in the first place. On the contrary, I am well aware of it. You may want to read my previous reply again. I don’t need the hypocritical opinion of certain governments to decide who I should classify as a terrorist. I’m quite capable of making up my own mind based on facts. Cheers.
BTW, going by their own definition of terrorism, the US government could easily be classified as a terrorist organization, as well. Come to think of it, my father was considered a terrorist by Nazi Germany and was sentenced to death for his resistance against their brutal occupation. I still have his farewell letter he wrote from prison.
I condemn any violence against innocent people but let’s not forget that e.g. many Zionists had (and have) the blood of countless innocents on their hands because of past and present acts by their own terrorist organizations. Quite a few of those terrorist became Israeli leaders, as I’m sure you are well aware of.
fusty – And of course these organizations are SO impartial!
It’s in the interest of the Zionist state that Hamas be classified as a terrorist organization, and this is why it is. Because “terrorist” means nothing more than “anyone opposing Israel.”
But you have, as usual, missed the point, which is journalistic. Even supposing Hamas can truthfully be described as a terrorist organization, it can also truthfully be described in many other ways. So WHY is the “standard” description always “terrorist” and not any of the other truthful statements that could be made about Hamas? Why is the standard description always perjorative and negative?
This is not the pursuit of truth but of demonization, because Zionists are determined that Hamas be demonized, that it be described as a “terrorist organization” and only that, and its positive aspects, as a charitable organization forex, never be mentioned.
In short, propaganda, not journalism.
That’s what shapiro’s article is – ignorantly and unthinkingly repeating Zionist propaganda because it’s the “standard” insisted on by the Zionist-controlled press. And it’s really appalling in this case because the CSM is one of the very few independent mainstream news outlets remaining in America. He uses worlds without thinking about what they mean, and thus he doesn’t deserve to be called a journalist.
Pots,
The EU, Japan, US and everyone else aren’t wrong because you don’t think them impartial and it’s futile and silly bullshit to think that Hamas is being demonized. It simply uses terror and has a charter that is clear about using force to wrest political control of any part of the Middle East from Jews and anyone else not subscribing to Islamic regulation.
I don’t think that the article is any more than profoundly silly, but whether or not Hamas acts wonderfully to it’s supporters, subjects or co-religionists, it’s still a bunch of terrorist thugs.
Fuster wrote: “The EU, Japan, US and everyone else”…
So, Canada is now “everyone else”?
“and has a charter that is clear”…
Speaking of clear Charters, guess who wrote this in their Charter:
Likud Charter Does Not Recognize Palestine : link to palestinechronicle.com
The Likud charter does not govern Israel.
The Hamas charter IS Hamas’ founding document.
If I started printing out the odious crap in that charter, folks here will get the vapors.
so why don’t you go read it for yourself.
makes the funked-up likudniks sound like Quakers
you might like all the stuff about how Hamas is fighting a religious war against Jews, not a struggle for anything else.
and, BTW, Andre, your link does NOT say that the quotation comes from the Likud Charter.
The quotes are from 1999.
Likud was founded in the early 1970′s, IIRC.
charter shmarter so what. “The quotes are from 1999″ while you’re humping quotes from long before that. boring..the hamas charter is like a bone ziobots have been gripping like their lives depended on it. don’t you have any more upto date arguments. this has been argued ad nauseum. go listen to the charlie rose interview w/meshaal for heavens sakes. how many times do you think we’re gonna engage in your hasbara 101. grow up.
annie, you’re the one humping things here. words on paper that declare the official position of the entire organization are more relevant than ambiguous oral statements from individuals on a tv show.
bore deeper.
“This is not the pursuit of truth but of demonization, ”
Well, I think I sort of called Shapiro a Zionist. Maybe I shouldn’t use perjoratives?
Fuster wrote: “and, BTW, Andre, your link does NOT say that the quotation comes from the Likud Charter”.
Huh? Got reading comprehension problems, Fuster? The excerpts I posted came straight from the ‘Peace & Security’ chapter of the Likud Party platform which can be found here: link to knesset.gov.il
, just like the article I linked to said and directly quoted from:
Charters aside, I try to look at what happens today and it is pretty clear that the Likud is still implementing its policy of “flatly rejecting” a sovereign Palestinian state and continues to build illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories in clear violation of IHL.
What will you come up with next? “A land without a people for a people without a land” or “B..b..b..but the Mufti!” or something ;)
Andre….. party platform NOT charter.
the platform for 1999 is not the founding document for a party that was founded nearly thirty years earlier and it’s doesn’t equate to the Hamas Charter.
and beyond that, screw Likud, I don’t want to defend them, but yet again Likud in one political party that does not have a stranglehold on Israel and Hamas is one terrorist organization that does hold all the cards in Gaza.
Fuster wrote: “screw Likud”.
I couldn’t agree more! :thumbsup:
Andre….. party platform NOT charter.
You do protest too much, fuster. How is the charter really different from a “party platform?”
The Likud charter does not govern Israel.
Likud IS the government right now.
and beyond that, screw Likud, I don’t want to defend them, but yet again Likud in one political party that does not have a stranglehold on Israel and Hamas is one terrorist organization that does hold all the cards in Gaza.
Likud is still in government, still rejecting and disabling a Palestinian state and continuing with the usual policies of terror, resource and land theft and collective punishment usual of any government in Israel. And Hamas only has a stranglehold in Gaza, while Likud rules over all of Israel and the Palestinian territories (and effectively Gaza too).
When you turn on the Hasbara you really don’t stop do you?
chris, did you know that gazans came from towns and villages all across palestine . do you know that the vast majority of them are directly related to family members living in the west bank? they are palestinians. did it even occur to you their sumud all these years is related to uniting with their families and living in a free palestine?
they are not egyptians, they are palestinians. for decades now they want to be free palestinians. you must know israel has done everything they can to rid themselves of palestinians. they would like nothing more than to dump them off on egypt.
life doesn’t work like that. your title was very appropriate tho
Return Gaza to Egypt: It will help Israel – and the Middle East
there is nothing original about this idea btw. israel has been trying to divide palestine for quite some time.
how do you think the WB will fair once israel has succeeded in that division? improved no doubt? as i recall there was a wikileak revealing this objective also. i will have to do a little search. oh, here it is, didn’t take long after all:
Wikileaks: Israel wanted PA or Egypt to take over Gaza Strip
Annie, I agree completely with you. Gazans are Palestinians. Simply because they are living in Gaza does not lessen their love for their country.
chris, of course. i meant to address that to dashiellshapiro. thanks for the important article here.
I argued that Gazans would be more likely to consent to Egyptian control if they had allies in a new Egyptian government
why would gazans be inclined to ‘consent’ to be controlled? this is absurd. after years of occupation and blockade?
you are in la la land mr shapira. again, i can’t believe CSM would consent to publishing this drivel.
For some odd reason, history in your article starts in 1948. It’s as though it were a process of immaculate conception, Egypt suddenly “controlled” Gaza between 1948 – 1967.
But, the fact is that prior to 1948, Gaza was part of Palestine. During the war in 1948, Zionist forces did not occupy Gaza and so in the absence of Britain, Egypt filled the void.
The majority of Gazans are refugees from Jaffa and other coastal Palestinain towns. Thus, a Gaza under Egyptian control would further alienate Palestinians from their relatives in the occupied West Bank and Israel proper. How many permits and visas will Gazans be required to obtain before they can visit aunt Salwah in East Jerusalem?
Throwing Gaza in Egypt’s proverbial lap, hence ridding Israel of the demographic threat, is an ideal solution for Zionists.
And that is why the article reeks of colonialism as it proposes a classic solution of divide and control.
This alleged win-win sounds nice, but I doubt Palestinians need your benevolence.
I think the days when Israel can jerrymander a Jewish majority for its democracy are fading.
This CSM piece smacks of suggestions in the early 60s that blacks go back to Africa if they can’t accept their lot in life in the US. (Because, after all, all the blacks of Africa are all the same. You can just dump them any old place and they’ll be happy campers. Just like Arabs, right? Gazan= Tunisian = Egyptian = Jordanian = Yemeni = Saudi = Bahraini, etcetera)
I think this is an excellent idea, basically, a gerrymander to maintain apartheid in “one state” even if some token rights were given to Palestinians. You know, the minority can have paper rights and eat crow (or worse).
There are some minor issues, like that it would abrogate the treaty with Egypt, but hey, Israel is Jewish redemption and Messaiah with eventually show up and take care of such small problems.
My impression of Zionist orthodoxy is that Palestinians are people from assorted places who initially came to Palestine because of economic opportunities created by Zionist immigration, and later MALICIOUSLY claimed to be mythical Palestinians. More correct terms are Arabs and sojourners.
All authorities exists that not only Palestinians do not exists, but also that they do exists solely because of hatred of Jews. Some of you may think too “classically” to absorb that simple truth, but quantum mechanics provides a good analogy: an electron cannot be fully described as a particle or as a wave, and its position is subject of Heisenberg principle.
Those malicious Palestinians! How dare they claim to exist!
Dashiell,
I understand that you perhaps think that you can transfer Palestinians into Egypt without destroying their identity and I understand that you were perhaps trying to find a win-win situation. However, my point is that you are wrong. If I were to quote from other parts of your article I would simply be repeating a defense that is full of holes.
A new government in Egypt is likely going to be more friendly to Gaza and Hamas. Yes, but why is that a reason for Gazans to abandon their country? If anything, open borders between Gaza and Egypt would be a stronger incentive for Hamas and Gaza to resist the division of Palestine that you are suggesting. Allies to the south does not mean that Palestinians will welcome Egyptian annexation. Because you say they will doesn’t make it true.
The point remains that you are suggesting a combination of Palestinian identity with Egyptian identity. And, unfortunately, not all Arabs are the same.
I agree with most of these points. Gazans probably would not welcome Egyptian annexation (plus, Egypt had never annexed Gaza to begin with). But maybe Gazans would welcome something in between annexation and the current situation, and certainly might welcome increased involvement and support from a new Egyptian government, possibly involving securing the border, and that this could actually benefit all parties in the region? Most commentary had assumed that Muslim Brotherhood participation in the Egyptian government would be bad for the region and inflame tensions. My point is that it might actually have the opposite effect, and that this should be explored.
Yet it is inevitable that the new Egyptian gov’t will be more friendly towards Palestinians in Gaza. I think the biggest problem with your article was the implication that the decision to transfer Gaza and all the Palestinians living there to Egypt can be made by anyone other than the Palestinians in Gaza and the Egyptians in Egypt. Perhaps unintentionally, this came off as you dismissing the Palestinian identity of those living in Gaza. (Isn’t something in between annexation and th status quo simply a better relationship between Gaza and Egypt? I’m not sure about increased involvement – but wouldn’t be surprised to see drastically decreased involvement, ie not sealing the border for Israel.)
Also, any push to reincorporate Gaza into Egypt would inevitably include the redeployment of Egyptian soldiers in Gaza, something that Palestine and Egypt would both detest. Considering Israel doesn’t allow Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai, it is unlikely they would be fine with the remilitarization of Gaza by Egypt either.
I would never propose transferring Gazans to Egypt, and the whole premise behind my article was that this idea might work only because it might be palatable to Gazans, depending on how things developed in Egypt.
Perhaps I was confused by the terminology of annexation. And perhaps I was confused because you mentioned that peace between Israel and Palestine would be much simpler without Gaza. I’m glad you are not advocating forced transfer, but framing this solution as removing Gaza from the Palestinian equation so Israel can make peace with just the West Bank is a bit misleading, to say the least.
Ok, I see the confusion. I should have been more clear. My point was there is no territorial dispute in Gaza (in terms of settlements), the primary issue there is the right of return. So analytically it may make sense to consider them separately in that sense. I was not proposing a “divide and conquer” strategy like some posters suggested, to the contrary I was suggesting that Egyptian involvement might actually allow Gazans to make headway on the right of return and get the sides back to the negotiating table.
Well, it sounds like you had good intentions at any rate. I was about to jump in with the point that Chris just made–whether the proposal is good or bad depends on whether the Gazans themselves would want to implement it (as well as the Egyptians). But since you agree, that’s fine.
Whether the idea would work for the benefit of Palestinians (assuming they were willing to try it), I have no idea.
Tearing down the walls would allow Gazans to make lots of headway on their right of return, if Israelis would stop murdering them when they try to go home.
The primary issue in Gaza at this time is not Right of Return. The primary issue is that the tiny strip has one of the highest demographic densities in the world, because Israel dispossessed an entire people in 1948 and a vast number of them ended up here in an area 28 miles long and about 5 miles wide that could simply not accommodate them. The majority of Gaza’s population today are refugees from 1948.To make matters vastly more acute, Israel placed Gaza under economic siege (collective punishment in violation of international law) for years, to the point where the population is in truly dire straights. Poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, and de-development are the primary issues in Gaza today. Right of Return (in the sense of diaspora Palestinians returning to Gaza) is actually fairly meaningless here because the Strip simply couldn’t absorb many more human beings! For Gazans, ‘Right of Return’ refers to their right to return to the homes they left behind in 1948.
It would be prudent to do some more extensive research in sources beyond the New York Times before attempting to write intelligently about such a complex issue. Here are some good places to start.
Fair enough, though another primary issue is the separation from the West Bank. Gaza and the West Bank are different in many way, sure, but they are still part of the same country. Yes, Gaza does not have settlements, but they are certainly still occupied and very much prevented from seeing their families in the West Bank.
My housemate, for example, is married. He lives in Ramallah and his wife lives in Gaza City. Israel will not give her the permits to move to the West Bank and he would lose his West Bank ID if he moved there. Both are considering moving to Europe simply to be together. Settlements are far from the only concern with the occupation.
dashiellshapiro,
Have you seen this video of what the Zionist stole and destroyed? Now, if Jews came away from WWII with “never again” etched in their hearts, what would make you think Palestinians have any less a desire?
link to youtube.com
Also recommended viewing for anyone trying to gain a deeper understanding of Gaza (and Palestine in general) is this short film from 1950 about the plight of Palestinian refugees:
Sands of Sorrow
Off the top of my head I don’t recall the numbers, but the majority of Gaza’s population are refugees driven off their land in what is now Israel during 1947/48/49. A single horrific statistic mentioned in the film reveals what an understatement describing that event as Al Nakba (“The Catastrophe”) is: infant mortality in the refugee camps was 80%. That isn’t a typo: eighty percent; 4 out of every 5 children born died because zionist wanted to steal some land.
Dashiell Shapiro ~ if you are somewhat perplexed with the reaction your article received you might try reading up on who else has proposed a three-state solution: people such as John Bolton, Daniel Pipes and Benny Morris.
Dashiell, since you seem to be interested in new ideas to shake up the status quo, how do you feel about a binational state which need not separate any Israelis or Palestinians from the rest of their people or the land they treasure?
I think it’s an interesting idea, and a good solution ideally. But I don’t see how it could work in practice without everybody killing each other. I think you would need to put a lot of effort into building and training integrated police units and such, but even that would probably not be enough to make it work.
I agree that integrated police and military would be key.
This idea of “everybody killing each other” is something you hear a lot in relation to single state proposals, but it seems to be more a cliche than a reasoned analysis.
Let me explain. There is no prospect of a single binational state being imposed on Israelis. There are no hard threats to Jewish power in Palestine/Israel. It will have to come by agreement, as the product of a Palestinian struggle for inclusion and equal rights. And when the goals of a political struggle are defined as inclusion and acceptance, nonviolence is the only form of struggle that makes any sense.
Again, it would be nonsensical to imagine a one-state solution superimposed upon the current situation. The idea only makes sense as the crowning result of a particular kind of struggle, which would have to be nonviolent.
The only question, to me, would be: is that result attainable? Can anything that Palestinians do have enough of an impact on Israeli attitudes towards them and the ideal of supremacy? When we see how Afrikaners and American Whites have changed, I see no reason to believe that Israeli Jews could not do the same.
But as I see it, Palestinians have no choice either way but to struggle for equal rights and inclusion. It is their last hope for freedom and dignity. Israel and the United States have demolished their vision of the two-state compromise.
And I would add that, in contrast to this vision of struggle and a better future, we have the “peace process”. A process whose end goal was the separation of peoples, and whose result was in fact the kind of “everybody killing each other” ethnic warfare that opponents of binationalism say they wish to avoid.
I think the important point in Keeler’s article is the important of self-defined nationalism.
That supports the premise of two-states for two-peoples, which many people here that are now harranguing Daniel, reject.
I think the concept of self-determination is a critical one. And, that then includes the idea of acceptance of Israelis’ self-determination (in a separate state, currently, per Avi’s insistence on paying attention to current conditions).
It allows for dissent to urge reform, but is entirely inconsistent with revolution.
A serious proponent of a two state solution should push for a much better deal for Palestinians than any that have actually been proposed. Unless one side is supposed to benefit from decades of theft and the other is just supposed to accept the scraps left over.
Donald it would be necessary and desirable to go further, but it’s not going to happen with the rejectionists in Israel and in Gaza still in power.
Hamas demands the 67 borders as a pre-condition to stop fighting and Netanyahu’s bunch are willing to agree to the 1100 BCE borders.
link to en.wikipedia.org
I didn’t know the book of Joshua was illustrated!
here we go again
Hamas demands the 67 borders as a pre-condition to stop fighting
source?
btw, so good of you to link to the map. anyone who thinks the eretz israel crowd will stop expanding w/the entirety of british mandate palestine has got another thing comin.
Never mind that Hamas proved that it could adhere to cease fires.
Israel proved that it will prolong conflict. Which is hardly a surprise when one runs the numbers:
link to huffingtonpost.com
after taking all the Gulf and Iran, they’ll slow the expansion and consolidate.
you can hit your own sauce, annie.
Ha! If Israelis set foot in Jordan, Lebanon or Egypt again, they are history. Right in the dust bin with Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and gray tube socks.