News

Richard Goldstone and ‘the rendezvous of victory’

OR Books is publishing a revised and updated edition of Norman Finkelstein’s book on Israel’s invasion of Gaza, ‘This time we went too far.’ Below is an excerpt that ended the first edition, and still seems relevant in light of the ongoing controversy over Richard’s Goldstone’s Washington Post op-ed. Finklestein adds:

The new paperback edition is not only a revised but also a vastly expanded version of the hardback. The original edition was 200 pages, this edition is 350 pages. I have updated it to include an analysis of all the Israeli reports and investigations up until January of this year. It also contains the only analysis in any language of the Israeli Turkel Commission report on what happened on the Mavi Marmara. The paperback is based on many thousands of pages of human rights reports and testimonies of Israeli soldiers and statements of Israeli officials. It is the only comprehensive study in any language of what happened in Gaza during and after the invasion.

The challenge now is to preserve the integrity of the historical record on what happened in Gaza against those who are exploiting Goldstone’s recantation to whitewash the Israeli massacre in Gaza and pave the way for yet another round of death and destruction.

ThisTimeRevisedFlatThe Gaza invasion accelerated the dissolution of blanket Jewish support for Israel. Because this reflexive Jewish support has historically blocked the path to peace, the prospects for a just and lasting resolution of the conflict are better now than ever before. The foundations for such a settlement are the universal, consensual, legal principles ratified in annual U.N. General Assembly resolutions, the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, and the standards of respected human rights organizations. Were Israel to abide by these principles a resolution of the conflict would be immediately within reach.

But Israel must also be held accountable for its crimes in Gaza. For those in Gaza who lost loved ones, homes, and livelihoods, such a reckoning is elementary justice, which it would be immoral to deny them. A criminal proceeding would probably also put a brake on a military juggernaut manifestly out of control. However, insofar as it is humanly possible, the execution of justice should be free of rancor and vindictiveness, free of the Schadenfreude that instinctively attends the humbling of an arrogant and ruthless foe. It should not be lost from sight that the ultimate goal is—or ought to be—a settlement enabling both parties, everyone, to live proud, productive, and peaceful lives.

Gandhi called his doctrine of nonviolent resistance satyagraha, which he translated as “hold on to the truth.” Herewith is our challenge: to hold on to the truth that what Israel has done to the Palestinians is wrong and indefensible; to hold on to the truth that Israel’s refusal, backed by the U.S., to respect international law and the considered opinion of humankind is the sole obstacle to putting an end, finally, to their suffering. We can reach our goal if we hold on to the truth, and if, as the African-American spiritual put it with cognate wisdom, we keep our eyes on the prize, and hold on. That is, if we keep remembering what the struggle—the prize—is all about: not theoretical fad or intellectual provocation, not holier-than- thou radical posturing, but—however humdrum, however prosaic, by comparison—helping free the Palestinian people from their bondage. And then to hold on, to be ready for sacrifice and for the long haul but also, and especially, to be humble in the knowledge that for those of us living in North America and Europe, the burdens pale next to those borne daily by the people of Palestine.

The Caribbean poet Aimé Césaire once wrote, “There’s room for everyone at the rendezvous of victory.” Late in life, when his political horizons broadened, Edward Said often quoted this line. We should make it our credo as well. We want to nurture a movement, not hatch a cult. The victory to which we aspire is inclusive, not exclusive; it is not at anyone’s expense. It is to be victorious without vanquishing. No one is a loser, and we all are gainers if together we stand by truth and justice. “I am not anti-English; I am not anti-British; I am not anti-any government,” Gandhi insisted, “but I am anti-untruth—anti-humbug, and anti-injustice.” Shouldn’t we also say that we are not anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, or, for that matter, anti-Zionist? The prize to which our eyes should be riveted is human rights, human dignity, and human equality. What, really, is the point of the ideological litmus test: Are you now or have you ever been a Zionist? A criterion of membership that would exclude a Richard Goldstone from our ranks is transparently counterproductive. Shouldn’t we use a vocabulary and points of reference that register and resonate with the public conscience and the Jewish conscience, winning over the decent many while isolating the diehard few? Shouldn’t we instead be asking: Are you for or against ethnic cleansing, for or against discriminatory laws, for or against house demolitions, for or against Jews-only roads and Jews-only settlements, for or against torture, for or against massacres? And if the answers come, against, against, and against, shouldn’t we then say: Keep your ideology, whatever it might be—there’s room for everyone at the rendezvous of victory?

The terrible death and destruction Israel visited on the people of Gaza cannot be undone. Their suffering can however be vindicated. Let us seize on the hope born of their martyrdom, redouble our commitment to a just peace, and then let us meet, all of us, sooner not later, at the rendezvous of victory.
 

41 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments