‘Zionism is racism’, ‘Israel is a settler colonialist state’, ‘a settler colonialist project needs to be decolonized’. If you’re a left-leaning person and you are working for justice in Palestine, you have probably come across statements like these. And as true as they may be, we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question: “Who are we talking to?”
As Norman Finkelstein put it: “Zionism for most people is a hairspray, a cologne [..]” And I think he has a point. The broad public has no idea what we are talking about. I realized it the other day when I was selling a book to a man at my university, and he asked me about my bachelor thesis. I told him I was writing on Zionism, and he had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.
As a solidarity movement who is working for justice in Palestine from the outside, we have to ask ourselves first of all, what our goal is, our purpose. One obvious goal that most people can agree to, is to create a broad public opinion in favour of the Palestinian cause. If this is our goal, we have to be pragmatic about the tools we choose to pursue this goal. A good place to start is our vocabulary.
We have a huge vocabulary. Zionism, apartheid, South Africa, Shuhada Street, settler colonialism, and so forth. We shouldn’t dismiss it all together, the vocabulary is good, the arguments are strong, but we should be pragmatic about how we use it. Because there is another language, a language that can resonate with people who have no clue about the Israeli colonization of Palestine, a language that can reach the broad public: International Law and equal rights. This is the most important lesson that we should learn from Finkelstein.
Personally, International Law is not my moral compass, it is not a language that I would usually use, it’s not a standard that I would use to measure whether something is right or wrong. But I have to be honest with myself. Am I working for justice in Palestine to feel good about myself, or am I working for justice in Palestine because I genuinely want Palestinian children to be able to go to school without being teargassed at a military checkpoint? If I chose the latter, I have to put my own moral standards aside for a moment, and be realistic about my choice of tools.
Politics, says Finkelstein, is not about what you personally want or believe, it’s about the maximum you can realistically achieve within the existing framework. In the matter of public opinion, the law is the framework, the furthest we can go in any argument. If we are advocating for something which is on the other side of the law, such as dismantling Israel as a state, then we lose the broad public, we lose our credibility. We no longer have the law as a common horizon that gives us credibility among people who don’t know us, we are just talking to ourselves.
And remember, as Finkelstein points out, the law is completely on our side in this matter. The Palestinians won in every aspect. The International Court of Justice, the highest judicial branch in the world, voted unanimously in favour of the Palestinian cause. Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, are Palestinian territory under International Law. The occupation, the siege, the annexation, are illegal under International Law. The settlements are illegal under International Law. The wall is illegal under International Law. Israel has a legal right to exist as a state within the pre-June 1967-borders, meaning Israel has to withdraw immediately from Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
On the matter of the right of return of the Palestinian refugees, Finkelstein’s opinion has changed over the years. In 2008, in a lecture given by Finkelstein at the Case Western Reserve University, Finkelstein spoke strongly in defense of the right of return: “They have the right. It is incontestable,” he stated. He further refers to an investigation made by Human Rights Watch which concluded that there can’t be any question: The Palestinian refugees have a legal right of return. However, over the years, Finkelstein has come to believe that the return of the Palestinian refugees and the demographical change that would follow, would mean the end of the state of Israel which he says is not in accord with Israel’s legal right to exist as a state within the pre-June 1967-borders.
Rightfully, Finkelstein has been widely criticized by many who see this as a betrayal of the Palestinian refugees. It is true, as he points out, that the return of the refugees would create a demographical change. But does this mean the end of the state of Israel? No, but it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state, opening up for Israel instead to become a democratic state, in which all its citizens, despite ethnicity or religion, can enjoy equal rights.
And despite what Finkelstein has come to believe in recent years, there is absolutely a basis for the right of return under International Law. Article 11 in UN resolution 194 states that the refugees have a legal right to return. Amnesty International say they have a legal right of return. Human Rights Watch say they have a legal right of return. And these are powerful institutions and organizations, that are uncontroversial and trustworthy to the broad public, and therefore a strong tool for those of us who seek to reach a broad public.
If we want to do everything that is in our power for the Palestinian people, to use the means and institutions that are available to us in our countries, to put pressure on the Israeli government and system of oppression, then this is our strongest case: International Law and equal rights. If we go beyond that, we are not trying to reach the broad public anymore. At least not in an effective way.
This solution, that Finkelstein lays out in his pragmatic manners, calls for a two state solution. We can agree or disagree as to whether this is the right solution, and it goes without saying, that I would support any solution that is supported by the Palestinian people, but we have to be realistic about how we can best contribute from the outside, and one thing we can’t do, is to decolonize Israel. Decolonization has to come from within, and the mere idea that decolonization could come from the outside, is a colonial idea in itself which we should be critical about.
I think the best thing we can do is stop GIVING money to Israel (currently $4b+/year) and keep SPENDING money on Israel. This is why I’m against BDS – it’s counterproductive to the long term health of the country. To put it differently – I can think of lots better things to boycott. This will reduce the incentive for instigation of violence and open up space for people to negotiate.
“….the law is completely on our side in this matter. ”
So what? Israel has been flouting international law since its creation 70 years ago. How much longer do the Palestinians have to wait & endure?
“…would mean the end of the state of Israel…”
I still have not heard a fact-based argument as to why a country predicated on racism should not cease to exist as such. Why are the zionists allowed to keep a state run by & for the sole benefit of 1 particular ethnic group at the expense of another ethnic group? Nazi Germany was not allowed to do so, why is Israel exceptional?
“…not in accord with Israel’s legal right to exist as a state…”
As Ben White has pointed out: “No states have a “right to exist”, without exceptions. States come and go, are formed, and broken up. South Sudan was created in 2011. The USSR ceased to exist in 1991. Czechoslovakia became Slovakia and the Czech Republic in 1993.
Nations don’t have rights, people do. So the right of a nation to exist is not an absolute a-priori timeless question – states exist simply because they do. If they get recognized for their existence it is as an a-posteriori matter, exactly the way it happened with Israel. The state of Israel was recognised as such, and remains so today.”
The right of the people in this case is the right to self-determination by the Jewish people, and they have had that right since 14 May 1948. But Israel, which is a zionist state has denied that same right to the Palestinians by subjugation, exploitation, enslavement, incarceration in concentration camps. But the right to self-determination for the Palestinians is never mentioned, even by a Finkelstein.
As for the 2-state solution, Israel’s continued settlement construction has now rendered this option null & void simply because a viable Palestinian state, i.e. politically, economically & militarily independent, is now a physical impossibility. Those who keep callig for a 2-state solution are either completely unaware of the facts on the ground, or are disingenuous in the extreme.
I have difficulty in understanding Finkelstein’s thinking. He says he supports Israel, but talks about Israel’s right to exist without mentioning Palestine’s right to exist. He still talks about the now unfeasible 2-solution, and, although officially supporting BDS, has criticised the movement (no problem there) without suggesting, as far as I know, a way forward to improve the movement.
if politics is about the maximum you can realistically achieve within the existing framework, and the law is that framework, and advocating for something which is on the other side of the law, such as support for an illegal occupation, then according to finkelstein’s theory, aipac and all those pro israel thinktanks have just been talking to themselves for all these years, and we know that is not the case — don’t we?
it’s irrelevant if “the law is completely on our side in this matter” if there is nothing “won” by winning. it does’t matter if the ICJ voted in your favor if there is no action taken supporting that vote. if “the occupation, the siege, the annexation, are illegal under International Law. The settlements are illegal under International Law. The wall is illegal under International Law“ what difference, practically speaking, has a vote on that illegality made? contrary to finkelstein’s allegations, obviously Israel having “a legal right to exist as a state within the pre-June 1967-borders” does not mean Israel has to “withdraw immediately from Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem”, because if it did — israel would have withdrawn from gaza, WB and EJ a long time ago.
there is a difference between “in theory” and reality. the reality is, for pro israel supporters “politics” has always been very much about ‘what they personally want and believe’ and the maximum they have realistically achieved has never been within the existing framework of what’s legal under international law, not that i know of, not ever.
the elite, congress, educational institutions, think tanks, the media, is not “the broad public”. if people were somehow bound by influencing “the broad public” by way of what’s acceptable under international law, the broad public would be all over the map because most of the broad public has no idea what’s legal and what is not and/or is deeply divided over it.
now, imho, the framing of calling for equal rights and ROR being an advocation for “dismantling israel” is an adoption of a zionist narrative. it doesn’t matter if norm thinks one state, in effect, would ‘dismantle israel’. you don’t hear regime change advocates in syria openly advocating for a dismantling of syria even though you know the neocons would like nothing better than chopping syria up into bite size easily controllable territories. so to base a theory on ones own intent using the framing of ones opponent, gives ones opponent the advantage. because words matter.
and i have more to say on this topic, will put it in another comment.
There is a saying – if you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and still a liberal, you have no brain.
It seems that Finkelstein is getting older.
And wiser.
Not wise, but wiser…
Please, the only “something which is on the other side of the law” here, is the cancerous Zionist abomination that has been allowed to take root in Palestine, and which continues to be nurtured by oblivious imbeciles, fondly spewing nonsense on the internet.
You lost all your credibility when you began advocating for ongoing crimes against humanity in Palestine, which is precisely what Zionism is. But yeah, you just keep talking to yourself so you can feel better about that Zionist apartheid in Palestine, and the Zionist genocide of the Palestinians.