Anyone who regularly reads the New York Times surely understands that Nicholas Kristof must be one of the nicest persons in the world. His heart is always in the right place, his values and principles are of the highest, and his intentions are invariably beyond reproach. How come, then, so far as I can see nobody—at least nobody holding real power, anywhere—seems to pay any attention to him? Am I suggesting that his naivete makes much of what he writes irrelevant, a mere wringing of his hands?
Yes. His column in Thursday’s Times, “Leading Through Great Loss,” is classic Kristof, I’m afraid—so ill-informed or naïve about the realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as to border on absurdity.
Here’s a few examples:
*“When militants in Gaza fire rockets at Israel, then Israel has a right to respond, but with some proportionality.” Proportionality is important, but it is not the main problem with Israel’s wars against the Palestinians. While it is a cliché that is repeated by just about everyone (including Obama) that “Of course Israel has a right to defend itself”—sometimes followed, as with Kristof, a “but,” and others with no qualifications at all—it reflects a profound misunderstanding of both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the general principles of the right of self defense. In short, if you are an aggressor, a repressor, an occupier, and your actions lead to desperate acts of resistance, you cannot avail yourself of any right of “self-defense.” Sure, if Israel ended the occupation and repression of the Palestinians but Hamas continued to attack it, then—and only then—it indeed would have the right of self-defense.
*Kristof describes the repeated violations of informal and even formal ceasefires between Hamas and Israel to a pattern of “mutual escalation,” or even more wrong-headedly, to “Hamas extremism and violence after the 2005 Gaza withdrawal.” That is factually false, in several ways. The details are too complicated to go into here, but (1)there was no true Israeli “withdrawal” from Gaza, and (2)even if there had been there was certainly no Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, and (3) Israel has been far more the instigator of the periodic escalations than the innocent responder.
* Kristof writes:
“It’s true that [a two-state peace agreement] is not achievable now, but the aim should be to take steps that make a peace deal possible in 10 years or 20 years….the mutual distrust is so great that it may take years to lay the groundwork, so let’s get started.”
Breathtaking. That’s what innocents have said for the last forty years or so, failing to recognize that the very purpose of Israeli policy is to maintain the occupation and prevent a genuine and fair two-state settlement. Hasn’t Kristof heard of this? Isn’t he aware that the more the Israeli government encourages further Jewish settlement in the West Bank, the more impossible becomes a two-state peace agreement?
Kristof’s general conclusion: “Aggression one side boomerangs and leads to aggression on the other.” It’s all symmetrical and “mutual,” there are no rights and wrongs, there are no painful facts.
Can’t we all just get along?
This post first appeared on Jerome Slater’s site. And Kristof’s column was endorsed yesterday, by E.J. Dionne on National Public Radio.
As’ad AbuKhalil’s reaction to Kristof’s column:
The thing is, Gazans are packed like Sardines into Gaza, a comparably naturally resource-poor area. They are very often refugees from the rest of the state. Isn’t it natural then, Professor Slater, that Gazans would be prone to resistance?
In other words, even if the government was more liberal in the vein of Rabin and J Street, wouldn’t conflict be implicit, stewing beneath the surface, because of the harsh realities of refugee life?
Previously you had proposed a plan of compensated population transfer of Palestinians, moving 80% of them out of Israeli territory. And yet did you consider the possibility that within the 1947 UN lines there may have been enough Israelis that they could still have made a 2 State Solution with a majority of each nationality in each of the two territories, so that a paid removal of the population would be unneeded? Or perhaps the borders could have been redrawn around areas where most Israelis lived like the Jaffa region, so that population removal would be unnecessary?
Thanks also for a good article here on Mondoweiss.
I still see the same pro Israel biases that prevent a true understanding in here.
“When militants in Gaza fire rockets at Israel, then Israel has a right to respond, but with some proportionality” this here is exactly what i mean. it comes with the same heavy handed pro Israel bias we all know and the love. the idea that the palestinians shoot of rockets for the hell of it that Israel is always responding. even though in actuality its the reverse. Israel takes action and the palestinians militant or otherwise respond. it the same refusing to force Israel to be acountable as always which is never going to fix anything
Kristoff has come up with an even worse piece:
https://www.facebook.com/kristof/posts/10152470532472891
I’d really like to see you take on the New York Times editorial today. Kristof is naive and silly, but at least he’s probably well-meaning. I’m not sure I can say that about the NYT editorial that came out today. For instance, the editorial never mentions the blockade or that the lifting of the blockade is part of what Hamas wants and not just Hamas–their own reporters tell of Palestinian relatives of those killed saying that they want the ceasefire to include an end to the blockade.
The editorial wasn’t totally worthless–they did criticize Israel for not trying to work with the unity government. But the way they condemned Hamas violence and implicitly blamed Hamas for Israeli violence, ignored the blockade and made no mention of Israeli violence during ceasefires while emphasizing the rockets–well, it was no better than I expected from them.