-
-
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 1
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 0
- And we live on… 0
- US official — we went to Israel first 3
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 23
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look … 38
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 129
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 110
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
- Annie Robbins: Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and...
- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
- Annie Robbins: GL, urban dictionary has PEP, just no explanation of progressive except for palestine....
- German Lefty: Annie, it looks like you got infected with the Eurovision virus. Great. The more fans, the better. The...
- US official — we went to Israel first (3)
- traintosiberia: OMG! Why I don”t have that Stockholm Syndrome yet! How long do I have to feign that I have it.
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- Carllarc: proof of ‘Israel firsters’, for sure
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (23)
- piotr: How many Jews who made aliya were actual refugees from Roman persecution? Thus the “Jew who taunted...
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (113)
- yourstruly: what was that sound? the special relationship breaking down and the loud and sustained chorus that...
- MHughes976: I’m still a bit uncertain about what R.Brian means by ‘Zionism’: what proposition did...
- yourstruly: given, that the israel’s brutal occupation of palestine is why much of the arab/islamic world hates...
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Today in Palestine
- Annie Robbins
- Alex Kane
- Kate
- Alice Rothchild
- Ahmed Moor
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Isn't there a risk that the movement will fail from not being consistent?
I thought Occupy Wall Street was about fairness, empowerment, and freedom. The name itself ("Occupy" + "Wall Street") appears to telegraph a denunciation of two interrelated forms of domination: military and economic. Wait, military and economic domination, isn't that Palestine's predicament? And isn't Palestine an American issue, with United States power serving as the backbone to Israeli apartheid? What makes this a "niche" issue -- that white people are not afflicted?
On what grounds do you exclude Palestine from a movement calling for justice and people power?
The separation between issues ("economic" vs. "foreign policy") is artificial. The opponents of OWS understand that, and therefore from the beginning defined the movement as anti-Israel despite no official OWS position on the matter. The connection is as simple as: an attack on concentrated power somewhere is a threat to concentrated power everywhere (though of course there are defined interests and specific links involved, as well).
I had been under the impression that the movement was called Occupy Wall Street for a reason.
So his argument boils down to: 'Israel hasn't admitted to racial supremacist goals [whereas South Africa did], therefore it's not apartheid'. The argument is ridiculous of course.
But Goldstone, more than most, should know the premise is also ridiculous. South Africa did not publicly proclaim an intent to "benefit" Whites and "harm" Blacks, but, like Israelis, framed their apartheid system as an issue of constructive 'separation' and mutual 'self-determination' (because 'we can't live together'). It also "agreed in concept to the existence of" Black "states", in fact, SA promoted them as an integral component of its apartheid system.
And the assertion that Israeli leaders don't proclaim the intent to maintain Jewish racial supremacy is only partially true, depending on which of their statements you listen to. They deny practicing apartheid and discrimination, but those denials are belied by their other statements about the "demographic threat" to the "state of the Jewish people" which would "cease to exist" if rightful (non-Jewish) residents returned to their lands. These statements can only be read to mean that Jewish control is an essential feature of the state.
Goldstone is allowing Israel to absolve it's own responsibility for apartheid simply by employing euphemism, while amazingly pretending that South Africa did not try to do the same.
What a fantastic article. I'm thrilled for Mondo to be publishing Simone Daud.
This is an interesting argument, with some compelling points. But I think it only has value if you ignore the deepening of the West Bank settlements.
Ultimately, establishing "Palestinian sovereignty" is self-defeating if that sovereignty can never extend very far beyond the Area A bantustans. With the number of settlers now in the West Bank, their political power, and the rate at which they are increasing, there is no serious prospect of Palestinian sovereignty extending even to the Apartheid Wall borders, let alone the full 1967 borders.
"On balance, however, the second intifada was perhaps even more successful than the first. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and we now have a measure of sovereignty there"
When the author is holding up contemporary Gaza (where Palestinians are arguably more degraded today than anywhere else) as an example of progress, we have reason to doubt whether his argument is sound. What exactly are you trying to achieve if that is your model? Gaza today is not real sovereignty, let alone the fulfillment of all rights. And yet the situation allows Israel to plausibly deny its control and its continuing violation of Palestinian rights.
As far as I can see, the only positive result of this process would be if, after rejection in the UN, the Palestinian leadership proclaimed that the Oslo process had run its course and began developing strategies for achieving equal rights for Palestinians within greater Israel/Palestine.
Palestinians must stop strengthening Israel's position by conforming to the same exclusivist ethno-nationalist ethos that underpins Zionism.
Really interesting "conversation" as far as left-right dynamics in Israel, though. (For a leftie's story, the right comes off as relatively attractive.)
Also, American is right to point out that people can and do find ways to live among their own kind in multicultural (and largely nondiscriminatory) societies. There are endless examples, including some extremely close-knit Jewish communities.
It's not about "giving up" a majority of some kind. (Through more ethnic manipulation, or what?) It's about simply not putting in place barriers to integration and change that violate individual and national (if you believe in such a thing, as Israelis do) rights. No state should be doing that.
"I want the Jewish state to be organized around my group, I assume that they want a Palestinian state to be organized around their group. [...] In the Middle East, there is little to suggest that other arrangements can work."
No. There is nothing to suggest that this arrangement can work. Is there a more fundamentally dysfunctional political situation in the Middle East? In the world? We are talking about more than 100 years of continuous conflict since the advent of ethno-nationalist political organizing.
Instead of putting all this energy into brutally separating people from each other and from land they hold dear, why not work on finding ways to live together based on rights and mutual respect? Fairness is a much more stable basis for political order than sameness.
RoHa said it best, preventive war is aggression plain and simple.
We are not thinking soundly when we require countries to prove a negative in order to escape invasion.
When you say "it seemed like a really bad idea to do nothing," you're illustrating the defect in how you and Keller were thinking about going to war. In your minds, war had become the default option, rather than the last resort. And so 'not initiating a war of conquest' becomes the derogatory 'doing nothing'. Well, there were plenty of better things to do.
Really good point. Even at the time, there were so many people calling out the lies. There was not a consensus. The people who believed the misinformation did so not because it was all they had to go on, or the most credible information available, but because they wanted a war for whatever reason. (In Keller's case the reasons appear to have been largely emotional/hormonal, besides his concern for Israel's interests).
This really galls me. It's like a deflection of responsibility for Keller's and the NYT's role in creating that false consensus, based on dishonest analysis. What would the NYT's value be if it just passively reproduced a pre-existing media consensus? If true that would be damning enough for the institution.
But of course, with a reputation like theirs, we expect them to investigate, gather the best data, and analyze it with a cool head. And that's where they so poisonously failed in the build-up to the war. They bear such a huge responsibility for the catastrophe both because of their outsized reputation, and because of the willfullness of their deception (which Keller all but admits to, without truly apologizing).
I also find it telling that in all this soul-searching and hand-wringing, he doesn't see fit to mention the two most salient facts of the war he's writing about: 1) the number of people killed and maimed, and 2) that it was, strictly speaking, a war of aggression precipitated solely by the United States.
Probably true, if only because the Israeli regime is worse and more influential in Palestinians' lives. It absorbs a bigger share of that anger and makes the PA look better in comparison. (And the PA has its loyal clients, like any autocracy, but probably more so because of the role of foreign aid.)
But ultimately the Arab Spring (especially the Egyptian revolution) showed that anti-Israel, anti-U.S. sentiment can shift quickly from diverting anti-regime energy, to inflaming it once people make the connection between the weakness and spinelessness of their "leaders" and the power that Israel has to abuse them.
I think the point was to describe a unique and idiosyncratic worldview, which incorporates elements that are, in a lot of ways, inconsistent.
But the demonstrators don't accept Palestinians under occupation as "Israelis". Ignoring the occupation does the exact opposite of uniting everyone, it arbitrarily sets one group apart and refuses them justice.
Probably, but that would be no worse than having a tent movement that itself does nothing to end the occupation. Do you imagine that if everybody keeps quiet about occupation for long enough, Israelis will then change their minds spontaneously?
The grim truth that you yourself are getting at, is that there's no political will in Israel to end the occupation or to treat Palestinians as human beings.
You don't seem to grasp that Jews in Israel have created, and are engaged daily in maintaining, a system which privileges themselves over others who share the land. History shows nothing if not that people will infinitely rationalize such endeavors.
Israeli Jews are not going to decide to end the occupation out of concern for "social justice" (they have made it clear that they are only concerned with social justice for Jews). Rather, they are going to end oppression, as all privileged groups have, in response to pressure -- whether it be moral, economic, diplomatic, social, or even military pressure. (I think nonviolent forms will be most effective.)
The best commentary I have read about the tent protests in Israel. Thank you.
Oh man, I really have to watch this whole season.
But, having only watched the clip shown in the previous MW post about the episode, I will say that Larry and Jeff (the characters) are not exactly "perfect gentlemen" or always right about everything. So if they're making ignorant comments about Palestinians, we're not necessarily intended to take those at face value, and I don't think most viewers of the show would. Rather, the satire is more likely aimed at the characters themselves and the mentality they represent.
That would be a fantastic outcome. However, I can't be optimistic about that at all.
It is hard to wrap my head around the idea that someone living in an apartheid society would devote energy to protesting on behalf of bohemians who can't afford apartments in their favorite posh neighborhoods.
If the original post is quoted accurately by Flapola, Goldberg clearly added a clause to the first paragraph as well. After the phrase, It doesn't seem likely, on the surface the clause, if this is jihadist in origin appears in the later version but not in the original.
That's a pretty convenient phrase to sneak in to the post's 'original' section, since it allows him to pretend that he didn't assume "jihadist" responsibility to the exclusion of any alternative (without evidence), when that's exactly what he did.
And how does the later appearance of that phrase square with his explanations (which I frankly couldn't even read)?
The Shatz article, and this post, are incredibly important.
There is a lot of racism in Alterman's article (which of course is supposed to represent a "liberal" and even "pro-Palestinian" point of view), starting with his narrative about the "naive" Ihud not finding a Palestinian partner. As Haber notes, Magnes and Arendt never represented a significant faction within the Jewish community -- they were as politically irrelevent as the few Palestinians who undoubtedly did hold comparable views. Their vision was never a real option that Palestinians could have accepted, declined, or negotiated with. (They were forced to respond instead to the tactics and aims of Haganah, Stern Gang and Irgun, which ultimately determined the fate of the region.) But in Alterman's formulation, there simply were not any Palestinians willing to tolerate an enfranchised Jewish existence in Palestine -- which for him is simply an article of faith, not worth historical questioning or even qualification -- while some Jews (however insignificant politically) remained "naively" tolerant.
More subtle racism comes in his discussion of the need for Palestinian refugees to give up on the Right of Return. He writes:
Alterman insinuates a narrative in which Jewish settlers bring civilization and high culture (in the form of "concert halls", an otherwise bizarre insertion) to a primitive land of "stone huts". Of course in reality, the Palestinians had a rich culture, and much of their finest architecture as well as their library collections were simply stolen during a process of mass expropriation. In most cases the Jewish settlers covered the vacated "stone hut" villages of the countryside with planted forests, not "concert halls".
He offers another slander against Palestinian society while recounting a story which clearly contradicts his characterization:
On what basis does he generalize that way about Palestinian society, when the plain truth that he acknowledges is that Palestinians have not harmed Nusseibeh? Is he referencing the killing of collaborators? (Which should be clearly distinguishable from a matter of simply "saying the unsayable".)
This would make a great letter to the editor. The writer should send it in. (Might as well give it a shot.)
Yes, he should be asked to define that phrase -- "historic position". Truly chilling and Orwellian.
Phil's reaction feels unfair to me. There's no reason that this white, western man's deceit should somehow reflect poorly on the Middle East. I think Seham and Angry Arab got it right. Also maggielorraine's point that this should only encourage us to be more active seeking out authentic Arab voices, and accurate information.
I have to admit that I fell for this story, as well. I think what appealed to me was the explicit linking of an Arab feminist/gay rights agenda with an anti-imperialist one, at a time when so many westerners use women's rights and gay rights to justify brutal military interventions and Israeli domination.
I think this should speak to the seriousness of Ali Abunimah, that even though this hoax 'damages the cause' as Eleanor K puts it, he still worked tirelessly and very effectively to uncover what was true.
Hopefully, he can gain some credibility with the mainstream media, who seem not to take him very seriously despite his incredibly insightful and important work.
To all of this: yes!
And who gets to be an Israeli citizen, es1982? All Jews, and only token Palestinians. It's their land too. That's why it's apartheid, even without the systemic discrimination against the token Palestinian citizens of Israel.
Really jonah? Some Americans will tell you different, and certainly many of them would have a few decades ago.
Racist oppression always has its rationalizations. They are just never valid.
But I like where you are going with this. Maybe you should express these sentiments in a placard of your own. Arabs: worse than Blacks!
This rationalization is plainly not true. Whether they drive on them or not, all Jewish Israelis have access to the settler roads. Only Palestinians don't. It is ethnic privilege and not settler (Israel makes no such distinction) privilege. And the only Jewish Israelis who don't live behind "walls separating them from Arabs" are those settlers living in outposts beyond the Wall.
Fantastic quotes, Shmuel. And your comments are patient and thoughtful as always.
wondering jew, I honestly can't tell if your question is issuing a threat ('because it is an army of and for Jews, the IDF will always block change'), or expressing the feeling of being threatened ('change will leave Jews without an ethnic army and therefore defenseless').
Have you honestly never considered the possibility of an integrated army? Don't you think military integration could be a powerful means of fostering inter-ethnic cooperation and shared purpose? Surely that offers a better vision than perpetual rule by an all-powerful ethnic militia.
Great argument, especially about the inherent problems of the two-state solution.
The two-state solution perpetuates the basic problem of a tremendous power imbalance between ethnic groups in the shared space of Israel/Palestine. Zionist political strategies focus on maintaining exclusive Jewish ethnic control over the heavily armed Israeli state apparatus, which wields, as Haber points out, "effective control" over all of mandate Palestine (no matter where its forces happen to be deployed). Barring a dramatic militarization of the potential Palestinian state, that control (and the accompanying abuses) will continue after any two-state agreement. That militarization would not be possible, but anyway it wouldn't be the best thing for both peoples, who won't live in peace until they accept to live together as equals.
es1982, no need to flatter yourself about being "committed to peace" when you support the suppression of Palestinian human rights.
In reality being committed to peace (whether your prefer one state or two) means being committed to equal rights for Palestinians and Jews as human beings, and as people who are indigenous to the land of Israel/Palestine. From your comments, your first commitment is to ethnic supremacy, not peace.
You mention the example of Uri Davis in passing, almost dismissively. But don't you think his role in the Palestinian national movement (not to mention the lack of controversy around it) sets an important (especially to your question) precedent? (For those not familiar with him: link to haaretz.com
I think an honest analysis would show that Palestinian identity is very inclusive today, and carries the "potential" to incorporate millions of Jews who care about living in Palestine/Israel. But I think your questions do miss the mark, and I hope other people respond to this more fully/capably than I can.
Your questions seem to carry the assumption that in order to create an inclusive state, the oppressed group must first create an inclusive identity (and specifically, "Palestinian") which it can extend to the oppressor. To me that is backward. As the empowered group, Israeli Jews have the power to include and exclude. Zionist ideology and apartheid policies have divided Arabs from Jews, and even Arabs from Arabs. With the dismantling of discriminatory policies and the implementation of all Palestinian rights -- which the Palestinians are demanding -- ethnic harmony and inclusion become possible.
In other words: Palestinians are the excluded group. They are standing up for an inclusive society by standing up for their own rights. To demand more of them is to demand that they be saints. Whether they are saints or not, their movement is the solution, not the problem. ("Sainthood" would obviously be subjective, but if you think that other Israelis would find this important, you might have argued for Palestinian sainthood instead of asking leading questions about it.)
And furthermore, Palestinians needn't necessarily provide an umbrella identity for Jews. The two groups can create one by coming together and negotiating when they are finally political equals. Nor does that umbrella identity necessarily have to be called "Palestinian". "Arab" could be an essential part of "Palestinian" and it wouldn't mean Palestinians and Jews can't live together with equal rights, as citizens of a state which regards them as equals.
I think this article was written in good faith, with good intentions. But I think it unfairly puts Palestinian people who are victims of oppression, as well as the idea of Palestinian identity, on the defensive, when they are not currently major obstacles to coexistence or even potential threats to legitimate Jewish rights in a one-state future. It also unfairly smears Palestinians by 'contextualizing' them as 'another Arab nationality' 'struggling with the concept of secular, inclusive citizenship' when it is clear that nearly all states (including in the 'Enlightened West') struggle with this concept, while Palestinian identity in particular has been built around ideas about the stewardship of diverse holy sites and the unity of diverse religious communities.
I don't have great answers to any of these questions. But for the questions about dissolving the PA, I have a few thoughts and follow-up questions. The writer seems to believe that the dissolution of the PA would be necessary in a one-state campaign. But would it really? It seems unlikely that high-level PA officials would ever give up their salaries/power/status. But if the Palestinian people could make clear that the PA was not legitimate, or at least beside the point of their political goals, could they work around it? In South Africa, the ANC had to work around the various bantustan governments (which few people saw as legitimate), did they not?
Very well said and I agree. I really wish that Obama would highlight this issue as little as possible, and be more transparent about opposing Palestinian freedom. Only bad things can come from this kind of active U.S. involvement -- either the wasting of time and betrayals of Palestinian Authority trust which have taken place thus far, or an imposed "settlement" that sets the Palestinian cause back further. If he wants to make a mark, let him do it in his second term when the political pressures are not as strong. I don't understand why he makes these token gestures of "standing up to Israel" when they just cause him political problems without any hope of accomplishing anything.
My best guess is that these gestures are for the rest of the Arab world's consumption. He doesn't care about Palestinians, or he can't afford to (it's irrelevant which). But he probably does care about restoring America's diplomatic standing in the world, which is an issue he ran on in '08. He sees that it's a pivotal time in the Arab world, and he wants to maintain U.S. credibility in the region as much as possible (a tall task after America's role in Iraq, Mubarak, Bahrain, Palestine, etc.). He wants to be seen as doing something about Palestine, which he hopes non-Palestinian Arabs will consider "good enough" to stave off complete alienation.
The wild optimist in me also wonders whether, if he is intending to make a difference on this issue in a potential second term, he feels that he needs to lay some groundwork so that a more aggressive approach isn't seen as a capricious about-face. I can dream.
But even in that scenario, progress would be unlikely. Palestinians and allies can absolutely not rely on the American political establishment. They must focus on empowering themselves by building a broad and morally compelling movement for justice.
Haha, I was wondering that myself. The idea of "indefensible borders" is so ridiculous. As if the shape or terrain of Israel's borders has any military significance in the age of air power and nuclear weapons!
Can we please do away with this idea that the Nakba was somehow not a bloody process? Massacres, rapes, and death marches were an indispensable tool in encouraging the flight of those Palestinians whom Jewish forces did not expel directly. It was not a campaign of extermination. But it was, precisely, an ethnic cleansing, with all the attendant ugliness and barbarity that the term rightly implies.
Not surprisingly, NPR's news coverage of the protests committed this exact same distortion, defining the Nakba as "about" the creation of Israel and neglecting any mention of the Palestinians' ethnic cleansing, dispossession, or even a blameless "refugee problem".
I don't agree with the honoring. The importance of her career still stands, and she certainly seems to be a friend to the Palestinians, but I don't think she makes a positive contribution on this issue (on politics or principle). Our side needs to stand for the principle of inclusion, and her comments were not in that spirit.
Makes me angry to see my Senator's name on something like this. My letter to Gillibrand:
Thank you for speaking up, Seham! I agree with 100% of what you say on this.
Extremely well-said, Jim. Thank you for making an essential point so concisely.
I think you're right, wj. It's my strong personal opinion that non-violent resistance is the only tactic that will be effective in achieving Palestinian liberation.
What is the point of a condemnation?
We don't even know who committed this act, or why. But all indications point to an individual or small group, with little or no institutional backing. Certainly nothing that could implicate broader Palestinian society, let alone international solidarity activists. What structure that led directly to this atrocity exists for us to change? (Indirectly, of course it's the occupation, which the left and not the right is working to change.)
There is none. There's not even a specific person. What a pointless exercise. Do I have to condemn every child murder in Israel because I comment on Israeli politics? Why? Is there any moral tenet more self-evident than "killing children is wrong"? Who needs to hear that from me, or Phil Weiss for that matter?
But of course there is a point to the "condemnations of those who fail to condemn". It's an exercise of power over Palestinians and over the left, forcing them to divert their energy and (and others' attention) from constructive calls for justice. And in the process tarring the entire Palestinian people, and their demands for justice, by crude association.
At least with settler and IDF violence--which is too common for us to ask anyone to condemn every single instance of it--has an institutional basis which implicates all of us and urgently demands change. I'll continue to try to focus on constructive pursuits, thank you very much.
"Political perspectives change where there are good, plausible and well-articulated alternatives proposed."
In another thread you argue:
But this thread speaks to the fact that there is not consent for partition. So why can perspectives change toward a plan of partition but not toward fairness in a single state?
You talk about a single state as an imposition. But it isn't, it's the current reality--the default. Partition would have to be imposed, by consent that does not now exist, and has not materialized through 20 years of process focused on it.
In obsessing over partition, we lose sight of the real problem, which is not Arabs and Jews living together. The problem is a discriminatory and abusive power structure that engenders conflict. Correcting that is not an "option", subject to the "consent of the governed." Rather, it is a precondition for the expression of consent--an absolute imperative.
And I don't know about you, but I consider equality under the law to be a "good, plausible, and well-articulated alternative" to apartheid discrimination.
Hass' article earned every bit of this critique. It was hurtful, pointless, and reflects poorly on her attitudes and political thought.
Having said that, I would have preferred a more forgiving tone. Yes, she blundered, and revealed some problematic views. But in the big picture Amira Hass is a valuable and very dedicated ally--a person who has shown good faith on countless other occasions.
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 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.
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?
"the majority of the Arab world has never just accepted Israel at 67 borders"
I don't understand how this is not precisely what they did in putting forth the Arab league proposal.
I would guess that Al Jazeera is an important, if not the primary victim of the American networks' overemphasis of the role of internet and social media. Of course they have great reason to fear Al Jazeera, whose reporting would put theirs to shame if it could reach American TV audiences.
eee, you're conflating "political dominance" with dominance in public opinion, in arenas which are very much not democratic. In other words, you're ignoring that a large part of Fatah's and Hamas' "dominance" derives from their guns - especially Fatah with its U.S. sponsorship. And of course those guns are used to repress dissent and reproduce the party's ideas, which complicates matters further. But anyway, this situation is obviously not suited to answering the question of "what do Palestinians think?" by asking "who is in power?".
I agree with Phil that Palestinian opinion is an issue that deserves careful study.
My recollection of past polling is that loyalty to both Fatah and Hamas runs shallow. And that recent numbers show a rise in supporters of one democratic state, though they remain a minority. These are nuanced questions, though, with potential for "1st preference" "2nd preference" "ideal option" "acceptable option" "unacceptable option", etc.
But this is not a matter of omitting anything. Avneri is actually denying the existence and the experience of Palestinian political prisoners, or denying their humanity, when he says that 'Israel does not yet have large numbers of political prisoners'. We may presume that he's simply forgetting them or intentionally omitting them for his audience's sake, but with his language he is actually negating them. And that is simply irresponsible for someone who is, we trust, ultimately concerned with the goal of Palestinian rights.
Oh PLEASE let them run that ad in Seattle. That is too good to be true.
Absolutely agree, annie.
They want this issue to stay under the radar. That's why they didn't already have ads on those buses - it certainly wasn't for lack of money.
I don't get it. How would a potential sex change be related in any way to the leaking of classified documents about U.S. war policy and diplomacy? What would the connection be?
Is this not just a way of casting aspersions on the man's character to conservative-minded readers?
Thank you for pointing this out so clearly, Shmuel. This method of obfuscation runs throughout not just eee's posts, but so much Zionist commentary on I/P.
eee, are you being serious or sarcastic here? I can't tell.
But either way, your presumption that the Israelis are "taking the chance of being blown up" (whether they should or shouldn't) is precisely the problem here. If there were any reason to think these *particular individuals* would hurt someone, then they should not be working at the hotel, and they should be punished accordingly for their actions or plans. But you have no basis for such a suspicion. And no, religion alone cannot be grounds for suspicion, at least in a sane society. That kind of stereotyping is not logical and not fair. In fact it can cut any way you want it to, although it usually hurts the less powerful.
And you seem to think about these actions as mostly reactive, without considering the influence they have. The employee in the interview said he had no strong impressions of Israel. Well, I bet he does now. And he knows he was stereotyped as a Muslim. So these Israelis have given him (whether he takes it or not) the basis for a stronger and more oppositional (towards Israel and related things) Muslim identity. You transgress against people and create enemies for yourself through this kind of insensitivity.
And hey, I'm not going to lie and tell you that I never intuitively generalize in this way or in similar ways. But let's be better than that. Let's not stereotype and marginalize based on legitimate forms of identity.
10 to 20 years from now? I can only hope. Great analysis from Reza Aslan.
Michael, the issue is this: by building the settlements, Israel has in essence annexed the West Bank for its use, without extending the corresponding rights and protections to the Palestinian residents there. In other words, it has arrogated the privileges of annexation (control, utility of land and other resources), without assuming the responsibilities to the native residents (political enfranchisement, security, welfare).
As long as Israel persists in this policy, it remains the Palestinian prerogative to demand recognition within the Israeli state that has imposed itself on them. And, having imposed this relationship in the first place, Israel can rightfully sever it only at the request of the Palestinian people (without consent, this amounts to ethnic cleansing).
For the time being, that may indeed be their request. But, as this article stresses, Palestinians MUST be asked, democratically. And Israel must respect their self-determination as well as their basic human rights.
If Israel is not willing to assume responsibility for 3.5 million Palestinian residents of the OT, then it erred badly in choosing (for over 40 years, and counting) to do just that!
Speaking of Haim Saban's busy schedule, did anyone catch him on Larry King last night following Salam Fayyad and Ehud Barak? His "debate partner" was a man I'd never heard of, but who might be best described as "Haim Saban's Palestinian BFF". There were so many warm feelings and so many pats on the back that I almost forgot about ongoing apartheid, siege, and ethnic cleansing.
What a disgusting charade.
What a monumental insult to treat such quislings as "representatives" of the Palestinian people.
Honestly I'm not sure what to think about this. But I find it interesting that Phil and regular commenters here are quick to condemn (if offhandedly) the Jordanian owner's actions. Angry Arab endorsed them.
I mean, to be clear, this discrimination is not really racial as it regards Israeli nationality as the relevant characteristic (with a likely exception for Israeli Arab citizens). This is not a boycott of Jews, but of the oppressor class of Israelis. Is that not in the spirit of BDS? Is it incumbent upon Arabs and others in solidarity to not only allow Israeli tourists to romp anywhere they please (while Israel cages its Palestinians), but to serve them enthusiastically?
Of course every individual Israeli is not fully responsible for her state's actions. But might the pressure on Israeli society be worth the risk of (mild and essentially passive) punishment of undeserving individuals?
To me this seems like an interesting issue of defining the scope and limits of BDS, and also about individual and collective responsibility. Again I'm not sure what I think about this and I would be interested to hear more peoples' arguments.
As to HRW's role: I am not surprised to see them put this out after all the flak they've taken from pro-Israel groups (and likely also pro-Israel donors). They must feel that they have to throw a bone to those people. Of course it is not proportionate, and David Samel's point that they could spend all their time documenting and condemning similar and worse humiliations of Palestinian citizens of Israel (but don't) is well taken.
Wow, thank you Steve for this important reflection on your personal transformation. This is the kind of piece that really has the potential to change minds in the Jewish community, because it comes from a place of sympathy and understanding, and it traces the steps that they must take. I truly hope you can get a wide audience for this message.
With all due respect clencher, I strongly disagree. The "diversity of Zionism" argument has a grain of truth to it, but is ultimately contradictory.
In the year 2010, people who identify themselves as Zionists, almost universally, do so in reference to a specific definition of Zionism. And, as I'm sure you know, that definition goes something like this: "a belief in the necessity of a Jewish State in the land of Palestine/Israel". The term "Jewish State" meaning, to examine it more closely, this: "a state with a Jewish majority population, and/or one which is under the political control of its Jewish population."
The term Zionism can't mean something, and nothing (or everything), at the same time. It has a meaning. In common usage, it is a euphemism for Jewish-supremacism.
And it is the central idea that demands ethnic cleansing and subjugation of Palestinians. All oppression, and most conflict in Israel/Palestine flows directly from this idea. (It is the reason that "liberal Zionists" still oppose equal Palestinian rights and are basically supporters of apartheid.)
You are right that there have been conceptions of Zionism that were fundamentally different from the current usage, and in the future the term itself could come to mean something else entirely. But right now, it is the term by which millions of people swear allegiance to apartheid.
And you can't simply separate ideas and institutions. The institutions serve the idea. You have to change them both. If your institutions are created with and animated by the purpose of ensuring the political supremacy of Jews, they cannot be fair institutions.
What I think we agree on, is the importance of not being shrill, and making genuine efforts to persuade and appeal to everybody in the name of justice and equality.
The personal convictions that may or may not be in play here are simply insignificant next to the political imperatives on this issue, determined by the Christian right and the Jewish Israel lobby.
Phil's larger point has merit, of course. But I'm not convinced Cantor's personal Jewishness has any importance here. Ask yourself this question: would any other (non-Jewish) Republican in his place say differently?
I salute this act of everyday heroism. Even as you describe being nervous and flustered, the arguments you managed on the spot were impeccable. And you seized perfectly on his softball about "knowing what apartheid looks like".
You may not have changed his mind by yourself, but actions like this can't fail to have an effect. Especially the more common they become. I'll admit that I've shied away from a couple of chances to say something to Chuck Schumer (if only a gentle nudge like "stick up for the Palestinians once in a while") when he was out shaking hands.
Such an important (and liberating!) statement about Palestinian politics.
It's time to make clear that any Palestinian collaboration with the goal of Jewish supremacy is self-defeating. Don't hand them your rights on a platter! Eyes on the prize: freedom and equality -- not "state-ish-ness".
Richard, your argument about the intifadas badly misses the point. "But with full citizenship" is not a phrase that can be bracketed at all, let alone as a bridge that lumps together in one category ("integration") the one-state ideal and the pre-Oslo occupation.
Don't you get that that concept, "full citizenship", has more importance?
Or that the Palestinians' status under occupation was never one of "partial" citizenship, but rather complete subjection to arbitrary authority? (No rights, no accountability = "zero" meaningful citizenship.)
And you misinterpret history in several other ways. First, you don't seem to understand that Palestinians did not experience their history backwards. Which is to say they could not have experienced their status in 1986 as progress relative to a bleaker future. They experienced it as the persistence of raw oppression, which they sought to end in whatever way they could.
Second, you don't seem to appreciate the degree to which Israel, through its superior force, has dictated the direction of the Palestinian struggle. As I said, Palestinians have sought to improve their status by whatever path possible. And those possibilities have always depended, more than anything, on Israel's bottom line - which has always been about Jewish political monopoly in a state on most of Greater Israel/Palestine. Therefore, at a stage when settlements were smaller and fewer, West Bank autonomy seemed far more attainable than any kind of secular or Arab-nationalist Greater Palestine. That accurate interpretation of Israel's position spawned the demand for Palestinian statehood -- which was really a painful pre-negotiated compromise (and for many a selling-out of their rights), rather than the articulation of an ideal -- for the sake of ending Israeli soldiers' daily tyranny over Palestinian lives. Palestinians are reviving the single state vision today not out of fickleness, but because Israel has closed off the possibility of West Bank separation (belying its cruel and tantalizing official statements), through relentless colonization. (And another factor is the re-assertion of Palestinian citizens of Israel in the Palestinian movement, fueled in part by their growing marginalization in the state since the 2nd intifada.)
Especially after reading about the madness and paranoid bigotry on the rise in our media, it is so heartening to see that there is still at least some room left in it for voices as wise as Ahmed's.
100% in agreement. As always, Ahmed is a voice of impeccable reason and humanity.
Seham, my heart sinks when I read the story of your father. All I can say is that, despite the lecturing attitude of some other commenters, I think you demonstrate incredible grace.
And compiling records of apartheid's daily tragedies and outrages is both a valuable and monumental task. I truly appreciate your contributions to this site.
I have often wondered about the proper meaning of the adjective "Jewish" in that phrase, "The Jewish State." To my ears, Zionists often use it to mean "Jewish-ruled", sometimes "Jewish-majority", and sometimes both. It is clear that for Gadi Taub, a "Jewish" state means a Jewish-ruled state.
Oh man, her thinking is so fascistic. Tolerance, democracy, human rights count for little in her world. What matters is culture, religion, presumably ethnicity (for most of her readers at least). Her prescription is a belligerent defense of those things - universal principles be damned. That's why her alignment would include people like the tea party, the minaret-banning Swiss, Turkish generals, Mubarak, Israel, etc.
She can't end the piece without contradicting her argument. She wants to point out that Saudi PR has had an impact, and that "we" should try harder to counteract it. But how could PR really matter in a civilizational conflict? If what you want is to fight, and along lines of culture/heritage, then you have nothing to offer the other side. For meaningful PR you would need to have a message of universal values - which she doesn't just ignore, but specifically belittles.
What she and her followers miss is not only that the "West" can't advance its cause without a steadfast commitment to universal principles, but that the very concept of "the West" is morally worthless without that commitment. (Not to say that it's ever a helpful paradigm.)
It's tragic that Americans have more power over the lives of your people than they have themselves. But that being the case, it's fortunate for them that you are here! Even without voting, you can do a lot to advance the Palestinian cause (BDS!) and spread the message to empowered people. In America our dialogue needs more Palestinian voices, and I am glad to read yours here.
Intelligent thoughts.
Ann Jones has a related piece in the Nation with some clarifications of the first woman's story. link to thenation.com
Haha, exactly. These claims are always laughable and it is only ever Israel apologists who make them.
How stupid are you? "The attacks directed at civilians were directed solely at civilians." Thanks for that tautology.
Here's another one: "the attacks directed at soldiers were directed solely at soldiers." Do you like this one? "The Israeli attacks directed at civilians were directed solely at civilians."
Or did you manage to convince yourself that Hamas didn't fire a shot at an Israeli soldier through the entire intifada?
I really have no concept of what you are talking about. Hamas should declare that they accept foreign capital? Why wouldn't they? Foreign capital in Gaza would be nice, had Israel not completely shut down that possibility. It doesn't matter one bit what Hamas says.
And I thought you were an old leftie. Are you saying you admire the politics of an autocratic slave society? Are dictatorship and slavery part of "cosmopolitan relations"?
More lies and nonsense.
Oh, so they withdrew an ambassador? What an Orwellian euphemism for stealing tax revenue, blockading (an act of war), and heavily bombing a trapped population.
"Directed solely at civilians" is a lie and you know it. And what's more, you throw fits about comparable hyperbole from the other side. "Committed to permanent war" is not true in the present, but I'm not sure what the case was 4-5 years ago.
And do you really pretend that Israeli governments have never included war criminals? Are Palestinians bound on principle to fight them to the end, or would you consider that stance to be "counterproductive" or "extremist"?
Where are you getting this? Hamas went to war with Fatah when they discovered Fatah planning a coup against them with the Americans. Another blatant lie.
Not much substance in the rest, so we'll just file that under nonsense.
What are you saying?
Ugh, I can't believe Friedman has the gall to write this bullshit.
Does he think it's possible to develop a "Dubai" without the ability to import or export? Without access to the ocean? (And, for that matter, without South Asian slave labor?) You would think international trade, a "luxury" Israel has denied Gaza since months after "disengaging", has maybe a little bit to do with Dubai's prosperity?
And how is the analogy even relevant? Dubai is a dictatorship. Gazans want freedom, not skyscrapers. Will Israel only start treating Gazans like human beings once they build an absurdly wealthy emirate?
I think I get what he's trying to do here, though. Obviously he's dismissing Israeli responsibility for Gaza's hardships. But he uses Dubai in order to convey the idea that Gaza, despite its tinyness, could be viable on its own. He is quite satisfied with Gaza's isolation, and has no interest in a Gaza that is part of Palestine, let alone joined with Israel proper in a secular democracy.
Just a couple more questions, WJ.
How would you go about convincing someone that only a "manageable" number of Jews are "bloodthirsty"? Would you like being asked that, and would it be fair to ask?
And what if the power relations were completely reversed? You seem to be taking them for granted, sliding into "might makes right" thinking (or not caring about "right").
Would you accept the Palestinians' end of the two-state deal - a non-militarized state on 22% of your homeland, and indefinite exclusion from and discrimination in the rest of it? Or would you prefer to work toward a single state based on equality where Jews could live freely throughout their homeland?
To me, the notion that you can sustain ethnocracy and discrimination long term is pie in the sky.
And to explain a little further my point about stereotyping:
Your use of Nasrallah or NY demonstrators to tar Palestinians is merely a sloppier form of stereotyping than using Hamas to justify institutional discrimination in Israel, or the denial of some octogenarian Palestinian woman's right to return to her native land.
I think there was more you could've addressed. But I want to say that I am pointing out the irrationality, unfairness, and basic racism of your demands not to win an argument or make you feel bad, but because I really hope you will contemplate these things. Irrational fears may be normal, but I believe we all have the capacity to overcome them with listening and soul-searching.
Again, I hope you can come to see that people who aren't Palestinian - Nasrallah or "pro Palestinian demonstrators in NY" (who apparently weren't antisemitic themselves) - should not in any way reflect on the views and character of the Palestinian people.
But furthermore, Israel was founded on the notion of liberal democracy - with the primary qualification that Jews always maintain dominance and/or/ majority status. Liberal democracy means a democratic state with an equal set of basic rights for all its subjects. That means no individual can be held accountable for actions he did not personally commit, regardless of any shared ethnicity, sex, personality, etc. (This is likely your stance for Jews and Americans.) This applies to your thinking as much as it does to the "Jewish character" of the Israeli state (which contradicts the concept of liberal democracy). When you mentally associate the actions of some Palestinians (however reprehensible) with all Palestinians, you are engaging in stereotyping. When you act on that stereotype by punishing or denying rights to innocent Palestinians, that becomes collective punishment. (Violence targeting civilians belongs in this same category.)
(And if you really want to stereotype there are mountains of examples of Palestinian tolerance, and very few ideological supporters of Hamas, which itself includes reasonably tolerant individuals if you read their statements.)
What I'm getting at is, it simply is not up to you or anyone else to decide that any state be "for the Jews". And when you do so in a place where others live, you sow conflict. In the same breath, it is not up to anyone to decide that the country be "for Arabs" and Jews must leave. That is the true and equal compromise that will end this conflict, one state or two.
We are obligated to work for what is right and just, no matter what. Especially when we already well know the suffering that injustice produces.
You are not wrong to see some good in the legacy of political Zionists - especially in the seeds of liberal democracy. If you have any obligation to them, you should build on what they did right, not uphold where they were wrong. Yes Jewish people need a country where they feel at home and protected - you should work for that. But, crucially, no ethnic group is entitled to supremacy.
Wondering Jew, your views are not only "paranoid", but irrational. If the Palestinians are truly "bloodthirsty" as you believe, why would a two-state solution protect you? It does not rid Israel proper, or its region, of Palestinians. And if you believe that Palestinian citizens of Israel are different and less "bloodthirsty" than others, why would that be the case? Are they bred differently, or is it because they enjoy more rights than their brothers and sisters under occupation and in exile? The "nightmare" civil war scenario you fear has been the reality without a one-state solution, and with a strict separation of Israel proper and the OT. Except where the two peoples actually live together under the same institutions! (Despite systematic discrimination.)
And if you believe Palestinians to be bloodthirsty, how exactly are they supposed to prove you wrong? Is it possible? Why should the burden of proof be on them, rather than Jews/Israelis who have killed far more Palestinians than vice versa? And why should a people's basic human rights, like civic equality, ever be contingent on such a proof?
I am not sure it would be possible with you, because you have shown to consistently ignore the reasons Palestinians give for their own violence (far less substantial than Israel's in the first place). Both sides fight for their "security", but only the Palestinians fight against imposed injustice. Your point of view sees Palestinian violence as completely disconnected from any concerns about justice -- against all logic and humanism. That's why you think you can have security without addressing Palestinian concerns (which are non-exclusive, unlike the demand for Jewish supremacy) like Right of Return, civic equality, and right to security. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that greater justice and equality increases the chance for real peace and coexistence? Even if a one-state solution doesn't "work" to your satisfaction, any other arrangement faces worse prospects because it would ignore Palestinians' reasonable desire for equality, shutting them off from the bulk of their country in powerless glorified bantustans.
And why does Nasrallah inform your prejudices about Palestinians? You must admit the illogic of that, at least.
And I think it's a mistake to use the settlers as barometers of "wrongness". In this case, I can believe that many would be willing to compromise their views regarding supremacy for the sake of "their" land - in the face of real hardship. They may not exactly become enlightened, but they may have a role to play in undermining the sturdier apartheid of the left.
potsherd, I will say that there are no guarantees in any strategy. But, if Israel did proceed to "seize the rest" as you say, they put themselves in a position where ethnic domination is much more difficult to sustain. It is simply harder to deny rights to a larger group of people.
If they give Palestinians the vote, they undermine Jewish electoral control. If they annex and don't give the vote, they do immense damage to their international standing (and perhaps their domestic one, as it would stretch some Israeli consciences too far). (Unfortunately the pretense of separation and future statehood is more effective than it should be at shielding Israel from criticism.)
Just like apartheid sought legitimacy through the pretense of "black homelands", Israel does the same thing with the Palestinian Authority and the "two-state solution". It's a veil for domination. And the more transparent it becomes, the less sustainable that domination becomes.
Avi: So does that mean that Israel discriminates against the disabled in this same way? And how about older people who make aliyah, do they face the same problems?
This strikes me as a little harsh on Krugman. His economic analyses are invaluable, and so brilliant that I buy the idea that he doesn't have much energy to give to other issues.
And on this, I thought he made his point well. It's an important point. Although Phil is right that the Jewish interest angle (perpetrator's perspective) is way over-covered on these questions, as opposed to the primary "victim's" angle. (We saw this with the flotilla, outrage not that people - Muslims after all - were being killed, but that Israel was damaging its own image.)
But people needn't be surprised by this behavior from the ADL. Far from being some sort of anti-bigotry organization, they have long been a full-on hate group.
Great statement, one of the most effective I've read.
Even if the Arens plan is all the Palestinians get in the near future (more Palestinian voters can't bring about further change), we're talking about a change in status for 2.5 million Palestinians in which they would gain: the right to vote, the right to due process, the right to travel (and live in any part of Palestine), freedom of speech, true civilian rule. Even if not perfect in any of these areas, citizenship is a huge status and quality of life improvement for subjects of occupation.
I'm sure Palestinians can easily see that, and also recognize the opportunity for a foothold to achieve further progress and empowerment.
Anybody have a link to the actual poll? I would be interested to see the exact wording. And was it just a poll of website visitors?
The remarkable thing about this, in my view, is that presumably this was not a question about the one state solution, but about the Arens proposal to annex the West Bank. So even without Gaza, Right of Return, official binationalism and equality, 56% of respondents still judged it desirable. That's huge. It shows that people are not just open to the ideal of one state, but are actually eager to start down the political path toward that goal. (Although the nature of the sample might undermine the poll's significance.)
Regardless of how meaningful this poll is, I think it's clear that the one-state solution is growing more popular with Palestinians. This earlier poll, also reported by Ma'an, shows as much: link to maannews.net
Very helpful, thanks Citizen.
How did things get better in South Africa?
Maybe Israelis give up Zionism -- or start down that path, which is how I see these right wing proposals -- in exchange for peace, legitimacy, AND territory. That's the trump card of the one-state solution, and it appeals to the settlers more than any other Israelis. And the beauty of it is that the Palestinians can offer more territory in this way, without sacrificing anything. Indeed they also gain territory: the remaining 78% of Palestine which would be open to them without restriction, for the first time since 1948.
The non-Jewish vote is irrelevant now. Because it's a minority by design -- by ethnic cleansing. It's not that the votes are not counted. It's that they are ignored. 4-3 million votes (and 3-4 times the Knesset seats) are harder to ignore than 1 million.
From the Noam Sheizaf article in Ha'aretz:
Uri Elitzur, former chairman of the Yesha Council of Settlements and Netanyahu's bureau chief in his first term as prime minister, last year published an article in the settlers' journal Nekuda calling for the onset of a process, at the conclusion of which the Palestinians will have "a blue ID card [like Israelis], yellow license plates [like Israelis], National Insurance and the right to vote for the Knesset."
Moshe Arens: Therefore, I say that we can look at another option: for Israel to apply its law to Judea and Samaria and grant citizenship to 1.5 million Palestinians."
We are in agreement about the need for withdrawing US support and full BDS. But I don't see where the comparison to South Africa comes in here at all. In South Africa, Blacks could not vote, period. There and in Palestine (and in the American South), the denial of voting rights plays a huge part in the disenfranchisement of the targeted minority.
These right wingers are actually advocating giving millions more Palestinians the vote in Israeli elections, on the government that holds the real power. Unless I missed the part where they said, 'just kidding, let's do away with democracy'? They're not for full equal rights yet, but by and large they're not equivocating on voting rights, let alone threatening them.
I think we need to be careful of getting too invested in a demonization of the Israeli right (or of anyone for that matter). Is it possible that they are animated by anything more than a hatred of Palestinians? I see them as genuinely scared of partition for the sake of the settlers, who are, after all, their major constituency. The settlers face being uprooted and having their communities scattered in a two-state solution. I can see why their leaders might offer concessions to Palestinian rights to avoid such a fate for themselves and their supporters.
I don't know if our movement can afford to miss opportunities like this where there is a genuine (if partial) convergence of interests.
I don't see your logic. Do you think Palestinian citizens of Israel would enjoy better status as a voting bloc of one million, or as one of 4-6 million? The one-state solution is really the only one that attempts to address their rights and interests.
Has Mondoweiss given any coverage to the Bernard Avishai piece in The Nation arguing against BDS? Seems like that might be an important thing to critique seeing as it appeared in the print edition.
It seems to me that almost everyone does this, including us when we say "95% of Israelis supported the Gaza massacre". (Though that might be an unstated acknowledgement of Palestinian-Israelis' disenfranchised status - they are not really "Israelis" in the sense of having power and participating fully.) While not included in Israeli opinion polls, I certainly never hear their views in surveys of Palestinians which usually only apply to the OT if not just the West Bank. The thinking that Palestinian-Israelis' opinions don't matter is disturbing, and a barrier to progress.
By that phrase I didn't mean to refer to her vision of one-state, but the standard "leftist" "Abunimah-style" vision that many of us here support.
Sorry to keep replying to myself, but I'm also excited by the idea that these people might have the nationalist (one could say "pro-Jewish") credentials to really move the opinions of ordinary Israelis. Which is fitting in that I see the one-state idea as simultaneously the most pro-Palestinian and pro-Jewish model. It's about maximum rights on maximum land, for both.
Don't the one-state left and even the Palestinians need to make common cause with these people? They are far from perfect. They support discriminatory symbols. But voting rights, habeas corpus, property rights: those are not small matters. And they would be tangible tools for greater Palestinian assertion. And greater reconciliation!
I should say, mix that territorial maximalism with just a drop of humanity (which Hotovely appears to have), and you get the one-state solution. At least, a formally single-state apartheid is far less tenable than the current situation of "pending" (read with maximum sarcasm) Palestinian statehood, negotiations, and the ambiguous status of the PA and Gaza.
The Hotovely quote is absolutely brilliant stuff. The analysis is spot-on. I can't even find any of it objectionable. (I interpret "our right to the land of Israel" as the right to "live in" rather than "control without regard to others".)
Although her assignment of blame entirely to the "left" is inaccurate and political. Isn't she mostly talking about the disengagement policies of Sharon? He is hardly a figure of the left. These are mostly policies from the center, with a lot of support on both left and right.
It's crazy, but the Palestinians' best hopes for liberation seem to lay in the Israeli right's territorial maximalism. They can't accept a loss of even a minority of their territory in exchange for an apartheid the entire world would sign on to. I must read Sheizaf on this.
I like the format of this post. This kind of instant probing and discussion can help the author better make his point and address the concerns of readers.
This is what I don't understand. Why is the Palestinian right of return considered so "complex" and "difficult", when a parallel Jewish right of return has been granted quite straightforwardly in Israel's Law of Return? What is so wrong about applying the same model for Palestinian ROR? Is that not the obvious starting point?
And it seems to me that for Palestinians, issues of compensation for property and facilitation of repatriation are quite secondary to the simple right to live in their country. In other words, most of the problem is solved simply by dropping the legal prohibition of Palestinian return. I am not Palestinian so my words to this effect are in no way definitive. But it seems to me that they want to know first of all that, if they care enough to return to their land of origin or that of their parents, they won't be denied entry or thrown out. (And by armed people who are themselves the products of recent immigration.)
(Of course, fairness dictates that Palestinians be compensated for property seized from them or from ancestors, and that their choice to repatriate be supported by public services. And I don't think many people would demand the dispossession of Jewish families residing on property seized in the Nakba. That seizure of property is primarily the state's responsibility, and therefore so would be the duty to compensate victims.)
Count me as one who basically agrees with Slater's thesis that Obama has no room to change course on this issue at all, let alone to a satisfactory degree.
But I'd like to ask Mr. Slater, would there be any hope if Obama were to win a second term? Is there any potential for him to gain more leeway to deal with this issue?
How about supporting the right of everyone who wants to live in Palestine, to live there? Why would Jews' wishes to that effect be considered superior?
Also, love "devilish" to describe David Villa.
I like playing the two equally but good luck ever finding a pick-up soccer game.
I think Phil's absolutely right that there is a class dimension to this. In my experience, most of soccer's popularity is based in the suburbs (especially blue state) and in people of recent immigrant stock. So "foreign" and "suburban" are soccer's main cultural associations here. Whereas football and basketball have a much stronger "blue collar" association and appeal, basketball is the universal urban and African-American sport, and NASCAR is most closely associated with the country and the South. Whether any of this helps or hurts U.S. soccer I have no idea.
But even though a huge number of American youth play soccer, it's still not close to being the country's universal or even #1 sport. In spectator popularity it's 4th or 5th at best, behind football, baseball, basketball, NASCAR and probably hockey. That's gotta be the main reason the US team could lose to Ghana or have trouble against Slovenia. Americans just don't play the game in the same numbers or with the same dedication of most other countries. Even if soccer's growing more popular, America's sporting energies are always going to be divided.
And soccer's institutional growth hasn't fostered a corresponding cultural prominence. Not sure why. But personally, I haven't been drawn much toward soccer as a spectator, even though it was my primary sport through middle and high school. I usually get into the World Cup, but otherwise prefer to watch basketball.
The Uruguayan "with the hair" has to be Diego Forlán. Can't miss his beautiful blonde locks.
What is the harm in letting all the people who want to live there, live there?
It seems to me that the conflict arises out of attempts to either keep people out, or kick them out.
The assertion that any Palestinian has the right to return to Israel on the basis that an ancestor was Palestinian (not necessarily residing in Israel), and irregardless of inter-marriage even between families some from within the jurisdiction of Israel and the West Bank, or Jordan, or Lebanon, or France, is extra-legal. [...] An application injustice as much as an application of justice, for an opportunist ethnically defined political end. [...] Its really a form of non-acceptance: Non-acceptance of the present in favor of a falsely romanticized past
You make my head spin, Richard. How could this not be a devastating attack on the Jewish Law of Return and on historical Jewish immigration to Palestine?
Wouldn't the best and most humane compromise involve a Jewish and Palestinian national/ethnic right to live in Palestine/Israel?
As usual, another important contribution from Ahmed Moor. I especially appreciate his insights on the nature of Palestinian nationalism and how it relates to one-state proposals.
Also, he is dead on with this: "Your society has engineered our mutual dependence and intertwined existence.". Palestinians are not for Israel to use and discard as it pleases. They alone have the right to decide whether their political future involves integration or separation from Israel.
I'm with you Phil. Knowing that Algeria represented the hopes of Africa and the Arab World (including the Palestinians in Gaza who I read were pulling for Algeria) I had to root for them. But 2 wrongly disqualified goals in 3 games is just unheard of. And Ghana has been my team from the beginning, so of course I will be rooting for them to triumph over the US (my country) for the second straight World Cup.
I agree with Fowke's argument about Israel not feeling "foreign". Especially as an American, with all the aid and collaboration and the close relationship. As an American I do have a role in Israeli politics, and their politics affect me by association (as Phil and others have argued).
And this is why the anti-semitism accusation sounds especially ridiculous to me. Not only do I not hate Jews, the same as I don't hate other racial or religious groups, but on a subconscious level I don't even experience them as an "other". The Jewish-Americans I have known seem to share, almost entirely, my experiences as a White person in America. That's not to say that they really do, or that I understand their experience. Just that I don't perceive a difference beyond the surface label, so there couldn't even be any basis for hatred.
But Fowke only touches on some of the relevant arguments here. For me, I think I find satisfaction in the contentiousness of the issue. Palestine solidarity is not charity. It's not something that everyone will support, and the only real task is motivating people to do good. It requires an argument about what is good. It is an issue of oppression, in which people actively defend the immiseration of others. And moreover, many of those people are around me and play an important role in my society. And of course I'm not just talking about Jews here. Huge numbers of evangelicals, and probably 3/4 of our national politicians defend this oppression.
So there is the issue of my responsibility, the "fix your own house first" argument, which is huge for me. Israel policy is a huge part of American foreign policy. (If we cut ties, our responsibility would be less clear and direct; it would be more of a puzzle, similar to "what do we do about North Korea?" or "how can Americans best support Iranian freedom?") But also it's a truly political issue, not a matter of charity, which appeals to me.
And there are ways in which Israeli oppression is unique, even if it is not the cruelest in today's world. It is, I would say, the only remaining clear-cut apartheid regime. And it has endured for a really long time.
Danaa I was recently thrilled and amazed to see that HuffPo has started publishing Ahmed Moor.
On the other hand, did anyone happen to glance at the editorial page for the USA Today today? It just goes without comment that a major paper would devote half-a-page to a "debate" between a fanatical arch-Zionist (in this case, Cal Thomas) and a "moderate" Zionist (some weasely Democrat), in which they reinforce a "consensus" that writes off Palestinian human rights.
Meanwhile I can't even get a letter printed in my local alternative newspaper. We have a little celebration on Mondoweiss any time we manage to get a good piece in the LA Times.
(Besides, of course, the smear attacks against Khalidi during the presidential campaign.)
Are you sure Ali Abunimah has been printed in the Times?
And I don't think you're being realistic comparing Michael Oren and Rashid Khalidi. Oren recently got about a half hour to himself on NPR. That's more public exposure than Khalidi's probably gotten in his life.
I found this piece to be the most persuasive yet. In particle, Mr. Yassin-Kassab makes two crucial points: (1) non-violent resistance must be visible, and is not effective when it fails to draw attention, and (2), historically non-violent resistance has often been effective in combination with militant resistance by others working toward the same goal.
However, I think Mr. Bromwich raised a point which still stands, in saying that there is no total separation between the means and the goals of a movement. Principles are useless without power, but the reverse is also true in a sense. No one benefits from a movement that consistently elevates the pursuit of power over adherence to principle. (And of course adherence to principle is by no means always a strategic liability in the pursuit of power, as so many nonviolent leaders have shown.)
For that reason I think it is important for the main thrust of the Palestinian liberation movement to remain a non-violent one, even if it is inevitable, helpful, and even crucial that others struggle violently.
I agree, and would note that I'm pretty sure all 4 of the authors who have weighed in on this would argue strongly in favor of nonviolent resistance as the best strategy for achieving Palestinian freedom.
Is he fudging here? What 15 specifically could he be referring to?
Wow, I had not seen this group before. Their advisory board is the cream of the crop. Makes me proud to call myself a "one-stater".
It's not clear to me how a more open immigration policy could be described as a "despicable practice" (by a non-xenophobe). I hope my use of the term "immigration" is not misconstrued, I did not use it to suggest any lack of legitimacy. I accept that "return" is the appropriate phrase for even foreign-born Palestinians.
But, why would that not be the case for Jews as well? For anyone not born there, the concept of homeland is not an objective, physical status. It is a mental connection. Yes Palestinians in most cases have a more recent family connection to the physical land. But at what point does one lose a homeland? How many generations does it take to be considered an immigrant in the pejorative sense?
There is no possible categorical distinction between people who consider a place they have never lived to be their "homeland". At most, there is a difference of degree in the number of generations removed, which obviously does not have a strict correlation with the strength of attachment. If you want to set a boundary in there (5 generations?), you would be doing so arbitrarily in a way that clearly hurts one group. We may argue that 2nd or 3rd generation Palestinian refugees are not absent by choice, but by acts of force. But Jews will argue the same thing about the period prior to 1948.
If you want to suggest that there be no ethnic or origin-based criteria for immigration, and that it be unlimited for everyone, I would agree with you on that. But that is a pretty utopian concept in today's world; I'm not sure if it is practiced by any country. There are less controversial and more urgent issues to be resolved.
And simply, given a political framework of equality, what is the harm in allowing in more people? Shouldn't this be an easy concession to make in order to end a century of violence and domination?
wondering jew, I disagree on maybe one or two points but overall this is a very open-minded and realistic post. I don't think melka is giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
There is some Israeli interest in an annexation of the West Bank (although its hardly the dominant view), which would improve the political and overall status of West Bank Palestinians at least. And I agree that Fatah may be wedded to the idea of partition due to power calculations. They see more power and perhaps more leeway to exploit that power as the indefinite ruling party of a quasi-state, vs. as one of several political parties in a unified Palestine/Israel. (Remember that their current hold on power is derived to a large extent from undemocratic, repressive methods that may not be available in a stable democracy.) That to me would explain why they can't talk about the one-state option, except as a weak bluff.
I disagree that Palestinian immigration should somehow be tied to Jewish immigration. You are correct that the right of Jewish immigration is non-negotiable for most Israeli Jews. It is just as important for Palestinians--only less attainable because of the power imbalance. Immigration should be unlimited for both groups. Both should have the right in live in and participate in the life of their homeland.
I think Ben is right that people should begin to imagine the one-state solution in more concrete ways. And I appreciate that he has done so here.
But I want to comment on his proposal for a 20-year ban on immigration. While that would be a non-discriminatory policy on its face, the implications for Jews and Palestinians would be profoundly different in light of the history and policies leading up to it. For Jews, it would represent a temporary suspension of unlimited immigration. For Palestinians, it would represent the upholding of ethnic cleansing and race-based exclusion. Why should Palestinians have to wait 20 years for their first chance ever to participate in the life of their homeland?
And for that matter, why should Jews have to wait 20 years to have that chance again? This is a policy that not only discriminates in practice, but hurts both groups, where the advantage of the one-state solution should be the ability to accommodate the wishes of both. I understand the author's concern about a potential "demographic race" for dominance given the history and the current dysfunctions. But, the task of the one-state solution is to create a framework in which the demographic balance is irrelevant to the basic rights and equal treatment of all citizens. That removes much of the incentive for "demographic competition", and at least allows both sides to compete on equal terms.
The political system should be one that can tolerate some degree of "competitive" immigration. But I think when you constrain the potential "spoils" available to the majority group (the ability to privilege themselves and infringe on others' rights), the needs and prospects of individual families will emerge as the central factor in all immigration.
Such a system should probably be based around a mutually agreed and nearly-impossible-to-change constitution enshrining the equal rights of all citizens and the necessary reciprocity of national rights for Jews and Palestinians. And in the current situation there is structural hope for such agreement, as both groups have something to gain from it. Palestinians are currently denied equal rights, and would obviously benefit immediately from equal rights guarantees and protections. But given the demographic trends (no doubt largely a product of socioeconomic disparities that a binational state could hopefully also address), Jews have larger reason to expect future minority status, especially with the implementation of a Palestinian right of return.
I completely agree with you.
Max Ajl is great. His title is absolutely the central point that needs to be made in this debate.
But we need to recognize that it's a point that cuts both ways. I agree with David Samel that we're not being fair to Matthew Taylor by and large. I read him as being committed to the same goals we all are -- Palestinian freedom and equality. He was making a case, mostly, for the effectiveness of non-violence. One way or another, that's exactly the kind of case we need to consider. He earned Max's critique to the extent that he did portray nonviolence as sacrosanct more than constructive.
But we cannot assume, as too many people seem to be doing, that more intensely violent tactics are more effective tactics. We cannot afford to answer tactical questions on faith alone. The specific realities of the situation must be our central consideration there.
Let's recognize that those who advocate nonviolent tactics in good faith -- as I believe Taylor did -- are not doing so to prolong Palestinian suffering, but to end it more quickly. Let's move beyond orthodoxies and questions of motivation to answer the real-world question of, how can we best leverage our efforts to liberate the people of Palestine?
I personally don't know enough to answer that question with any certainty. No one can do so with total certainty. But by engaging with it we allow ourselves to achieve more.
I agree, and I think your use of Gaza as an example is telling. Is that a model to be copied? I think it is, if anything, in a much more hopeless position than the West Bank because Israel has a roughly equal ability to inflict suffering in both cases, but without their presence "in Gaza" their responsibility there is less clear (especially especially with the infuriating Egyptian collaboration).
For full justice, Palestinians are going to require some level of Israeli cooperation, the more the better. It is not like in Lebanon, where the entire goal is to make them "go away". Israelis simply will not go away from Israel proper or Jerusalem (nor should they really have to), or probably even the settlements.
In a way the settlements are a vital asset to Palestinian aspirations. By intermixing populations on a macro- level they frustrate the ethnic cleansing impulse to get rid of the Palestinians by jettisoning or sealing off territory (the Bantustan approach). Obviously it is still possible, but in a way that is less tenable.
And I think in my arguments I am implying a preference for the one-state solution, which tackles the roots and many facets of Palestinian oppression. To me the situation in Gaza has proved the bankruptcy of the two-state solution -- it is just a shitty deal for Palestinians. It can't guarantee real sovereignty or security, and it represents an absolute loss of rights (and unity) that Palestinians would enjoy in a single democratic state in all Palestine. There's no good reason why they should accept that, especially when Israelis themselves don't want to cut off that land (if not for the people there).
And I'm also getting at how goals and strategy go hand-in-hand -- in this case, the one-state solution and non-violence. Non-violence is more fitting of a movement geared toward integration, and violence more natural when the goal is separation. Separation in this case amounts to compromised sovereignty in 22% of Palestine and continuing discrimination and exclusion in the rest. It just does not seem worth pursuing, especially given the obstacles.
Lareine this is a good point -- in theory. In practice, if the IDF wants you dead, you cannot stop them from killing you, nor can any Palestinian or solidarity activist. "Violent self-defense" is not a real category in this conflict, given the power imbalance. The Marmara is a case in point. Whether or not the killing was premeditated, actually subduing and disarming Israeli soldiers (you cannot stop all of them after all, unless you are the U.S. military) failed to save the lives of 9 people, and may have even contributed indirectly to their murder (which remains entirely Israel's responsibility). The IDF does kill unarmed, non-violent people. But in resisting Israel, I don't think nonviolence is likely to ever hurt someone's chances of survival.
If I'm right about that, it raises a different question. Is there a dividend in coaxing Israeli brutality using limited violence? I think I made a mistake earlier in talking about this so callously. The lives of the nine Marmara victims and those of all people working for justice have immeasurable inherent value as well as value to their families, communities, and to the movement itself. They are not reducible merely to a form of capital to be expended. But, if an activist is willing to himself make that ultimate commitment, is that a helpful action? Or is strict nonviolence always preferable and more effective?
It seems to be a grim truth that, in recent years, piles of bodies have fueled the most significant advancements of the Palestinian cause. Do we have more or better "weapons" than that? I genuinely don't think I know the answers to these questions.
I think this is an important and fruitful discussion to have, and the comments on this article have been outstanding.
I found the author's argument persuasive. But some of you have raised concerns that I completely agree with: Shmuel's point about looking to Palestinian leadership, sherbsri on the importance of practicing what you preach (especially before lecturing committed activists), sam on the author's implied orientalist distinctions, and many of you on the effectiveness of other (less nonviolent) approaches in various situations.
My thinking goes something like this: in this situation, we are not the Union, or the Allies. We do not have the power to physically impose our vision of what's right. As much as we may hate the idea of cajoling and relying on a change of heart from Israelis and US Zionists, there is no other way to free Palestinians. That doesn't mean we pander to them, it means we try to change them. We use our strongest form of power, which is our moral power.
Looking at it the other way, I think the absolute most that a violent strategy can hope to achieve for the Palestinians is the kind of hostile withdrawal we saw in Gaza.
A mixed one may be effective. It seems debatable whether (a) limited Palestinian and solidarity violence (such as stone throwing or fighting commandos with poles) elicits greater Israeli violence and (b) whether the benefit of that Israeli violence outweighs the damage of the activists' violence.
I am personally inclined to believe, in this case, that some Israeli violence was pre-meditated and some of it was an increase in response to the activists' ferocity. But a lot of the facts are still unknown. The Marmara was a propaganda coup as far as the rest of the world, but as sam points out, the results were mixed in the United States and pretty awful as far as Israelis were a target (although that is a hard battle to win).
I apologize that this is kind of a rambling post but I am in a hurry, and I was really hoping to see this discussion come up on Mondoweiss.
For me the principle of reciprocity should be crucial. That means each side says: "Every right I get, you must get too. Every privilege I get, you get too. Every duty I have, you must have too. No matter what happens our rights are tied to your rights."
And I like the idea that this be spelled out in a strong constitution that is extremely difficult to change. That is how you appeal to both sides. You guarantee that no matter what happens, there will always be equal rights and respect for both peoples.
The alternative, which would be similar in a practical sense, is a constitution that has an ironclad "bill of rights" for individuals. This would move everybody's discourse beyond nationalism a little more, which could be helpful. But it could be too much of a stretch for both sides, and may not really be needed to achieve meaningful equality. The main conflict here is between two nationalisms, which probably don't need to be abandoned if they can be reconciled.
I agree with Melka here. It's possible that the video shows an execution. But it is not at all definitive to my eyes. Couldn't that be a paintball gun? Knowing that soldiers had them, I would guess that that's what it is, given that the soldier seems to be pumping it. And weren't almost all the dead killed by ammunition that would have been fired from a handgun? And what's more, we cannot even see the victim.
Not trying to be an apologist here. It certainly seems like passengers were executed based on the autopsy results. But let's not overstate our evidence and hurt our credibility.
I totally agree, Shmuel. Although I would note that I don't think these are Phil's comments, but Khoury's. Phil agrees with you on this.
Phil you might want to be careful not to write in ways that can easily be twisted ('even Phil Weiss, who hates Israel, says there's not a humanitarian crisis'), but you make a great point here.
And sometimes I worry that we come off as frivolous emphasizing chocolate and coriander. Self-determination and human rights are the deeper issues here. And even as far as the humanitarian crisis itself, the destruction of Gaza's medical and sanitation infrastructure are its most deadly facets. We must stress the deadliness of the blockade - that it causes Palestinians physical suffering and death - in addition to its arbitrary nature.
I agree completely with Donald here. I think Helen the person is incredible and worthy of a defense. Her comments are not, and she was right to apologize.
Jack Ross may be right about what Helen intended by her comments. But who knows? The fact is that she left them wide open to an interpretation (the obvious one) that would be highly offensive. And (whatever she meant) her words cannot be interpreted solely as "out of occupied Palestine" because she did not suggest Israeli Jews go "back to Israel" but out of the entire region.
Just today I read a feature on Israel that gave figures for immigrants and native born residents. Immigrants comprise about 33% of the population. That is pretty substantial, but it means 67% of Israelis are living their native land. No one has any right to tell them to leave, and for that matter I don't believe immigrants should be told to leave either (although they should not possess racial privileges or buttress a system of apartheid).
The lessons of this whole conflict adamantly warn against ethnic battle lines, privileges and exclusion. Even a member of the "oppressor class" is entitled to human rights. Identity can never negate those rights, even if individuals' actions can negate certain freedoms when they violate the social contract.
However, I don't believe that her beliefs are consistent with her original comments. And I am extremely sad to see her retire. We need her courage and values more than ever.
It seems like several of the victims were shot from both the back and the front. What would explain that?
This article is dynamite. My only criticism is that Luban does not point out that Zionists, liberal and conservative alike, define Israel as a Jewish-supremacist state, first and foremost. And that such an ideology is inherently illiberal.
And again, not to excuse Iran of other crimes, but which indigenous Jews do they exclude from citizenship/representation? This comparison makes Iran look good, amazingly.
'Tokens' is exactly what Palestinian MK's are. If the Palestinians are fully represented, where are the reps for Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and exile?
The problem is not only that Jews were playing Arabs (and Turks I assume), but that they portray them in the classic stereotypes of bloodthirsty buffoons. This truly is what Amos 'n Andy looks like in 2010.
Also, anyone else astonished at how this whole situation is just a big laugh for them? Would they be making funny videos if Jews had died?
'Let's Roll' is exactly what I thought of as well. Was a 'lynch', too?
No. Wanton murder is an absolute evil, even in response to wanton murder. And it is not effective. As a strategy, it is lazy and born of irrationality. Your suggestions would bring pain without benefits to anyone.
Commit thought and energy to effective strategies. Sail a ship to Gaza! That strategy has been incredibly effective outside of the U.S., despite the lengths to which Israel went to control the damage. Real sanctions from Europe are closer now as a result. And even in America, there may have been a positive effect in public opinion if not policy - it surely hasn't hurt the situation here.
Will this be reported in the mainstream media? Will our leaders even be asked to comment on it? The story is nowhere to be found in a quick look around CNN.com.
The Israeli media strategy seems to have worked beyond belief. By locking up the demonstrators, and hiding information about the victims, it delayed their humanization until after the story passed. Meanwhile, it saturated the airwaves with its explanations and lies while suppressing by force the eyewitness accounts (and footage) of the surviving activists. Maybe some foreign media outlets had too much integrity to go along with this manipulation. But in the United States it appears to have been a total victory.