On Monday night, following the Obama-Netanyahu meeting, Charlie Rose had an interesting half hour with Rashid Khalidi, Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, and Lally Weymouth of Newsweek (and Jim Hoagland in Washington, reporting).
The best part of the show was seeing Khalidi holding his own with two neoconservatives at Rose's table. What those neocons are doing there, I don't know; it is merely tragic that they continue to have such sway, that a realist was not there to counter Stephens's Zionism. But Khalidi diplomatically and firmly insisted that 1948 is the baseline. 1948 must be addressed, he said. "If you don't address those grievances," you can forget about a peaceful solution.
Stephens, formerly of the Jerusalem Post, was angered by this, and Weymouth echoed him with "Exactly"s. Stephens stated two or three times that Israel faces an "existential" threat. Not from the Palestinians. No: from Iran, and also from the very idea of 1948. "Is this about 1967 or about 1948?… We're right back at Partition of 1947," he said.
"It started in 1948," Khalidi said.
You're opening a can of worms, Stephens said.
"It was opened up when these people were expelled in 1948."
Stephens then sputtered that 1948 was a "distraction" and a recipe for endless argument.
The contretemps underlines the point I (and Horowitz) make here frequently: that the oppression of the Palestinians and ongoing colonial project with complete disregard for the Green Line has opened the door on 1948. I suppose I agree with the necons somewhat, and wonder if the Palestinians ever wanted a deal along 1967 lines; but the core issue is injustice, and an injustice with a long pedigree.
Khalidi was wonderfully persistent. He said that unless Israel starts ending the occupation, the Palestinian situation will have a destabilizing impact on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and even the Gulf States. It's the big enchilada. He warned about another conflict. He said that one of the things that was never mentioned in the Bibi-Barack press conference was the word "occupation." (Search the transcript; you won't find it!) To think that Palestinians will go on accepting their lot "quiescently" is "folly…
"This thing has to be moved very quickly.. This is your last chance, or you will create the one-state solution."
The other "existential" threat in Stephens's view –and Weymouth echoed him– involves Netanyahu's insistence that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. "This is the key point. This is the existential issue," he said. There must, Weymouth said, "be no right of return." Yes, Stephens said, they get to go back to the new Palestinian state.
The aura of the neocons is abstraction. They speak of all these "existential" principles, and theirs is a religious agenda; it has to with the religious character of a place they choose not to live; and they would commit American resources to fierce opposition and war in behalf of the religious character of a place they don't want to live. They insist that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are on board with the big agenda–facing down Iran–and thereby ignore the misery of the occupation and the desire of the Palestinians to return to their villages. Khalidi is far closer to the ground, and sees these abstractions for what they are, follies.
