Finally, a debate. Rashid Khalidi is granted platforms at CNN and the NYT to realistically chart Israel’s loss of legitimacy as an occupier in the Arab spring. In both cases he argues with Zionists, a neocon on CNN, Elliott Abrams, and liberal Zionist Carlo Strenger in Haaretz. First CNN:
[Fareed] ZAKARIA: Is [statehood bid] a mistake?
KHALIDI: I – I myself think that this is not going to advance Palestinian statehood. But if it ends the illusion among Palestinians that the United States is actually going to help facilitate real self- determination for the Palestinian people, it’s probably not a bad thing.
…The other thing is, yes, popular sovereignty is gaining ground in the Middle East. Turkey is now more democratic than it’s been for a very long time. Egypt hopefully will be. And that’s something that if Israel is wise – if Israelis are wise, they will come to terms with it….
ZAKARIA: Elliott, you were talking about popular sovereignty and the – and the Middle East. And I – I remember a piece you wrote in the “Weekly Standard” which said, first Tripoli and then Ramalla. And you were castigating the Obama administration for wanting democracy in every part of the Arab World except the Palestinian territories.
But I’m wondering, after you watch what the more democratic Turkey’s foreign policy is, after you watch what a more democratic Egyptian foreign policy is, after you watch what perhaps a new Libyan foreign policy will be toward the United States and toward Israel, which I know you can worry about, maybe it’s not such a good idea to have democracy in the Palestinian territories.
ABRAMS: Well, I think it is. Because I think it’s the lack of democracy and the lack of legitimacy that leads someone like Abbas to do something stupid in New York. He would be better off holding an election. He was not forced to do this.
I really think the – the leadership question is critical here for Turkey as well. This is why I disagree with Rashid…. [Erdogan is] an irresponsible and dangerous leader. That’s the problem.
KHALIDI: So when we don’t like the outcomes it’s demagogue and then when we do it’s democracy? No.
And Khalidi is in the New York Times. This is realism: the context of Arab spring, the futility of a discussion of a Palestinian state in light of the unending settlements, and the unlikelihood of a lasting peace:
There are only two genuine threats to Israel’s survival. One is its continued subjugation of the Palestinian people. The other is its failure to realize that it lives in a very different Middle East from that of Herzl or Weizmann or Ben-Gurion. That was a region dominated by outside powers that blandly accepted Herzl’s idea of Israel as a colonial outpost of the West, and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1948. Such things are inconceivable in a Middle East where popular sovereignty is finally beginning to have an impact on the foreign policy of states like Turkey and Egypt, and where peoples like those of Libya and Syria are waking up to their power to resist authoritarian governments….
More important than whether it comes via the establishment of one or two states is arriving at a sustainable and lasting final outcome based on justice, international law and human rights. That has not been on offer in American policy for over two decades, nor is it today. As long as the United States supports Israel in standing in the way of an immediate rollback of settlements and end to illegal occupation, a Palestinian state will not see the light of day, and any discussion of it is futile. Until we Americans change this status quo, based on crass domestic political considerations as opposed to our true national interests and our moral and legal responsibilities, a just and stable peace will be a long time in coming.
And here is Carlo Strenger in Haaretz taking Khalidi on. I think that if you are a liberal Zionist, this is the only way to approach the debate. Strenger’s justification for Partition reflects my own sneaking sympathy for Partition– hey, these tribes hate each other, it’s a tribal world, what is the smoothest path away from bloodshed– but I also have to respond as an American. We have learned not to think that way altogether, why should we suspend our values? Strenger:
The professor lives in the paradigm of international law and individual human rights that has progressively come to govern international legal and political discourse. For him the legitimacy of any political arrangement depends exclusively on whether it respects these rights, and he believes that mutual recognition of such rights without regard to religion and ethnicity is the only way to move forward in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Khalidi disregards that the Arab Spring is still very far away from actually establishing Arab liberal democracies. He also conveniently skips the fact human rights discourse has often been used in highly manipulative ways: Israel has been targeted by a majority of resolutions of the UN human rights council (as if Myanmar, China, Iran and North Korea didn’t exist), and the Durban racism conference has turned into an anti-Israel festival, as if racism is not to be found anywhere else in the world. This has led most Israelis to disregard human rights discourse completely, and to see it as a cynical ploy to isolate Israel.
…Khalidi thinks in terms of an idealized framework of values that I happen to share. But I also think that this must not be confused with reality. Group identities, religious and religious hatred are, unfortunately, a fact of life, and we must not confuse political and social realities with our ideals.
In the end we must think pragmatically, and [not]… be blinded by lofty ideals like Khalidi’s.
