Bouncer in Jerusalem
Though hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu came in second in Israel's last elections, he was tapped by Israel's president to form a new government. With his coalition now in place, he is off and running. But where is he running to? Netanyahu is no newcomer to Israeli
politics. He has even been prime minister before, at a rather pivotal point in history. He led the government from 1996 to 1999 when a Jewish extremist assassinated Yitzhak Rabin for signing a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
Many see Netanyahu as culpable in the collapse of the Oslo Peace Accords, since he had rejected them from the outset. Some even found Netanyahu culpable in Rabin's death by inciting public fears that the peace process left Israel at risk. This time around, post-Oslo, he is making history again by joining forces with another Israeli party leader who did well in Israel's latest elections, Moldova-born Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's David Duke.
Lieberman has many problems with the Palestinians of the occupied territory, but is most conspicuously known for his desire to offload the Palestinians still residing inside Israel (one-fifth of Israel's citizenry, albeit third-or fourth-class). In the pure Jewish state of Lieberman's fantasy, these people contribute no added value whatever.
This is the man who will be the lynchpin of Netanyahu's coalition.
For anyone yearning for an Israeli government with the courage and the will to end Israel's 41-year military occupation of Palestinians, the long-anticipated appointment of Lieberman to Minister of Foreign Affairs leaves much to be desired. The former nightclub bouncer is referred to, only half in jest, by an Israeli friend of mine as "Doberman."
For western onlookers, it was undoubtedly odd that the top vote-getter, Tzipi Livni, was marginalized in favor of the runner-up, said to be in a stronger position to form a governing coalition.
Livni rather quickly conceded, opting to join the opposition. She made a smart move as much of the world repudiates Israel's dangerous drift to the right. Livni, at best, would have been a mere fig leaf for an extremist government. For Palestinians, meantime, none of the political acrobatics means much. Livni's entire political history is just as violent toward Palestinians as Netanyahu's, despite her peace-lexicon façade.
Palestinians find themselves in a familiar posture, waiting--or more like Waiting for Godot. I daresay even Beckett would have balked at this one. Palestinians have been dispossessed, occupied and brutalized year in, year out since 1948 by an Israel that continues to talk peace while waging war. The roster of political players changes, but Israeli intransigence remains.
One thing Palestinians are not waiting for is some enlightened Israeli prime minister who will step forward and end their misery; they've already seen all kinds: from Israel's first prime minister, Polish-born David Ben-Gurion, who candidly said "We must expel the Arabs and take their places"; to Israel's first woman prime minister, Ukrainian-born Golda Meir, acclaimed for her infamous remark that "There is no such thing as Palestinians"; to Israel's first native-born prime minister Yitzhak Rabin who, during the first intifada, ordered his military to "break the [Palestinian demonstrators'] bones" and then went on several years later to sign the historic Oslo peace agreement--which was inordinately date-driven--only to announce a few days after signing it that there are no sacred dates. Palestinians have also been around the track once before with Netanyahu's overly-sleek, propaganda-driven personality.
Now Netanyahu seems to have a new gambit: diverting our attention from the ever-more-entrenched military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip with an "economy first" approach to peace.
The message, today, is clearer than ever before: Israel's new government will let the occupied Palestinians live, but just barely, and in a political headlock. Netanyahu and Lieberman evidently forget one revealing chapter in their own history, a lesson accidentally taught, and at great cost to all, by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon: There cannot be peace and security until Israel ends its occupation.
For true negotiations to begin, the Israelis must remove the boot of military occupation from the necks of Palestinians. Then and only then can these two Semitic cousins sit down and carve out a model for peaceful co-existence. If international law was respected, the framework for a final resolution to this pestering conflict is already on the books by way of dozens of UN resolutions dating back to 1947; however, today, the final number of states to emerge from peace negotiations is less important than making sure the Palestinian people survive to enjoy a post-conflict reality.
We are left with the central axiom Israeli prime ministers love to deny: There is no military solution to this conflict. Israel has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it cannot win by relentless military force, and the Palestinians--against all odds--refuse to lose the quest for their freedom and equal rights. One more campaign to cover up Israel's continuing occupation and the attendant war crimes only sets the stage for more death, more destruction, and more fruitless waiting. The world must act rationally today to salvage what remains to be salvaged. President Obama has better roles to play than a 21st century Godot.
Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American businessman from Youngstown, Ohio who lives in the occupied West Bank and is co-editor of "Homeland: Oral History of Palestine and Palestinians." He may be reached at sbahour@palnet.com.
Welcome Sam. I usually comment when I feel there is something that should be added or criticized in the primary post. This one is different.
Recently there has been criticisms that TPM Cafe has not presented Palestinian voices. So now we have Sam's post (it has been up for 7 hours) and no comments.
Not clear why that is so. In part, I suspect, it is because much of interchange here is between Likud supporters and progressive American jews who are seeking a more equitable treatment of Palestinians. The former likely have nothing to say because they can simply dismiss Sam's ideas with a simple "what would one expect from a Palestinian" shrug. I am curious to know what the latter group thinks of Sam's ideas. What are your areas of agreement? Are they so total that further comment is not needed? If not, where do you disagree?
April 18, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sam has posted here a few times before. I think most of the debate about Israel on TPMCafe is in response to MJ's posts. Some of that debate is stimulated by the issue itself, but a lot of it is generated simply because MJ's posts are often ridiculous and immature. Sam writes a sensible, restrained commentary, but I'm not sure what to say in response.
Waiting. Yes. Waiting.
That's the whole history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a nutshell, isn't it? The Israelis are waiting the Palestinians out. Peace plans, roadmaps, negotiations--all are just a way to bide time until the day when the Palestinians, exhausted, impoverished, demoralized, capitulate completely and leave. Israel is all about creating and preserving a Jewish ethnocracy, and that goal is impossible without removing all or most of the Arabs from the Israeli nation. Israel's strategy always has been "maximum land with minimum Arabs." As long as Israel and its supporters (including our friend MJ) are committed to maintaining a Jewish ethnocracy all solutions considered by the Israelis and their American backers are really just means to accomplishing that goal. Even the so-called two-state solution is just a technique to push the Palestinians into a corner of their historic land to make as much room as possible for the Jewish ethnocracy. Progressive ethnocracts like MJ (yes, the term progressive ethnocrat is oxymoronic and used sarcastically) like the two-state solution because it places a conscience-soothing veneer of justice and bilateralism over what amounts to ethnic cleansing. "Moderate" and even some conservative ethnocrats like the two-state solution because it creates a politically-useful appearance that Israelis are amenable to resolving the problem "justly" and therefore is useful cover for the actualy strategy of wearing down and demoralizing the Palestinians. I'd even argue that the two-state solution--by appearing to be the "best" solution--has in fact become the greatest obstacle to a real solution. The idea that the two-state solution is the right solution has prevented all other ideas from receiving serious consideration and has, for decades, given Israel the cover it needs to continue indefinitely its strategy of passive-aggressive ethnic cleansing. The two-state solution is not a way to peace, but an obstacle to peace.
The US, of course, is complicit in Israel's passive-aggressive approach to ethnic cleansing. We are among the greatest supporters of endless, meaningless negotiation. And we are not only committed to the two-state "solution" but we demand all our allies remain comitted to it as well.
The sad thing is I see nothing changing. And therefore I see less and less of a reason to discuss or debate this issue anymore. It looks to me like the Jewish ethnocrats have won and will eventually succeed in their goal of maximizing their land while minimizing their Arabs. That's not justice, but that's also the way the world is. Might often does triumph over right. The Jews aren't any worse (or any better) than any other settler-colonial people. Our own ancestors did much the same--so he who is without sin, cast the first stone . . . assigning blame doesn't really get us anywhere.
As for the Palestinians, what to do? They are far too weak militarily to be anything more than a nuisance to Israel. And so the petty violence of the more extreme Palestinian groups does absolutely nothing but hurt the Palestinian cause by underscoring Palestinian weakness and tarnishing the Palestinian image. Negotiation, though, is also silly--it just plays into the Israeli strategy of engaging in endless talk to delay action endlessly.
I think the only hope for the Palestinians may be a massive non-violent hunger strike. Leave your homes. Sit in the street. And begin to starve slowly. Begin to die. All over the Middle East, all over the world broadcast images of passive, peaceful, impoverished, desperate Palestinians--men, women, children, babies--waiting for death because the situation imposed on them by their Jewish ethnocrat oppressors and occupiers is so unbearable that life itself has become unbearable.
Make it clear that the long wait has come to an end and the world now has a choice: Side with justice or side with ethnocracy, oppression, and genocide.
I do think the world will make the right choice.
But the Palestinians must stop waiting. The Israelis will do nothing. The Americans will do nothing. The Europeans will do nothing. And the Arabs will do nothing. All the world seems content to wait. And yet the Palestinians themselves seem to be waiting for the waiters.
But these waiters won't serve . . .
It's all up to the Palestinians now.
Godspeed, Sam.
April 19, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really like having a Palestinian writing here, it is so refreshing after so many Israeli likudniks and apologists. I still don´t get why so many people accept the Israeli propaganda about the right of Israel to occupy any land in the Middle East without the permission of the native people. It is not up to me to figure out where they should go. I hope Obama has the guts to use military force to curtail Israel and it´s wingnuts.
Keep up the good work Sam.
April 19, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for writing this Sam. With me, of course, you are preaching to the choir. If only the average American knew as much as I do about Palestine and Palestinians, their government would have long since ceased providing "foreign aid" to the state of Israel, the fourth largest military force in the world.
April 19, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome Sam. So glad it finally occurred to the editors to have a non-Jewish voice discuss Israel/Palestine.
We've been asked to sympathize with the children after the Gaza tragedy, but the writer was talking about the inner children of the IDF soldiers who swept the streets with missiles, white phosphorous, and machine guns.
I also hope to learn what our progressive Jewish posters think of your ideas.
And am I the only one who was caught off guard by the rightward surge in Israeli politics? The West Bank has been quite peaceful for a few years now, and I'm wondering what effect the long overdue settler withdrawal from Gaza, and the failed war with Lebanon had to do with the Israeli public's turning against a two state solution.
I thought the calm in the West Bank would have given Israelis more hope for peace.
I've also heard that the Gaza settlers who were moved to the West Bank were told that they would never be uprooted again, so maybe the water, confiscated land, and land yet to be confiscated are too tempting for a narrow majority of Israelis, and they rationalize this covetousness by exaggerating existential threats wherever and whenever possible.
April 19, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
One factor you missed out, Sam, is the corruption endemic in Israeli politics. The money and the power up for grabs to the highest bidder, the covert arms sales, including cluster bombs, to regimes around the world who will use these weapons either for repression of their own people or of another people, the infiltration of Israeli influence into local power bases around the world particularly in the developing countries of Africa, South America and the Gulf. Not content with being the focus of unrest and instability in the Middle East, Israel has for decades been influential in fomenting discontent in countries around the globe whenever and wherever there is an advantage to be gained. More than any other state in the world, nuclear-weapon armed Israel is a self-serving entity that is an international problem. Recently, she has set herself up as an exporter of of unmanned aircraft that can deliver WMD anywhere on our planet. No one will be safe, in future, from an Israeli manufactured drone delivering a silent death to perceived enemies anywhere - with no mercy, no evidence, no trial - just summary liquidation of anyone who gets in the way of a political process. It will be a strange, dangerous, arid world without justice or human rights in which our children will live. For this genie can never be put back in the bottle.
April 19, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see the success of Lieberman and Yisrael Beiteinu as symptomatic of a disturbing trend that extends beyond Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yisrael Beiteinu is just one manifestation of the xenophobic and racist right-wing nationalism that is becoming much more assertive around the world, including in the US, in part as a result of economic stress.
So far these are minority movements. Indeed, the rise of the right-wing tea-bagging movement here in the US appears to be a response on the right to the perceived contraction and marginalization of the conservative movement. But what is concerning about such rightist movements is their willingness to threaten violence. Indeed, the worship of force, guns and a martial ethos is historically one of the most prevalent characteristics of the extreme right. And as their electoral fortunes wane, the willingness of the right to defend their agenda through non-democratic and extremist means becomes more pronounced.
Certainly, Israel has always had a strong ethnocentric and nationalist drive. After all, it has been engaged in various forms of ethnic cleansing against Palestinian Arabs for decades. But Israelis have at the same time tended to hide the reality of its own actions from itself through various forms of hypocrisy, self-deception, wishful thinking and double-think, and has often coupled its dubious and aggressive behavior with officially liberal ideologies and rationalizations.
And Jewish activists, intellectuals and scholars have for more than a century been leaders in promoting internationalism and universalism, and warning about the dangers of extreme nationalism, a message that has been particularly credible given Jews' status as the preeminent victims of this kind of nationalism in the past.
So to see a party like Yisrael Beiteinu achieve this level of political legitimacy and electoral success, among Jews of all people, is particularly frightening and disturbing. I don't know if Jews themselves always appreciate the peculiar status the Jewish community has achieved in many quarters in Europe and the US as arbiters of what is permissible and deplorable in the realm of racial and ethnic relations. I worry that the perception that "Even the Jews think extreme nationalism is OK now" will be taken as a kind of ideological permission slip by those with very impressionable minds, a sense of victimization and a prior disposition to drift toward the right.
April 19, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting this. It is great to read what a Palestinian has to say. I encourage you to keep writing.
You are so reasonable, so low-key, your detractors are going to be puzzled about how to attack your piece. But they will !
"Waiting for Godot" is about right. Americans are bored to tears with this long-running going-nowhere conflict.
WEB DuBois noted that Americans like to tackle problems but they insist on finding a solution or they get distracted.
The hub of the land-grabbing scheme is to drag out the conflict as long as possible: as long as there is conflict, land can be grabbed. And so no peace is in sight for the next ten or twenty years. At least that is the way to bet.
April 19, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was also struck by the Waiting for Godot reference, which seems so sadly and very accurately to describe the situation that I'm surprised that no one had thought of it before.
April 19, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Commenters seem to be waiting for someone to come along representing the viewpoint of a progressive American Jew concerned with more equitable treatment of the Palestinians. Well, here I am (in this case, one married to an Israeli who is herself also concerned with more equitable treatment of the Palestinians).
One reason, I believe, for the lack of responses is the enormity of the undertaking. Mr. Bahour's post, while seemingly focused on the results of the recent Israeli elections, implicates the entire history of the conflict and Israel's existence as a Jewish majority state. Responding to these implications would inevitably devolve into a historical tit-for-tat that always seems to cleave over the fundamental question of Israel's legitimacy. Is it any surprise these discussions only further the bitterness and recrimination on both sides? Indeed, it is for that reason that I simply can not discuss the issue at all with dear friends in order to preserve our friendship. I don't have the stomach or the time to go there right now, but I will offer a few thoughts.
I don't find much to disagree with in Mr. Basour's take on the current Israeli government. Anyone who hopes for a peaceful resolution can't be pleased with the return of Netanyahu or the disturbing rise of Lieberman. That said, his comment is stunningly deficient for its lack of introspection - its perpetuation of the myth of pure victimology that characterize the extremes on both sides of the conflict. That the myth of passive victimhood is here put forth by a Palestinian "moderate" makes me even more despondent over the possibility for peace and reconciliation. This is not to deny the profound suffering of the Palestinian people or the role Israel has played in contributing to their dispossession and statelesness. But the mythical narrative of Israeli oppression and intransigence as the source of these woes impedes any progress on these issues.
Thus, Mr. Basour writes that "Palestinians have been dispossessed, occupied and brutalized year in, year out since 1948 by an Israel that continues to talk peace while waging war. The roster of political players changes, but Israeli intransigence remains." In this view, the Palestinians are passive, suffering under the yoke of Israeli oppression, as if their own actions and those of their Arab "supporters" in neighboring lands have done nothing to contribute to their condition.
History is not so simple. Since the 1930s, Zionists and Israelis have accepted various partition plans and offered some of their own, each of which has been rejected by the Palestinians and the Arab nations. As far as I know, no Palestinian leader has accepted any of those plans or put forward a credible one of their own that did not include an absolute right of return for all 1948 refugees and their descendants. At Camp David and Taba, Ehud Barak offered to dismantle the settlements and end the occupation. Imperfect though those solutions might have been, had Arafat accepted, we would likely be in the 10th year of Palestinian statehood. Instead, we had the escalated violence of the Second Intifada. And again, although problematic in many respects, Sharon's dismantling of the settlements in Gaza was followed by the ascension of Hamas and its hateful, arguably genocidal, ideology and an escalation of violence from the Palestinian side. (None of which, BTW, is intended to portray Israel as blameless in this hateful death-spiral, but that is not my brief here.) Even recently, before the recent Gaza war, Olmert was widely reported to have offered more than was on the table at Taba but was met by Abbas' insistence that any deal that did not include the full right of return was and would always be unacceptable. Indeed, even with the current rightward drift in Israeli politics, a sizable majority of the Knesset favors some form of partition, as have a majority of Israelis themselves in poll after poll.
So I take strenuous issue with Mr. Basour's assertion that it is Israeli intransigence that has prevented the implementation of a workable peace. While I too lament the absence of a courageous and visionary Israeli leader (other than Rabin) to move the nation off its wartime footing, I see the roots of the conflict on the refusal of the Palestinians and Arab nations in general to accept the existence of a Jewish majority state in the Middle East. Arab rejectionism, more than Israeli intransigence, perpetuates the conflict, though to be sure, the two feed off each other. Once Arabs learn to live alongside Israelis in peace, I have every confidence the "boot" Mr. Basour speaks of as one of oppression will be lifted.
And one sees shadows of Arab rejectionism in Mr. Basour's comment. For example, Mr. Basour makes conspicuous references to the places of birth of Israeli leaders (for some reason I don't understand, Israel opponents in particular seem enamored of Moldova as the best illustration of this). What reason is there to point this out other than to deny Israel's legitimacy in the Middle East? Mr. Basour plainly means to suggest that these people are foreigners, interlopers, whose connection to the land is inferior and contrived.
As an aside (since I am on a roll here), but consistent with the MO of the entire post, Mr. Basour includes a quote from Ben Gurion purportedly demonstrating that he favored the forced expulsion of Palestinians - another not so subtle de-legimization of the Israeli State. As Mr. Basour should know, Professor Ephraim Karsh, after reviewing the original letter, has shown that Ben Gurion intended to say exactly the opposite, which has been confirmed by Benny Morris, the historian who offered the original, mistaken meaning. Follow this link if interested. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=6&x_article=1521
Similarly, the quote from Golda Meir is not as clear cut as Mr. Basour implies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_history_denial
And of course, most glaringly, while Mr. Basour includes a few misleading quotations, there is no recognition of the far more hateful, disgusting anti-Jewish invective that has been a staple of conventional Palestinian and Arab discourse for 60 years and of which Hamas and Hezbollah are only the most recent and glaring examples.
I'm running out of gas so I'll conclude by saying that while I welcome Mr. Basour to TPM, there is little in his comment to make me optimistic and much that I find so far in denial as to be verging on delusional.
Have at it.
April 19, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Purple State put it best: "progressive ethnocrat."
At what specific date was Israel granted the right to exist, and as a Jewish majority state? Who did the granting? God?
What happens if/when more non-Jews populate the dirt granted to Jews, as was the case for some 2000 years?
Is Israel entitled/commanded to do what is necessary to keep demographics in order? By what means?
And just what are the specific boundaries of this entitled ethnocracy? Is it up to the Jews to decide, on a weekly basis?
Where does Israel's right to be a Jewish majority state come from? If you don't have an answer, how can you be opposed to a one state solution?
April 19, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Bahour's post, while seemingly focused on the results of the recent Israeli elections, implicates the entire history of the conflict and Israel's existence as a Jewish majority state.
Well, yes. That's exactly the point. Israel was created as a Jewish ethnocracy and it has been able to maintain itself as a Jewish ethnocracy and establish a Jewish majority only by ethnically cleansing itself of much of the Arab population. This is an essential injustice that is inherent in the creation of the Jewish ethnocracy and the primary reason why the Arabs have always questioned Israel's legitimacy as a state. Let's not forget that the Arabs were a 2 to 1 majority in Palestine in 1948. Yet the UN partition plan gave them less than half the land and gave the Jews much of the most desirable land along the coast. In 1948 and periodically afterwards, Palestinians have been given chances to "accept" various partition plans that give them some small fraction of the land they once inhabited, prevent them from ever returning to Israel proper, and force them to recognize the "legitimacy" of the Jewish ethnocracy that has taken their land from them and disenfranchised them. Essentially, what these partition plans give the Palestinians is a chance to sign off on everything that's been done to them and therefore give Israel legal cover to say everything it's done to the Palestinians is now okay because the Palestinians have assented to it.
Despite the Zionist protests, the Palestinians are victims. Real victims. Every bit as much as black people were in Alabama in 1950 or in South Africa in 1970. The Zionists have consistently taken advantage of the basic powerlessness of the Palestinians to continue to appropriate Palestinian land and marginalize the Palestinians in their own homeland. And of course, the Zionists like to blame the victims for all their suffering. It's just a convenient way to shirk responsibility. The Palestinians are raped because they wear their dresses too short. It's an old game, blaming the victim.
Anyway, there's no use arguing because the ethnocrats are firmly in control. The Palestinians will continue to be raped repeatedly until they start to like it . . . or at least until they stop resisting and just shut up and take it. That is the Zionist strategy. And it's working. And as Burston says, in the article AG quotes below, the Zionists, untroubled by the suffering they cause and firmly convinced of their righteousness, are content to wait.
April 20, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
And this is why you and syvanen were waiting so eagerly for the response from "progressive American jews [sic]"?
The right of the Jewish people to national self-determination in Israel is the same that Arab peoples have to determine the national course of each respective member nation of the League of Arab states, as well as the Palestinians in an emergent Palestine. Arab and Jewish national rights in the former British Mandatory Palestine are not mutually exclusive, and the utopian maximalists and self-styled progressives who demand otherwise are the genuine warmongers in our situation.
April 20, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Since the 1930s, Zionists and Israelis have accepted various partition plans and offered some of their own, each of which has been rejected by the Palestinians and the Arab nations. As far as I know, no Palestinian leader has accepted any of those plans or put forward a credible one of their own that did not include an absolute right of return for all 1948 refugees and their descendants."
Has any of these plans been even close to fair to the people whose land has been and continues to be stolen? Has any of them represented a better deal for the Palestinians than what the British proposed in their various white papers during the Mandatory period, or what the UN proposed at the inception of Israeli statehood?
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/3cbe4ee1ef30169085256b98006f540d!OpenDocument
If so, which?
A little land ownership history:
http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg
April 20, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
A better visual:
http://www.kibush.co.il/downloads/landloss.jpg
April 20, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As if my own comment weren't long enough, I refer anyone who is interested in the opinion of an Israeli left wing commentator to this piece in Haaretz by Bradley Burston. Although written before the Israeli election (and the Gaza blowup), it effectively addresses Mr. Basour's main points.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985341.html
An excerpt (consider the rest a block quote):
What your unfortunate allies are saying is that it is more important to eliminate the Jewish state than it is to create a Palestinian one.
For this entire decade, the Palestinian national movement has acted accordingly. At the same time, it has effectively done the bidding of the Israeli right, doing everything in its power to raise the status of the settlers from an unruly, unfocused, marginalized, declining entity to that of a prophetic force.
Thanks in no small part to you, the settlement movement is flourishing as never before, confident that your rockets and your rhetoric will see to it that, as the years and generations pass, the settlers will come to be seen as, yes, indigenous.
The settlers will never be able to repay their debt to you.
You may have noted that in the wake of the second intifada, hundreds of suicide bombings in Israel's main cities, and thousands of Qassams, mortar shells and Katyushas, the Israeli left is furious with you, the Israeli center wants never to hear from you again, and only the Israeli right is delighted with the decisions you have made and the actions you have undertaken.
You may conclude from this that the left were untrustworthy to begin with, and all Israelis are the same.
Or you might think twice.
* * * *
Your celebration of terror has alienated many of your closest friends.
You did this. You. No one else. You have convinced exactly those Israelis who were willing to trade the West Bank for peace, that this would be a literally fatal error.
Last month, as if to remove the remainder of doubt, the veteran Palestinian Authority Representative in Lebanon, Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki, told a Lebanese television station, "Let me tell you, when the ideology of Israel collapses, and we take, at least, Jerusalem, the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine."
You owe your children more than this. You owe your children more than pipedreams, nightmares, threats and delusions. You owe them more than victim status. You owe your children, and theirs, more than a culture of failure and passivity and graft and violence and loss. You owe your children and theirs - and ours - an honest search for peace.
Or would you rather that I simply shut up? Just the rantings of another untrustworthy Jew? Still want to believe you did everything right? Still want to believe that your few friends remaining in the Western left are more than just powerless cranks? Still want to believe that if you hold out long enough, everything will come your
way?
As you wish.
Perhaps regrettably for both sides, we can wait.
April 19, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG - I just returned from celebrating pesach in Israel and I am a little jet lagged but your two posts did catch my attention.
1 - I caution you about making statements about the nature of the Camp David and Taba agreements. Details are still very obscure and contentious. According to Swisher and Miller, Camp David still did not give the Palestinains control of the Jordan Valley except at some nebulous date down the road. Ross disputes this but as you know nothing was ever committed to writing, except on vaious bits of scratch paper. Taba took place during the Infitada and while the Jordan Valley question was resolved along with a land bridge to Gaza, it was Barak who walked away before anything could be finalized. Barak's position here is understandable given the violence and upcoming election.
2 - Who really knows what Olmert and Livni agreed to during the Annapolis negotiations. I can tell you that during the recent election campaign, Kadima representatives went out of their way to explain what a hardnosed position they took with Abbas - no on the Old City and redrawing the borders of East Jerusalem so that a tiny sliver would be melded onto Abu Dis so the Palestinians could technically call Jerusalem their capital. Furthermore Livni was absolutely clear that the Palestinians would NOT be given access to the Jordan border - ie totally surrounded and controlled by Israel.
3 - Yes, the Israelis favor partition but only on terms beneficial to Israel and incompatable with making a Palestinian state viable. Theoretcially, Olmert was going to withdraw all the settlements beyond the Security Fence back when assumed the PM role. Now the talk is about extending the fence to cover more than a dozen additional settlements beyond the fence, including Kiryat Arba.
4 - I don't know about Ben Gurion's statement and whether it is accurate. According to my Grandfather who got to know Ben Gurion in 1946 when Haganah and Irgun began cooperating, that he was a realist who understood that most of the arabs would have to go in order for Jewish claims to the land to stick. Ben Gurion was different from Begin in attitude toward the Brits but they were the same regarding arabs.
5 - As far as Israel offering decent peace plans why doesn't Israel go for something like the Geneva Plan and see if the Palestinians reject that. It sure seems like a plan with mutual justice.
6 - I was absolutely disgusted with Burston's commentary when it first appeared. It reminds me of a "battering spouse". She made me do it. I'm not to blame, if she had not done X, I would not have had to hit or kill her. It's not my fault. Do you seriously think that the Palestinians, who truely are the weaker spouse in this situation, made Israel into the brut it is today?
AG - you attribute far too much nobility to Israel. Go there and talk with the people as I have - they have one concern - the Jews. As a fellow Jew and human, I can understand that tribal instinct but it is absolutely counterproductive to producing a viable peace agreement. Jews covet Judea and Samaria and will only give it up if it is "pulled from their cold dead hands". I think the Palestinian issue is similar to China's occupation of Tibet. Does anyone realistically think Tibet will ever be strong enough to throw off the Chinese occupation? Does anyone believe that China will voluntarily give up Tibet regardless of what Tibetans do?
During pesach this year, I found Israel to be this strange mixture of arrogance and fear. Many Israelis are looking forward to jousting with the US over the issue of peace negotiations and ready to say FU to America. Yet fear of Iran pervades every conversation. Every year I find the place a little more weird.
April 19, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
JDL: As always, I appreciate your perspective.
I did not mean to be absolute in my statements about the history of "peace"making - there is room for disagreement as to what was offered and when. I am not saying that the partition plans and Israeli offers have been perfect or even adequate. My main point was the glaring blind spot in Mr. Basour's depiction of Palestinian history as one of passive victimization. I still hold to my statement that no Palestinian leader has come close to accepting the necessary precondition to the two-state solution: compromise on the right of return. Abbas' statements on the subject following Annapolis were as rigid and doctrinaire as any who came before him. Nor has a credible Palestinian leader emerged who seems willing and able to curtail violence against Israelis. In short, Palestinians have consistently refused to evince a willingness to live peacefully alongside Israelis. Once that happens, I believe the rest can and will be worked out.
My experiences with Israelis have been far different than yours. Granted, nearly all my time has been spent in Tel Aviv and Haifa and mostly among those from the center and left wing. With the exception of a very precious few religious types (not my demographic), I have yet to encounter the strong attachment to "Judea/Samaria" that you write about. Indeed, among those with whom I've discussed the matter, there is a mix of embarrasment/revulsion at the extremist settlers, if little recognition at the profound obstacle to peace they represent. That's a can they're content to kick down the road. Rightly or wrongly, the attitude toward the Palestinians is similar to what Burston describes - a sense that, "what can we do? They just don't want us here and so we have no choice." Some are disturbed by what they see as the excessive force used, but few believe that a change of course is even possible, particularly with Hamas in control of Gaza. So, I guess we're running with different crowds. Judging by the results of the elections, the right wing is ascendant. However, it is also important to note that a large majority of voters chose parties that at least on paper are willing to renounce any claim to "Judea/Samaria" in return for a peace agreement.
April 20, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG - If you dig below the surface of many (most?) Israelis you will find that they give lip service to the notion of completely withdrawing from Judea and Samaria. Deep down many harbor a belief that somehow, someway a magic solution will happen where Jews populate the ancient kingdom yet the Palestinians will be be happy. They have no idea how this would occur but it sure would be nice.
This is the reason the vast majority of Israelis are so passive about the settlement expansion enterprise. It doesn't matter whether left, right or center leads the government they know that the people(except for a tiny portion of peace activists) have no objection to expanding the presence in Judea and Samaria. Here is the test I use, I start naming each west bank settlement and ask if it should be shut down. That is when you get well, not that one, I know someone there. But not that one, it has too many people or has been there too long. The charade goes on. Ask your Tel Aviv leftist friends if the E-1 development to Ma'ale Adumim should be completed. That will give you a clue as to their inner feelings.
One of the things I always do in Israel is go to meetings where Knesset members (particularly Cabinet members) are speaking. One of the first things you notice is that the Hebrew tongue says things much differently than the English tongue. I am always amazed at how blunt and open they are, especially compared with mealy mouthed American politicans.
The Palestinian right of return is their only real power over Israel and as such they are going to keep it as the big club to get other things from Israel in negotiations. What I hear is the Palestinians know they cannot flood Israel with refugees and even the face saving compromise that has been discussed involves compensation and limited numbers being granted legal residencey - not citizenship.
Unfortunately what you have right now is the Israelis are waiting for the Palestinians to make an offer too good to turn down and the reverse is true. Both sides are waiting for some miraculous enlightment from the heavens that will make everyone happy. Both sides have a long wait before the Red Sea gets parted again.
April 20, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This is the reason the vast majority of Israelis are so passive about the settlement expansion enterprise."
I don't agree. I have been living in Israel for 20 years now and my experience is much different. They are passive because of the terror that continues to hit the civilian population. As long as terror continues and rockets keep flying, Israelis will remain passive about settlement expansion. Thats why everyone i know is passive. When they hear of another mother crying, another child barely escaping a rocket, another home destroyed, the last thing they think about is the expansion of E1.
"Here is the test I use, I start naming each west bank settlement and ask if it should be shut down. That is when you get well, not that one, I know someone there. But not that one, it has too many people or has been there too long. The charade goes on"
Most people dont even know the names of most west bank settlements and wouldnt be able to tell you if the name you mentioned was in Israel proper or not. There are a few big ones - Ariel - comes to mind that i agree most believe will be difficult to leave because of its size and amount of people and would prefer a fair land swap in such case. Regardless if this was the final issue for peace I believe most Israelis would be willing to dismantle Ariel regardless of any friend living there.
"Ask your Tel Aviv leftist friends if the E-1 development to Ma'ale Adumim should be completed. That will give you a clue as to their inner feelings."
While i consider myself a leftist(or centrist) most here would probably call me a neocon. Nonetheless in Israel i am a leftist/centrist and I honestly have no idea what the E1 development is. Regardless, I am for stopping all settlement expansion but as i said before as long as rockets are flying and terror continues my mind (as well as most Israelis) is elsewhere. I could also tell you that for peace I could care less about Maaele Adumim and Ariel or any E1 expansion but if for logistic reasons it makes more sense to swap other lands in Israel then thats fine by me too. Whatever is agreed with the Palestinians to achieve a real peace. Real peace for me is: each side declaring an end to the conflict and recognizing the others right to exist within its borders, making no more demands relating to lands or RoR, taking active actions against those trying to destroy the peace and finally, making the necessary changes to the education system to replace the incitement with dialog that will help the next generations heal the wounds that we and those before us have caused. Now you all have a clue to a Tel Aviv Leftists (or centrist - i dont even know)inner feelings on the E1 expansion.
April 21, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still hold to my statement that no Palestinian leader has come close to accepting the necessary precondition to the two-state solution: compromise on the right of return. Abbas' statements on the subject following Annapolis were as rigid and doctrinaire as any who came before him.
Anyone notice the irony? The Palestinians are accused of being rigid and doctrinaire for not accepting the "necessary precondition" set for them by the Zionists. Furthermore, that "necessary precondition" is that the Palestinians accept that they will not be allowed to return to their homeland. The necessary precondition, therefore, is that the Palestinians agree to be ethnically cleansed. Once they agree to that, the Zionsist will then grant them the right to be officially ethnically cleansed.
Such a deal . . .
April 20, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
The necessary precondition is that the Palestinians accept that they will be able to live as free Palestinians in a sovereign state of Palestine or accept citizenship if and where it is offered elsewhere; just as displaced and exiled Jews are able to live as free Jews in a sovereign state of Israel or accept citizenship if and where it is offered elsewhere (say Hebron, for example).
April 21, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"During pesach this year, I found Israel to be this strange mixture of arrogance and fear. Many Israelis are looking forward to jousting with the US over the issue of peace negotiations and ready to say FU to America. Yet fear of Iran pervades every conversation. Every year I find the place a little more weird."
There is something very strange and smugly cocksure in the attitude of some of those in and around the new government. Motions are gone through, but almost as a formailty; just steps in an elaborate dance.
No wonder the Greeks considered hubris to be a sin.
April 21, 2009 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Today, Haaretz' Bradley Burston echoes Sam's invocation of the lessons of Ariel Sharon in his call for Zionists to wake up:
"It is time to follow Ariel Sharon's example and call the occupation what it is. It is time for Zionists to stand up and declare strong support for Israel and strong opposition to the occupation. Not for the sake of the Palestinians. For Israel's sake.
"Controlling 3.5 million Palestinians cannot go on forever," Sharon told a weekly meeting of stunned Likud leaders, Netanyahu among them, in May, 2003. "You want to remain in Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and Bethlehem?"
"The idea that it is possible to continue keeping 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation - yes, it is occupation, you might not like the word, but what is happening is occupation - is bad for Israel, and bad for the Palestinians, and bad for the Israeli economy," Sharon said.
If the last 40 years are any indication, the Palestinians will be able survive the occupation. A healthy state of Israel will not."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1079369.html
Hard to imagine that in retrospect, the brutal but pragmatic Ariel Sharon was the last Israeli leader worthy of the title.
The IDF is taking note of a dangerous trend, particularly in the WB. More and more lone actors completely unaffiliated with known groups are attacking random targets. They appear to be flummoxed as to what to do about it; the Shin Bet and Palestinian informants useful in cases involving organized cells are irrelevent when it comes to this phenomenon:
"Terror activists waking up
The Israel Defense Forces is cautiously examining the situation in the West Bank in light of the fact that the many incidents which took place there are unlinked to each other and are not executed following instructions issued by a "guiding hand".
"We are well familiar with the popular terror, from previous years as well.It mostly constitutes a high percentage of all the incidents in the entire region. Although these are not major incidents, we must constantly examine what motivates what is happening," the source explained.
The defense official added that "it's too early to reach conclusions on what has happened in recent weeks, but we can definitely say that terror activists are waking up, not necessarily the senior ones and not necessarily incidents which were planned in an organized manner."
IDF officials note that the current wave of attacks may end soon, but are also preparing for an escalation, particularly in light of the fact that such acts of terror are more difficult to thwart, as they are mostly the result of a spontaneous organization by assailants acting alone.
"Our main goal is to prevent escalation," added the source. "Any incident may lead to additional incidents, which may be followed by an escalation, and therefore were examining this situation with extra caution."
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=43406
Who knows what the spokesman means by the last sentence? I wonder if the IDF even recognizes that "incidents" caused by their own troops and the rogue settlers have anything to do with the predictable response.
Nevermind that the whole situation looks more and more hopeless all the time.
Sadly, the Obama administration's failure to do anything other than have George Mitchell repeat the two-state mantra while continuing the failed policies of the past contributes to the glum picture.
April 19, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is very useful and appreciated to have the perspective of a Palestinian on what's wrong with Israel, but it would even be more useful to have the perspective of a Palestinian telling us what's wrong with the Palestinian side.
I can read this blog and find out from Israelis and Jews where Israel has erred, and I can certainly read it on Haaretz as well, but where is the Palestinian voice that says "there is no military solution to our problem." Unless it is a commonly accepted view that Palestinian militancy and terrorism has succeeded in achieving goals vis-a-vis Israel and will result in a Palestinian voice.
And those who argue about the justification for or existence of a Jewish Israel totally miss the boat and are part of the problem. Even if you don't think Israel's existence is justified, it's not just going to disappear without a fight. If that's your premise and you want to run with it then we might as well just have a fight to the last man because that's what it will be.
If you have a problem with how Israel was created that's fine. But all this talk of ethnocracy as if an ethnically or religiously Jewish state is unacceptable is totally silly. Almost every country in the world is some type of ethnocracy--the most notable exception is the U.S. There's nothing particularly odious about a Czech state, a French state, 10+ Latin American states, 20 Arab states, a few Islamic republics and two Korean states.
"You attribute far too much nobility to Israel. Go there and talk with the people as I have - they have one concern - the Jews." I'm not sure how this is any different from any other people in any other country, but OK.
April 20, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel's strategy is "More Land. Less Arabs". Those who do not see it are either fooling themselves or are trying to fool others.
April 20, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any chance you can do some blogging here that attempts to inform readers about internal Palestinian politics? I find Mr. Avishai's posts here, and the comments of members like jdledell (above), on "inside Israel" most helpful. I would find similar input on West Bank and Gaza helpful from you as well. For example, what do you and others in the West Bank think about the new Human Rights Watch Report? What is the reaction there?
Take it as a given that most in the audience here already know that Palestinians aren't happy about being occupied by Israel and that a lot of oppression occurs. What can you tell us that we might not know, can you inform us about the potential of, or problematic divisions within, your own community?
April 20, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink