I would like to point out that I am going to write on this issue once, and once only.
I noticed in my time at university that a cause celebre among politically-active young people (especially in the years 2000-2004) was their stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jewish students and Arab/Muslim students would frequently engage in debates, demonstrations, protests, and performance art (which I promise I will allude to in a later entry) on this issue, as if handing out flyers at Georgetown or Harvard Yard was the final remaining key in solving some 70 years of ethnic, religious and communal conflict. I cannot tell you how many times I was subjected to polemics and speeches on censuses from the 1930s, individuals from this or that side that met untimely (yet symbolic) ends, this and that injustice committed, etc. American students would often side with a group based on their political affiliations, roughly speaking conservatives being pro-Israel, liberals being pro-Palestinian (and with the politically active yet irrelevant often taking the most detailed positions). Nevermind that most American Jews are Democrats, and most Palestinian Arabs live in a socially conservative culture that would make your average college student cringe: these are just some of a litany ironies that surround this sad struggle.
In any case, I mention all this as the Economist has published what I think is a fine and succinct editorial and article on the subject of Israel's international image, especially among the Jewish diaspora. The article correctly points out that too often groups that are organized to support and promote Israel in other countries (such as in the US) often wind up masking the great social and political debates actually occurring in Israel in favor of touting the rhetoric of Israel's political right, and lazily accusing any dissenters from this ideology of being anti-Semitic. As the editorial notes, "Helping Israel should no longer mean defending it uncritically. Israel is strong enough to cope with harsh words from its friends." Especially in America, the relationship with Israel is distorted by the existence of AIPAC, a large lobbying group, and Christian evangelicals, who (in another ironic yet to me repugnant relationship) support Israeli hawks and settler groups in the believe that their reconquest of Zion will bring about the Second Coming, and of course actually causing all the Jews to either convert to Christianity or perish in flames. Talk about Israeli Jews bedding with the Devil! And I wonder why these strident Christians are not a little more concerned over the fate of Palestinian Christians...but once again the ironies abound. The end result on the American end is that we support Israeli politicians in some of their occasionally less-than-sensible ventures, and lose all credibility as an impartial arbiter.
At the same time, America has acquired a most unusual ally (and a non-official ally at that - there are no treaty obligations defining either party's rights or responsibilities). Despite its size, it seems that Israel calls the shots in this relationship in a way Americans would allow no other country of 5 million to do. Israel acts, and America responds. American criticism is very light towards Israeli disacknowledgement of its nuclear program, or military incursions to densely-populated Palestinian areas resulting in heavy civilian casualties, or the issue of the wall being built through the West Bank, and this is while the American government heavily subsidizes the Israeli military. Even more bizarre, America finds itself subject to occasional espionage by its smaller ally: witness the 2006 guilty plea of Col. Lawrence Franklin and the 1987 plea of Jonathan Pollard to passing classified information to Israeli officials. Such scandals should be the stuff of conflict between America and Russia or China, not the means to build a strategic friendship between a large power and a small recipient of aid. No staunch ally of anyone's should engage in such behavior.
However, I do agree with the pro-Israel side that often too much is played up over Israel's shortcomings while the Arab side's shortcomings are played down. Groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are pledged to destroy a Jewish state and use methods that attack civilians (which constitute acts of terrorism, but once again a discussion of that politically-charged term is best left for another time) , and I will not bother to get into Iranian President Ahmadinejad's antics. Nor shall I go into the details about how anti-Zionism is used by Middle Eastern governments as a political safety valve for their crushing of internal political debate.
Furthermore, I would like at this juncture to point out that I feel that Israel is a necessary good for the world. I think history has proven that the Jewish people need a separate state of their own in which to live freely, and that this state might as well be in their ancestral and holy lands (rather than Uganda, Madagascar or Paraguay, as some Zionists a century ago tried). One could argue "why are the Jews so special?", to which the proper response is that they have directly and indirectly shaped the morals and moral history of the world's Abrahamic religions, to which in various guises a majority of the world's population adheres. As Thomas Friedman pointed out in From Beirut to Jerusalem, one reason why Israel envinces so much international criticism is precisely because the Jews helped to invent the concept of universal justice. And as for why should they get their own country, well, it is an idea that they made a fact and have kept so for almost a century. If all the Gypsies moved to Voivodina and declared it an independent country for their people's defense, the world could not argue with that. But the fact is that the "wandering" Jews actually succeeded where other international minorities have not. They should not be penalized as a result.
But at the same time, the Palestinian Arabs deserve some sympathy, as they have been likewise turned into a stateless people, and in their homelands are deprived of life, liberty and property, and are subject to a great deal of social disorder and violence (some of their own making, some the making of the opposing side). They likewise have expressed a desire for an independent state, and should be allowed to achieve so, free from oppression and violence. The world should not wait for them to magically become an enlightened, peaceful democracy before granting them a state, as their current chaos, self-tyranny and ghetto-like rule is intricately connected with the conflict at hand.
I agree with the Economist and moderates on both sides, in that a lasting peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians is actually quite straightforward: a shared capital of Jerusalem, a Palestinian state roughly following the pre-1967 "Green Line" (but one that leaves the biggest Jewish settlements in Israel in return for land elsewhere), no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees to Israel, no claims on Judaea or Samaria by Israel on Palestine. To this a mix of reparations payments could be added, potentially a demilitarization and an economic union (another good idea proposed by Thomas Friedman in the above-mentioned book, written at a time when he was still a serious writer). The only problem with this peace plan is actually going through the torturous political landscape needed to make it a reality. It seems at times that the political (and military) fight is at its bitterest when it is Israelis vs. Israelis or Palestinians vs. Palestinians.
This seems to actually be a common factor in war: a warring people are more concerned with fighting their enemies at home than in effecting a decisive victory against the stated enemy. Witness the whole "surge" debate among Americans. In any case, there will be a lot of rough dealing with extremists in Israel and among Palestinians in order to achieve peace, and apparently such courage is at the moment lacking.
And finally, I must admit that until Israeli and Palestinian leaders can summon that political courage, I have found myself largely washing my hands of this conflict. I am not a Palestinian Arab, nor a Jew, and the endless arguments and bitter conflict seem typical of an internal family feud (which this arguably is, between the children of Isaac and his half-brother Ishmael). Both nationalities are very cosmopolitan, very well-educated and have a collective historical memory of legalism and trade, as well as a hard habit of forgetting injustices. This does make for one difficult and protracted conflict. Another familiy's problems are sometimes best left to the relatives to sort out, without taking sides in the affair. Furthermore, although Jerusalem is for many the spiritual center of the world, one must put this conflict in perspective: a grand total of 6,385 people have been killed to date in 20 years of Israeli-Palestinian conflict (including 1322 in the first Intifada). Although this leaves out the six other Arab-Israeli wars, this is still small potatoes when considering some 300,000 killed in Darfur since 2003, or the 4,000,000 killed recently in Congo in the most destructive war since World War II. These conflicts get no space in the international mind, while UN resolutions, hilltop settlements, rights of return, uses of the River Jordan's water etc. abound ad nauseam.
In any case, I hope for peace, hope for a more open and constructive dialogue between America and its Israeli allies, and steadfastly avoid college demonstrations and students with flyers.
5 comments:
I never knew that bots advertising recipes cared so much about conflict in the Middle East. That comment has been deleted.
Very good post. It was such a comprehensive summary that I dont know what I can add.
You did mention the issue of reparations and I think that is an important point. Israelis themselves and all the nations of the world who approved the State of Israel's creation should take responsibility for displacing the native people of Palestine and pay something on the order of $120 USD to each person in Palestine. The other UN nations of the world should also offer Palestinians the right to immigrate. This having been done in addition to the other things you proposed and then the World can wash their hands.
It is true that Jews have no legitimate claim to the land of Israel on the basis of Jewishness. No other group of people would have a 2000 year old territorial claim recognised. Besides, when Titus smashed Judaea, presumably the Roman Empire had the legitimate claim to that land, not religious Jews. The systematic evacuation of the Jewish Ghettos for public health reasons, and subsequent industrialised extermination of the Jewish people in Central Europe similarly do not make a 2000 year old claim over Middle Eastern land legitimate.
However, just as the Europeans had no legitimate claim over the New World but took it by force anyway, the Jews and their European and American backers must naw make ammends to the displaced Palestinians. European and Russian Jews may share a great deal more in common with the religious and cultural roots of the Christian West, but this in no way legitimises the usurpation and subjugation of Palestine. It is time to make ammends, but time of course to realise that the Jews are there to stay on their own terms and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
One final thought, something I find particularly distasteful about the State of Israel is that it is a "Jewish" State meaning it is by definition inextricably linked to people of a distinct genetic heritage and religion. At the same time Israel claims to be a secular State. A proper secular state should have no cencern for genetics nor religion when considering whom it wishes to embrace or include. As a child of Europe and America, I would expect more of the State of Israel.
WRT reparations, I meant to say $120,000 USD. This should also be accompanied by a complete disarmament of the Palestinian population.
I'm not sure just how secular Israel is supposed to be. Much as referred to in the Economist articles and in Friedman's book, the country is essentially a large open debate as to whether Jewishness is more a religion or an ethnicity (in the former Soviet Union it was and is considered a distinct ethnicity regardless of religious beliefs). The state is more or less secular, and obviously Arabs and other ethnic groups can obtain citizenship. But a lot of the officially recognized religious institutions are controlled by an Orthodox rabbinate, with the result that the only sanctioned form of marriage (at least for Jewish Israelis) is an Orthodox wedding to between a Jewish couple. Furthermore, all Jewish Israelis are subject to conscription, while Israeli Arabs are not (but Bedouin and Druze are)...yet Orthodox Jewish religion students are exempt from military service. Talk about a hodge-podge, to say nothing of a thousand sharp debates.
As for the 2000 year old claims, my point was more that if in modern times the Jewish people were going to migrate anywhere and start a state, the current site of the state of Israel makes as much and more sense than some swamp or savannah in the Southern Hemisphere. Palestine was not empty 100 years ago, but it was much less densely inhabited than now, and the Israelis cannot be entirely blamed for Palestinian fecundity.
Also, I think that more countries rely on 1000 or 2000 year old claims than we in the "New World" countries would care to admit. China, Italy, even England draw on the distant past to justify their nations. The Israeli case is even stronger because they base it off of a book that most of the world's population has read parts of and largely misinterpret.
I do not have a problem with proposals to give reparations proportional to the size of the Palestinian population at the time of Israel's birth. It think 120k per person should be fair in that context. If Palestinans had been having 2.1 kids per person, then the figure would be $1.5 million USD or so.
Secondly as far as the washing of hands goes, I would argue that countries who are rich and especially countries who had a hand in the creation of the Israeli state need offer the right of all Palestinians to seek refuge in their countries and establish permanant work visas with an eye towards citizenship. In fairness perhaps the same offer should be given Israelis just in case things should go very sour for them in the region. If that offer is left on the table for a generation, 25 years, and that country pays its share of reparations, then I think hands may be washed on the State level. On the individual level, so long as you support such policies politically, then hands may otherwise be washed.
Post a Comment