"We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now" - Martin Luther King
A succession of flawed peace initiatives has left the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the verge of becoming irresolvable. The current political developments on both sides - including the assumption of power in the wake of the election of February 2009 of the most hawkish government in Israel's history, and continuing Palestinian factionalism - are reason enough for deep despondency. Yet for one reason alone, there is a perceptible if cautious optimism in the air: the election of an inspirational United States president, Barack Obama, who (amid many other policy challenges) is committed to making a serious effort to resolve the conflict.
Tony Klug is an analyst of middle-east affairs
and a special advisor on the region to the Oxford Research Group. He is the author of How
peace broke out in the Middle East: a short history of the future (Fabian Society, 2007)
This article is based on the author's
pamphlet, Visions
of the Endgame: a strategy to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict swiftly to
an end
(May 2009), published by the Fabian Society in association with the Oxford Research
Group.
Also by Tony Klug in openDemocracy:
"The West Bank and Gaza Strip: an
international protectorate?" (7 May 2003)
"Israel-Palestine: how peace
broke out" (5 June 2007)
"Two states for two peoples:
solution or illusion?"
(21 July 2008The intense diplomatic activity now underway - reflected in the simultaneous
visits to the middle east of several leading officials of the Obama administration - is evidence of
this serious engagement. But the slightly more hopeful mood will be of passing
interest only unless it is used to bring the dispute swiftly to an end. Since
the core parties are manifestly unable to resolve the conflict themselves, and
in the light of its propensity to pollute international relations, the entire
international community (among which, for historic reasons in this region, the
US has a predominant role) has an obligation to act quickly and decisively.
Such an intervention would almost certainly be welcomed, overtly or covertly, by huge numbers of Palestinians and Israelis desperate for a way out of their seemingly intractable problem. In this sense, the long-term interests of the US, Israel and the Palestinians coincide - but it is up to the US government to bring them into alignment.
Accordingly, a robust international strategy needs to be devised and boldly pursued with the aim of attaining substantial and irreversible progress within the first two-to-three years of the Obama administration. No one involved can afford to replicate the drawn-out methods, conceptual flaws and repetitive errors of previous efforts. Another failure will effectively close the door on hope, with potentially disastrous consequences.
The need for speed
"The only alternative to coexistence is co-destruction" - Jawaharlal Nehru
To end the conflict, two things have to be got right simultaneously: the destination and the strategy. But this is a double-act never yet achieved.
For some three decades following the Arab-Israeli war of June 1967, there was neither a viable nor a commonly agreed destination. To the extent that the conflicting parties projected eventual outcomes during this period, they were either deficient or misconceived - the Allon plan and "Jordanian option" for the Israelis; a version of the "one-state" idea for the Palestinians; United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 for the international community.
The common flaw was their failure to respond to the key question at the heart of the conflict: how to resolve a bitter clash between two charismatic national movements? To Resolution 242, the Palestinians were just homeless refugees, not a stateless nation. To the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) charter, the Jews were merely a religious minority, to be treated accordingly. To Israel's former prime minister Golda Meir, "it was not as though there was a Palestinian people...they did not exist".
A solid international consensus - backed by majority Palestinian and Israeli opinion - eventually emerged, around the turn of the century, in support of two viable states as the backbone of a solution. Thirty vital years had been heedlessly squandered before the recognition finally dawned that any proposed solution that failed to accommodate the minimum national aspirations of either people - let alone both of them - was incongruous and bound to fail.
So, finally, the international community got the destination essentially right. But it still had to get the strategy right - and this it has persistently failed to do. There has been any number of initiatives - the Oslo process, the "roadmap", the Annapolis summit among many other dead-end, stillborn or toothless plans. But whatever their respective merits, they rested on too many doubtful assumptions, were too vague about the objectives or allowed the parties to evade their commitments through a lack of effective enforcement-mechanisms. When each eventually collapsed, the reversion to the status quo inevitably benefited the state that already existed, enabling it to continue chiselling away at the territory of the putative other, bit-by-bit eroding the feasibility of the only destination that made sense.
In consequence, even the most pragmatic Palestinian opinion has been losing faith in the two-state outcome. Variations on the one-state theme have been coming back into vogue, despite the tough prospect embracing the idea would entail - engagement in a bitter long-term struggle with uncertain consequences in search of an objective that has not been clearly thought through, remains contested and is not necessarily regarded as achievable.
In parallel, Hamas rockets, which have terrorised the population of southern Israel for years, have deepened the sense among Israelis that peacemaking is futile - that Palestinians are not serious about peace and that a state in the West Bank is merely a device to attack Israelis from closer range and finish them off.
This mutual disenchantment has been putting the hitherto consensual destination under severe strain. Irretrievable collapse would usher in an era of indefinite strife. At this point, the only way to restore confidence in the destination is to move rapidly towards it.
The need of the moment
"Things do not happen. Things are made to happen" - John F Kennedy
The challenge then is to formulate a strategy that will be effective in both fashioning the endgame and swiftly achieving it, irrespective of the political complexions of the parties to the conflict. In a situation where everyone knows both where they are and (more or less) where they need to get to, the key is to lay the track from here to there.
In this endeavour, we should be careful not to be sidetracked by issues which, while important in themselves, are not directly instrumental in resolving the conflict. Stimulating the West Bank economy, relaxing internal travel restrictions, reducing the number of checkpoints, releasing some prisoners, even easing the blockade of Gaza are essentially humanitarian measures that may make Palestinian life under Israeli rule more bearable - but they do nothing to end the occupation.
Moreover, moves by other governments to restrict the supply of certain weapons or spare parts to the combatants (mainly affecting Israel) or enforcing the accurate labelling of goods from West Bank settlements may be a legitimate way of registering public disapproval of certain practices, but again are marginal to advancing a final agreement.
However, a total freeze of all further settlement growth - backed up, if necessary, by firm enforcement measures - is a different matter, owing to the potential of this issue fatally to subvert any peace process based on two entities. It is a good sign that President Obama has so far taken a firm stand here. However, not even this matter should be allowed to impede the progress of a broader peace strategy, which urgently needs to be prosecuted in parallel. Otherwise, it would mean effectively handing a veto to one of the parties as a reward for its diversionary tactics.
This said, an authentic invitation to the settlers to stay if they wished under Palestinian state sovereignty would take the sting out of much of the issue. Some may take up this offer, some may accept compensation for returning to Israel, some might remain in settlements that are transferred to Israel as part of an equitable territorial swap. Rather than threatening hundreds of thousands of settlers with the dubious prospect of the Israeli military attempting to drive them out by force, a menu of choices as indicated coupled with an end to all subsidies and a definitive deadline for the withdrawal of army protection following a peace agreement could be more practical and effective. A new coalition government in Israel may need to be assembled, with Kadima replacing the far-right parties, to initiate such steps; or it may require a new election.
From some pro-peace circles, the call has gone out to speedily resume negotiations between the parties and revive mutual confidence-building measures. But there is no reason to believe that negotiations between these innately unequal parties will be any less of a sham than before or that the trust ostensibly built between an occupying authority and an occupied people will be any less hollow than in the past. These are dead-end tracks and should be strictly avoided, at least initially. The time for bilateral negotiations has come and gone. Without firm outside guidance and pressure, no substantive progress can be expected. The need of the moment is for decisive international leadership.
Five aims, three steps
"It always seems impossible until it's done" - Nelson Mandela
My pamphlet - Visions of the Endgame: a strategy to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict swiftly to an end (May 2009) - outlines a quick, clear and strong strategy designed to accomplish five things:
* flush out the ultimate positions of the belligerent parties
* engage them rigorously in a peace process
* outline a clear horizon for the process
* establish an effective enforcement-mechanism
* maintain a stance robust enough to avoid being derailed by the "next atrocity" or disrupted by the furtive manoeuvrings of any party.
The proposal comprises three main steps.
The first move is an invitation to the principal parties from (say) the Quartet (United States, Russia, European Union, United Nations) to tender their realistic visions of the endgame by a fixed deadline of around six months. This impels them to take responsibility, foments internal debate within each society and helps catalyse new political currents. If, for any reason, the US-led quartet is unable to preside over the initiative, the role could fall to President Obama himself and his eminent team.
In the second move - whether or not the parties observe the first deadline - the Quartet formulates a definitive plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and resolve the wider Arab-Israeli issues. The plan draws on the proposals submitted by the parties, but also on past agreements and near-agreements, and other sources. The endorsement of the plan by the UN Security Council would give it added political weight and solid international legality.
In the third move, the Quartet presides over the implementation of a schedule of interim steps along a fixed timetable towards the final agreement, at each stage rewarding implementation and penalising failure.
During the first two phases, extending over a period of roughly one year, the parties are free to negotiate and agree any matter directly between themselves. Whatever they agree goes into the definitive plan. What they fail to agree on is left to the Quartet - or the US government - to determine. Crucially, the default position is no longer the status quo.
Israel's prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in his speech on 14 June 2009, felt obliged to utter (three times) what for his Likud bloc had been a forbidden phrase: "a Palestinian state". True, he hedged it with strict preconditions, as part of an attempt to balance Barack Obama's demands with the exigencies of holding his coalition together. More recently, he has been trying to shift the public debate in Israel from the West Bank settlements to the issue of Jerusalem where he feels he may generate stronger support, especially among US Jews.
But he may have met his match in Obama. In his first six months in office, the US president has shifted the debate with - and within - Israel towards the nature and shape of a Palestinian state. The world now waits as he contemplates his next move. It is vital he maintains the momentum and keeps his eye firmly on the big picture - the endgame - and not allow himself to get distracted, even when the side-issues concerned are important.
Obama is yet to visit Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories as president. It could be a big moment. A well-timed visit, maybe together with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah and a joint appeal from them to both peoples, could help cultivate new peace movements in both camps and spark off a self-sustaining peace dynamic. Obama has the wind with him, but time is of the essence. If the rekindled but fragile hope is not to give way once again to the virus of despair, the wind must not be allowed to blow itself out.
In the words of the old classic, it's now or never.
|
Also in openDemocracy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2009:
Paul Rogers, "Gaza: hope after attack" (1 January 2009) Ghassan Khatib, "Gaza: outlines of an endgame" (6 January 2009 Avi Shlaim, "Israel and Gaza: rhetoric and reality" (7 January 2009) Paul Rogers, "Gaza: the Israel-United States connection" (7 January 2009) Paul Rogers, "Gaza: the wider war" (13 January 2009) Paul Rogers, "After Gaza: Israel's last chance" (17 January 2009) Paul Rogers, "Gaza: the war after the war" (22 January 2009) Tarek Osman, "Egypt's dilemma: Gaza and beyond" (12 January 2009) Menachem Kellner, "Israel's Gaza war: five asymmetries" (14 January 2009) Khaled Hroub, "Hamas after the Gaza war" (15 January 2009) Prince Hassan of Jordan, "The failure of force: an alternative option" (16 January 2009) Martin Shaw, "Israel's politics of war" (20 January 2009) Conor Gearty, "Israel, Gaza and international law" (21 January 2009) Mustafa Kibaroglu, "Turkey-Israel relations after Gaza" (26 January 2009) Sadegh Zibakalam, "Iran and the Gaza war" (26 January 2009) Khaled Hroub, "The ‘Arab system' after Gaza" (27 January 2009) Hugo Slim, "NGOs in Gaza: humanitarianism vs politics" (30 January 2009) Lucy Nusseibeh, "The four lessons of Gaza" (4 February 2009) Martin Shaw, "Uses of genocide: Kenya, Georgia, Israel, Sri Lanka" (9 February 2009) Prince Hassan of Jordan, "Palestine's right: past as prologue" (11 February 2009) Colin Shindler, "Israel's rightward shift: a history of the present" (23 February 2009) Eyal Weizman, "Lawfare in Gaza: legislative attack" (1 March 2009) Akiva Eldar, "The United States and Israel: moment of truth" (18 May 2009) Gershon Baskin, "The state of Israel: key to peace" (19 May 2009) Gideon Levy, "Barack Obama: Israel's true friend" (25 May 2009) Akiva Eldar, "Binyamin Netanyahu's mirage" (15 June 2009) Gershon Baskin, "Israel's path: from occupation to peace" (7 July 2009) Hazem Sagheh, "Arabs and the Iranian upheaval" (9 July 2009) Akiva Eldar, "Iran, the Arabs and Israel: the domino-effect" (27 July 2009) Hazem Sagheh, "Israeli settlement, Arab movement" (28 July 2009) |
Comments
Israel is still used to having its way in all subjects and ignoring anything others say if it's not to its liking. So far Obama has held his own. Hamas has stopped using the rockets as of this past weekend(NY Times). Israel will have to give. If it keeps the settlements there with no expansion, then East Jerusalem must be kept for Palestinian homes, not Jewish-only ones. If Hamas stops hitting Israel, then the check points must be REMOVED in full. A few won't do. There have been too many for too long. To see Israel's "misdeeds" see the articles in NY Review of Books in April, 2009 by David Hare and another in early May by Israeli/Jewish writer. They find very little good in Israel's actions since the destruction last January and/or since 1949 in their treatment of the Arabs. Obama has no past dealings with Israel and sees the situation much like Jimmy Carter did. If Carter can talk with the Hamas and PLO group, so can Obama and his lead man, George Mitchell. There are no more excuses for Israel to attack or take away food, medicine, water, electricity etc., etc. etc... Talking must be followed by actions to improve the lives of the Palestinians. Israel may not like the orders set by the UN but since they are part of it, they must follow them.
WHAT IS ALARMING IN NETENYAHO’S SPEECH
There is no doubt that Obama has touched many hearts in the Muslim/Arab world with his honesty and sincerity . He has brought back the America we all knew and admired, the America that was the voice of those who have no voice, and today, after listening to Netenyaho’s speech, I feel so alone and voiceless...
I watched and listened to Netanyaho’s speech hoping that I would hear any positive signals to end this conflict, a slight commitment to the road map, to the Arab initiative, or any response to Obama’s sincere call to stop settlement expansion. By the end of the speech I felt so low and disappointed .His speech reminded me of Sharon in the past; he accepted the road map, but had fourteen reservations to it.
Netanhayo was cleverer; he threw the ball into the Arab court and the international community, yet he put all kinds of obstacles to Palestinian rights and the end of the occupation. He tentatively mentioned the ‘state’ word, but without mentioning borders or sovereignty.
Apart from a demilitarized Palestinian state, which is our hope that the whole world would rid itself of weapons one day, Netenayaho slapped the entire Arab/Muslim world when he reiterated that Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel despite international law stating that it is still an occupied city.
As to the Palestinians, Netanyaho’s speech reiterated the same Israeli position – evasiveness, buying more time - the only aim being to manage the conflict. In the mean time, continuing to expand settlements and hoping for a collective voluntary transfer of the maximum number of Palestinians elsewhere.
What really alarmed and concerned me was the emphasis on Jewish identity and his demand for recognition that Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people and must remain Jewish. Allow me to explain my concerns.
Identity
In this open world that we all live and share, where we travel and settle in new countries and become citizens of these new adopted homes, our identity evolves when we understand the new culture and absorb its values. Gradually we integrate and realise that we can coexist and live together without threatening each other.
A new positive identity emerges based on our common rights and future, and above all on our common humanity. It does not mean forgetting our roots. On the contrary, it means enriching our souls and becoming bridges of understanding between our roots and our new homes, thus leading to a new level of soul and identity, in fact, to one common human identity that cares for others as it cares for itself, based on our equal rights,shared hopes and the positive values of all religions.
At a time when we are calling to shed prejudice and nationalism so as to enhance our shared hopes for a secure world, there should be no place for a rigid form of identity that might alienate others. It should be neither Jewish nor Muslim, as both are religions that have enriched the world in the past; they must return to their common positive message which the conflict has almost obliterated.
Israel: a homeland for Jewish people.
In Judaism, this means that the Jewish person who goes there has been elevated and is closer to God. Are they truly closer to God when they go and live on the misery of other people who are prevented even from building an extra room in their home? Are they really closer to God when they have swimming pools, while their Palestinian neighbours do not have clean drinking water yet pay more than double the price for the water they are allowed to have? Are they really closer to God when they throw stones and garbage at their neighbours? The truth as I see this is a form of fundamentalist action that is fuelling the other fundamentalism and threatening us all.
State
Yes, Israel is a State and has the right to open its doors to those who want to go there for a visit or pilgrimage. However, I know there are many Jews who are happy where they live and would not want to settle there, and who feel acutely embarrassed by the actions of the settlers. .
Jewish State
Judaism (Jewishness) is a religion not an identity. I stand firmly against any theocratic state anywhere and insist on only secular civil laws that provide equality between all. Yes, Israel has a Jewish character (and even Arafat confirmed that in his last interview) and this could be maintained through the natural increase in population, but Israel should be kept as a State for all its citizens, as it declared when it was established and was recognised on this basis. If Israel insists on being a Jewish state, then we will witness more than one Muslim state declaring that it is only for Muslims. This will take us back to the Dark Ages, and the wars between religions in the name of God.
I believe that God created the world for all his people. Jews, like others, have the right to equality and security anywhere in the world and certainly Jewish Israelis have such a right after their suffering and persecution. However, Palestinians had nothing to do with this suffering and persecution But Israel must comply with international law and recognise that Palestinians have an equal right to live in peace - security and with dignity.
I think we are living in very fragile, challenging times, and if we do not dare to address rights and violations of rights we will soon be back to the law of the jungle.
To overcome the bitterness that the speech has left I hope that Obama, who enchanted the Arab/Muslim world with his honesty, can translate his words of justice and equality into practical actions - and soon. What we need to do is to encourage him, to reach out to Palestinians and Jews everywhere again and again, assuring both peoples of their rights to a homeland with borders and security. Getting the support of the Washington J.Street Jewish lobby would enable him to take a firm stand with the Israeli government to force them to comply with the demands of the international community to end the occupation. At the same time, he could take interim measures, that would be supported by the international community, to assure the Palestinians that he is not abandoning them as other administrations have done in the past..
Measures to be taken urgently
• Persuasion/pressure from the new administration on the Israeli government for clarity and true commitment to honest peace negotiations within the two-year time frame mentioned by Obama
• Real and tangible improvements in human rights and international humanitarian law in the occupied territories.
• Reopening of the Gaza crossing to allow humanitarian aid to go freely into the ravaged territory
• Pressure on Israel to remove the over 600 check points in the West Bank (no more than 40 are needed to maintain the acclaimed Israeli security along the 1948 borders)
• To create an atmosphere of hope in the occupied territories by a release of prisoners (over 10,000) of whom approximately 3000 are women and children - some born in prison
• Stop alienating Palestinians and the Arab/Muslim world by making prisoners wear orange overalls similar to those worn in Guantanamo
I am definitely committed to peace and committed to Israel security and to its existence . This commitment is at the same level as my commitment to the right of Palestinians to freedom and security. Without acknowledging the right of each other we remain less than human. What we want is a world free of wars and the consequences of war, whether in the name of religion or any other cause.
Ahlam Akram
ahlamakram2000@yahoo.co.uk
_______________________________________________________________
Note
The attached video is a moving call from an Israeli woman to Obama to help Israel get out of its madness. Her call does not differ from mine except that I know the patience of Palestinians and Muslims cannot be tried forever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcGm-gxmxHw
There has been no resolution because the facts are still being ignored. This is not a war of two nationalist movements, this is a war of colonisation. An invasion, an occupation, and a colonisation of Palestine was carried out with the support of the international community and the colonisation and occupation continues to this day. Israel has no more 'right' to Palestine than the English had to America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. Those colonising nations have had to admit to the wrongs inherent in their foundation and make redress and give full and equal rights to their indigenous people... so must Israel. It is a fantasy to continue to support the ridiculous belief that there was any 'right' involved in the establishment of Israel. It was as wrong and unjust as all other colonisations and should be treated as such. What makes the wrong so egregious is that it continues still.
The major fact is that neither the Palestinians nor the Arabs want to recognize Israel's right to exist; this has been the main problem from 1948. By contrast, the Israelis are willing to recongize a Palestinian state. There can't be any settlement of this conflict until the basic problem of the Palestinian/Arab side is resolved. .
This position that Israel has no right to exist has become increasingly fashionable on the left, who confuse retrograde Islamofascist movements with "colonial liberation". This view, ascribing all evil to Israel and consciously ignoring (for instance) the lack of individual human rights in Hamas' Gaza and the PA, is reflected in the left-wing bloggers here at opendemocracy as well.
The Israelis have created a democratic and economically, educationally and scientific society for themselves, starting from very little and taking in, e.g., 700,000 refugees who were expelled from Arab lands in 1948-1960. (More Middle Eastern Jews were expelled from Arab lands than Palestinians who suffered in the 'Nahkba': one difference, the Middle Eastern Jews didn't attack their neighbors first.) Realistically, one cannot ask a successful society to commit suicide in order to make fashionable intellectuals in Britain feel good about themselves as "anti-colonialists". If you are truly interested in peace, this line about eliminating Israel should be dropped. If you are truly interested in peace, you will get serious about the nature of both sides in this two-sided conflict.
Ethan,
The facts are clear. There is a land called Palestine. In 1947 it was partitioned against the will of the majority of the people living there to allow the colonial state of Israel to be established. This is no different to English settlers arriving in America or Australia or any other country. The Palestinians, the indigenous people, like the American Indians, Australian Aborigines, New Zealand Maoris and Canadian Indians and Eskimos resisted the colonisation of their country and were all defeated by the colonising power. The Americans, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians have since admitted to the illegitimacy of their colonisation and sought to make redress to their indigenous peoples. They have also given full rights as citizens to their indigenous peoples. Israel has not only failed to admit to the illegitimacy of its colonisation and the wrongs inherent in its foundation but it has refused to either give back enough of Palestine to its indigenous people for them to create their own State or to create one state (like all other colonisers have done) with equal rights for all.
Even worse, Israel continues not only to occupy but to dispossess and colonise. And Israel does this because it receives billions of dollars every year from the Americans. To that degree Israel is an American economic colony. Without American money Israel would be in a far different position.
It is irrelevant if Jews were expelled from Arab lands just as it is irrelevant if Christians were, and they were. Christians, despite their beliefs would have no right to the land of others and neither did Jews.
The only count on which Israel can stand is that as a historically recent coloniser, like all of the others, its existence is a given. But only on original borders. The Arabs, including the Palestinians have agreed to full acceptance of Israel if it returns to original borders. Israel refuses and continues to dispossess and colonise.
As long as Israel remains a regional bully and thug, attacking its neighbours and as long as it exists through the subjugation, suppression, dispossession, abuse and occupation of its indigenous people, it will never be considered a successful society. The British may well have colonised the world at one point but they left. Or, where they stayed, they gave full and equal rights to all. Either Israelis leave their Middle Eastern colony and find homes elsewhere or they give full rights to all of their citizens and their indigenous people.
In truth, one or other of these outcomes are inevitable. If Israel is destroyed it will not be because of Arabs but because of Israeli intransigence, inhumanity and backwardness in a modern world which accepts the rights of all human beings to live in freedom in a just society.
Like I said, the fundamental problem is that one side is willing to recognize the other side's right to exist, but the other side is not willing to recognize the first side's right to exist. As long as that is the case, then there will be violence. Rosross's response proves my point.
It is surely *not* irrelevant that 100,000 more Jews were expelled from Arab lands in 1948-1960 than all the Palestinians who suffered in the Nakbah. Because if we add those Jews into the equation, hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern Jews who arrived in Israel with nothing, then we are looking not at a "colonialist" expulsion but at a typical post-WWII population exchange, like that which created India and Pakistan. In 1947, 2/3 of the population of British India did not want partition, but a religious minority did--namely, Pakistan. 5-7 million Hindus had to flee Pakistan as a result, and hundreds of thousands of them died: more Hindus *died* than the *total* number of all Palestinian refugees. The numbers simply dwarf anything that happened in the Middle East, and it is why Pakistan is now 99% Muslim. But my point is: even given this appalling scale of violence, violent dispossession and death, no one in the British left questions Pakistan's legitimacy. Only Israel is ever in the dock.
Meanwhile, even as we speak, Muslims are enjoying all the property those 850,000 Jews were forced to leave behind. But though they were classified as refugees by the UN (just like the Palestinians were), the dispossession of the the Middle Eastern Jews is never an issue now either in the press or at the UN. My suggestion: compensate the Palestinians with all that Jewish property (but good luck getting it back from the current "owners"!), and move on.
But in any case, as long as the goal of one side is the utter destruction of the other interlocutor, there can hardly be peace negotiations, let alone peace. The side bent on destruction is the Arab side--but then don't blame the Israelis for there being no peace. Please read Benny Morris, One State, Two States.
Typical use of red herrings Professor.
In response to ethnic cleansing by the colonists in Palestine there were riots in most Arab countries. This was followed by official harassment and in some cases expulsions.
However, you have taken the total figure for emigration in that year and attributed it to expulsion which is downright dishonest. There had been a steady and increasing emigration to Israel from Arab lands from the middle of the 19th century anyway. So there is no way of knowing how much of the emigration was due to "push" from the arab side and how much due to "pull"from the Zionist side. Perhaps the most relevant fact here is that Jews had lived for centuries in these countries with little friction (certainly less than in Europe) before Israel was created. The refugees form these countries may well have legal rights to pursue but negating the the legal rights of others is not a legitimate way of pursuing them. Robbery is no exchange.
The creation of Pakistan (which continues to be a disaster) is only relevant to this discussion in that it shows that basing nationhood on ethnic or religious criteria is not a good way to create a modern nation.
Before anyone proposes to discourse on what happened to the Middle Eastern Jews, or denies the expulsions, I suggest a reading of Yaakov Meron, "Why Jews Fled Arab Countries", Middle East Quarterly 1995. Then we can talk.
It may be that Pakistan will self-destruct. But though its creation caused 5 to 7 million Hindu refugees (that is, *ten times* the size of the Nakbah), and caused almost a million deaths of Hindus, no one on the British left is suggesting it *ought* to be destroyed. This is reserved for Israel.
Before anyone proposes to discourse on what happened to the Middle
Eastern Jews, or denies the expulsions, I suggest a reading of Yaakov
Meron, "Why Jews Fled Arab Countries", Middle East Quarterly 1995. Then
we can talk.
No one has denied the expulsions.
I have simply pointed out that they did not account for all the migration from Arab countries to Israel as you have suggested.
No matter how much detail and nuance you add to your point it doesn't change the repugnance of subjecting morality to the logic of double entry book-keeping. Wrongs commited to Jews by Arab countries do not cancel out the wrongs committed against Palestinians by Israel.
The expulsion of the Jews from Arab lands, in numbers far larger than the Palestinian Nakba, is relevant to any discussion, because it is necessary to see the whole picture of what was happening, necessary to see what happened to *everyone*, and who was doing what to whom. Otherwise the history is distorted
It is also necessary to understand the "Jewish Nakba" in order to see the really-existing Israel, as opposed to the left-wing fantasy of it. The reality is that half the Jewish population of Israel is made up of people (Misrahi Jews) who have *always* lived in the Middle East. Tthey aren't "colonists from Europe." They are a mass of Middle Eastern refugees (officially categorized as refugees by the UN, just like the Palestinians).
For instance, Sderot, which has been the target of 8,000 Hamas rockets, is made up of refugees from Morocco.
The threats of mass murder, including by the representative of Egypt to the UN, began before the 1947-1948 war even started, so the violent Arab attitude cannot be ascribed to a "reaction" to expulsions by the Israeli armed forces, which only began in 1948 (and which were bad acts). I doubt that people who take this "understanding" line about Arab conduct in engaging in violence against peaceful neighbors (i.e., it was a "reaction" to provocations) would also take the line that what the Israelis did was also an "understandable" reaction--namely, to a genocidal-aimed war which the Israelis did not start.
The Bagdad Progrom of 1941 occurred before any of this, and at least 200 Jews were killed (the number may be far higher), which is twice the number of Palestinians killed at Deir Yassin which is always talked about, and property destruction was bad. The Alexandria riots of 1945, in which three synagogues were burned by mobs, many homes were torched, and schools as well, occurred before any of this. The Aleppo Pogrom of 1947 occurred before any of this and left all Jewish shops in the city, and all synagogues, in ruins.
And keeping the "Jewish Nakba" in mind has an additional advantage, as laid out by Ada Aharoni; I think folks will find this incident interesting:
"During a course I taught at the University of Pennsylvania, the head of the Palestinian student group, Fouad, said with amazement: We’re surprised that you, the Jews, who are known as smart people, did not publicize this important historical affair - the Nakba of Jews in Arab states. Why do you leave it tucked away in your drawers for 60 years?
"I asked him: Why do you want Israel to publicize it?
"And he replied: Because the Nakba narrative of Jews in Arab states salvages my dignity and that of my people! It makes us realize we are not the only ones who suffered in the conflict. Familiarity with the historical facts allows us to hold up our heads and opens up reconciliation opportunities."
I repeat. No one has denied the expulsions. No one has denied that atrocities took place. The details you give change nothing. You are attempting to justify the expulsion of Palestinians with the the outrageous and unjustified responses. Two wrongs still do not make a right.
Morroco is not in the Middle East by the way. Check an Atlas to see how far from Palestine it is.
Your student is entitled to his opinion. I'm not sure what you think it changes.
1. Big C writes: "No one is denying the expulsions."
But previously (Tuesday 8-4 at 9:29), he wrote this:
"In response to ethnic cleansing by the colonists in Palestine there were riots in most Arab countries. This was followed by official harassment and in some cases expulsions.
However, you have taken the total figure for emigration in that year and attributed it to expulsion which is downright dishonest. There had been a steady and increasing emigration to Israel from Arab lands from the middle of the 19th century anyway. So there is no way of knowing how much of the emigration was due to "push" from the arab side and how much due to "pull"from the Zionist side."
So I'm confused. I'm not sure what Big C is accepting as historical, and what he is claiming isn't. It looks like he's accepting that *some* expulsions or pushes occurred ("no one denies the expulsions'), but at the same time that the 850,00 figure is dishonest because of voluntary immigration. So I would ask Big C: how many of those 850,000 Jews, living comfortably among Arab friends, volunteered to become penniless in order to join the Israel project?
2. As for Fouad the Palestinian student, I think his thoughtful remarks change much, and explains why for the good of everyone, and for the good of peace, both the fact and the huge scale of the "Jewish Nakba" have to be included in any discussion of where we are now, just like the Palestinian Nakba does.
But this puts the two sides pretty much on a basis of equal victimization--which is Fouad's point again. I think this is what leftists in Britain will object to, since it takes away their "anti-colonial" moral high horse.
"Two wrongs don't make a right"--but only Israel is in the dock on opendemocracy, so one can't get out of the Arab contribution that way. One has to see the whole picture.
I am convinced that the only way Iran will respect us is if they think we are crazy and will blow them up at any moment. The Iranian people are nuts. These are people that parade in the streets shooting guns in the air when their soccer team wins. Obama is handling them with kid gloves; not the solution.
So I would ask Big C: how many of those 850,000 Jews, living
comfortably among Arab friends, volunteered to become penniless in
order to join the Israel project?
I don't know Professor. Some were forced out and some lured with promises of a land of milk and honey. My point is that you do not know either. You are stating as fact what you do not know to be fact.
Big C, if this huge group--or even a significant part of this huge group--came voluntarily to Israel, they wouldn't have been classified by the UN as refugees, just like the Palestinians were.
Despite your saying that "there were expulsions, no one is denying it", your agnosticism about the scale of the expulsions (vs. alleged voluntariy emigration) amounts to denial, as your posting on Tuesday at 9:29 demonstrates, and as your recent posting briefly repeats: no one knows how many were forced out and how many were lured by promises of the land of milk and honey.
I think you are far too comfortable in your agnosticism here, Big C.
I suggest you read, e.g., "Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: The Case for Rights and Redress" (2007), by Irwin Cotler. Cotler is a Canadian Liberal Party MP and Justice Minister of Canada (from 2003 until the Liberals were defeated by the Conservatives in 2006). He has worked with both Israelis and Palestinian human rights organizations; he was a lawyer for Nelson Mandela; he recently successfully defended in an Egyptian court the Egyptian human rights activist Saeed Eddin Ibrahim against the Mubarak regime.
Cotler's conclusion: The Arab countries intentionally targeted their citizens of Jewish origin in their respective countries, thereby creating two refugee populations, not just the Palestinian refugee population resulting from the 1948 war but a Jewish refugee population of equal scale.
"Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries" documents a pattern of state-sanctioned repression and persecution in Arab countries - including Nuremberg-like laws - that targeted its Jewish populations, resulting in denationalization, forced expulsions, illegal sequestration of property, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and murder.
As the report also documents, these massive human rights violations were not only the result of state-sanctioned patterns of oppression in each of the Arab countries, but they were reflective of a collusive blueprint, as embodied in the Draft Law of the Political Committee of the League of Arab States.
Cotler puts the number involved at "850,000 Jews uprooted and displaced from Arab countries" by government action.
Do some reading, Big C.
Do some reading, Big C
When all else fails, play the patronising scholar card eh Professor? You are attempting to cover up the weakness of your argument with detail and nuance.
1. It is impossible to gauge the extent to which immigration from Arab countries to Israel was due to pressure from the Arab states.
2. Even if it was possible it is utterly irrelevant. The Palestinians had no part whatsoever in these expulsions. To suggest that they should accept that some exchange has taken place is outrageous and repugnant.
3 The governments which expelled Jews in response to the Nakba have a case to answer. They should give those they expelled, or their progeny the right to return to their property or agree some form of compensation.
4. Palestinians are entitled to the same treatment.
Post new comment