So the Iranian authorities have said they will help the incoming Palestinian ‘government’ to meet the budget shortfall created by Israel’s decision not to hand over the customs revenues that they’ve been collecting on the Palestinians’ behalf (less a 3.5% ‘collection fee’) for several years now.
Why should anyone be surprised that the Hamas leadership, having already learned of the intention of the US and the EU to cut off governmental aid, would be looking for alternative sources of funding?
Of course, the very best thing of all would be if the dead hand of the Israeli occupation could be lifted from the lives of the Palestinians and they could get back to running their own economy free of the movement controls and the many other Israeli-imposed regulations that today stifle all their attempts to do so. But I guess that ain’t about to happen?
I was at a seminar today where Maher Masri, a recent Palestinian Economy Minister, and Alon Liel, the former director-general of Israel’s foreign ministry, were discussing some of these economic issues. Liel appeared to be generally quite level-headed. But he seemed to lose his rationality completely as soon as there was mention of Iran… In one breath he moved from referring to the possibility of Iranian economic aid reaching the Palestinians to the idea that there would be “Iranian tanks and bullets on our border.”
How’s that again? Money=money. Tanks= well, something very different indeed, I’d say.
Actually, since Israel sits completely astride all financial streams going into the Palestinian areas it will, I’m sure, stop any aid that it disapproves of from getting in… Which gives them, ultimately, the primary responsibility for what happens regarding the provision or non-provision of vitally needed economic aid. Anyway, as is spelled out in the Geneva Conventions, an occupying power really does bear the responsibility for the welfare of the residents of the occupied areas, and this is a very concrete example of that. So the decision is quite clearly going to be Israel’s…
Who knows what that decision will be after the Israeli election of March 28? I see that Acting PM Ehud Olmert today said that he does not see Hamas as a strategic threat... Which given that he’s in the middle of an election campaign seems like a gutsily moderate and non-escalatory thing to say.
But still, actions speak louder than words. And no action that continues to starve Palestinians of vital funds (including, of funds that are theirs anyway!) can be seen as helping the movement toward a just peace.
24 thoughts on “Iran, Israel, Palestine”
Comments are closed.
Israelis have a bit of sensitivity on Iran since the Iranians have said they’d wipe out Israel and even France acknowledges that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. It isn’t “Iranian tanks and bullets on our border.” that’s upsetting the Israelis, it’s the nukes.
With Hamas also calling for the elimination of Israel (and backing that up by killing people) the nuclear holocaust thing has got to raise a few Israeli hackles. And raised hackles impeded funding — especially when it’s a matter of funding your enemies.
And about that “movement toward a just peace”. There is no just peace, because there is no justice. Calling for a just peace is merely a way to call for war. Or at least to prevent peace.
Peace and prosperity are possible, even security, but justice is beyond the ability of mankind.
Starvation and emaciation of children are well with Israel’s obviously hate-inspired “rules of engagement”, so don’t be surprised if Israel uses Hamas’s election as the pretext to block all aid from every source, including humanitarian aid from Arab nations and Iran.
Paul Oestreicher, the chaplain of the University of Sussex was right:
“The state of Israel has become a cruel occupying power. Occupations…. morally corrupt the occupier……Israel’s policies feed [anti-semitism] – and when world Jewry defends Israeli policies right or wrong, then anger turns not only against Israel, but against all Jews. [Guardian, 2/20/06].
Now the prelude to “thinner Palestinian children” (Dov Weisglas) is in today’s [2/22/06] Al Jazeera:
“ The Israeli occupation army has bulldozed a US-funded public park, including a children’s playground and swimming pool, in a West Bank village, witnesses and officials said.”
“justice is beyond the ability of mankind”
I wonder how many people on this earth have a use or an interest in this “no-justice” world. I suppose it suits you to downplay justice because your big favorite, Israel, is in a position to lord it over the Palestinians and others.
The fact is nations are neither 100% just or 100% injust; they fall somewhere in between. More successful nations have better working justice systems.
You are very concerned about rhetoric from Hamas and Iran. Israel should not be surprised by this rhetoric given its actions against these groups and its own rhetoric.
Unlike this rhetoric, Israel commits very real and very serious crimes every day.
Israel’s policy of confiscation of Palestinian tax revenues basicly amounts to taking money from the Palestinians so they will starve. It is illegal. Israel is always looking for ways to destroy the Palestinians without arousing too much international condemnation and this is its latest strategy.
I’m wondering if Helena will chide Timothy and edq for their “defensive crouch” based on their clearly unbalanced statements.
To Warren W:
You claim: “……….justice is beyond the ability of mankind.”
Ha, some argument! Whats’ your authority for this? What are your credentials to make such a silly statement?
Oh, I get it……. Since justice is sought by the Palestinians, it’s OK for Israel to deny it because it’s not humanly possible!
This is the Zionist “natural law” defense to Israel’s genocide of Palestinian society, right?
EDQ,
I wonder how many people on this earth have a use or an interest in this “no-justice” world.
I’m not Warren W., but I think you may be misunderstanding what he said. I doubt very much that Warren rejects justice as an ideal. What I’d guess he is saying is that perfect justice is often impossible in practical terms and that it can be a counterproductive concept in resolving actual disputes, both of which are (or should be) statements of the bleeding obvious.
We’re living in a world in which (1) there is scarcity of resources; and (2) the rights of individuals or nations are rarely congruent. Nearly every civil dispute, from the insignificant small-claims lawsuits to disputes over the boundaries and self-determination of nations, involves clashing claims of right. Under such circumstances, it’s impossible to do perfect justice to one party without doing an injustice to the other – and even if a party ultimately prevails and obtains perfect justice, it may lose more in the struggle than it gains. The key to resolving disputes – i.e., to making peace – is fair compromise, which inevitably involves a sacrifice of justice. Insistence upon justice at the expense of viable compromise is more likely to prolong and intensify a conflict than to resolve it on acceptable terms.
Consider a few examples from the Israeli-Arab conflict (I use the term “Israeli-Arab” because the Palestinians are not the only Arabs who are parties). It’s obvious that you believe that justice in this conflict is weighted toward a particular party. Consider, though, that the Taba final status proposal would have involved Israel withdrawing from areas where there were Jewish communities prior to 1948, such as Kfar Darom and the Jewish quarter of Hebron. Such a withdrawal might seem like a small thing compared to the nakba, but these are places from which Jews were ethnically cleansed through war and massacre, and perfect justice might arguably dictate that they remain in Jewish hands. But given that a Jewish presence in these places could not practically be maintained without military occupation, the price of achieving such justice would involve perpetuating a greater injustice to the Palestinians, so insisting upon perfect justice in this instance was deemed impractical.
Likewise, justice would require that the Jews who were made refugees from Arab countries after 1948 (and this was of comparable scope to the nakba) be restored their citizenship and property. But that would also be impossible in real-world terms. The Jewish homes and businesses that were vacated now have other owners, who grew up with them and have invested time and labor in maintaining them. It would be impractical and unfair – and indeed unjust – to push them aside. So Israel has not insisted on this, but instead speaks of mutual concession of the right of return in exchange for compensation.
And besides, given that justice is a backward-looking concept, how far back must it reach? If the third-generation of Palestinians born outside the Mandate are refugees who retain national rights, then why not the descendants of the Jews expelled by the Romans and Byzantines? At what point do historic rights fade to the point where justice can no longer be claimed? A line must clearly be drawn somewhere, but it will inevitably be arbitrary; the international community appears to have established 1949 as the cutoff, but this is no more just than any other cutoff would be. Statutes of limitations, boiled down to their essence, are another device that does injustice to one party in order to preserve greater justice for another.
Reasons like this are why nearly all civil disputes settle, and this is just as true of national conflicts as it is of disputes between individuals. Insistence upon historic rights, and a concept of justice based on them, are a conflict-prolonging trap. Nearly every resolution or attempted resolution of a long-term conflict – Eastern European countries dealing with communist-era expulsions and land confiscations, the proposals for reunifying Cyprus, the Dayton resolution in Bosnia, the Taif Accord in Lebanon – has resulted in a conclusion that justice must be sacrificed in the interest of peace. The forward-looking concepts of viability and reasonable fairness, rather than the backward-looking concept of justice, are the goals of such agreements; in fact, successful diplomacy has been described in such terms as “making everyone equally unhappy.” So discussing the Middle East situation in those terms isn’t special pleading.
The real tragedy in the Israeli context – as in Cyprus and many others – is that the outlines of a reasonably fair and viable solution are clear. It would be something along the lines of the Taba and Geneva proposals – a viable and contiguous Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, the majority of refugees excepting compensation and return to the Palestinian state in exchange for their right of return to Israel, and all border adjustments paid for by cession of equal amounts of land from within the Green Line. Many on both sides would consider this unjust, but the consensus among both diplomats and development economists is that it’s a viable plan that would enable Israelis, Palestinians and the refugee host countries to go forward. And there’s plenty of blame to go around for the fact that it hasn’t happened.
Upon rereading my previous comment, I realize that forward-looking “viability and fairness” could be considered a form of justice. When some people talk about a “just peace,” that’s what they mean. But others say “just peace” and mean something different, based on historic rights. That’s another problem with talking about the Middle East – nearly all terms have mutable definitions.
These are some very weighty issues you guys are discussing here. Personally, as I’ve grown older and gained (I hope) more perspective on the world I have become less wedded to backward-looking forms of “justice” and more intrigued with concepts of justice that are essentially forward-looking… That is, taking into account all the many– often competing– justice claims about the past, to ask how can we build a society going forward that is based on fundamental equality of all human persons and provides the maxiumum chance for the flourishing of them (us) all? Everyone enters this new venture of “the future” with varying gifts and disabilities, it is true… But basically, there is enough “stuff”, including all natural resources if well husbanded (wived?), to go around for all of G-d’s children; and we were born with the God-given ingenuity to be able to sort out tricky questions like “How can Jews, Muslims, and Christians all equally express their religious attachment to the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron?” So let’s look to the future of equal rights and equal flourishing rather than getting paralyzed by the claims of the past?
This is not to say that we should dismiss anyone’s claims out of hand (as so many of the Palestinians’ claims are dismissed in western discourse.) But I strongly prefer to talk about “claims” rather than “rights”. Palestinians have many claims; Israelis have many claims. Many of these claims are based on an appeal to “rights”. But let’s discuss them as claims, that can be considered, modified, debated, and negotiated, rather than as “rights” which in most cases are non-debatable and non-negotiable, and whose dogged pursuit too often leads only to impasse.
Note, though, that I’m saying that everyone’s claims should be on the table, not merely those of one side.
What Helena said. I’d only add that, when discussing concepts as broad as “justice,” it’s a good idea to explain at the outset what concept of justice is under discussion.
Peace and prosperity are possible, even security, but justice is beyond the ability of mankind.
I was essentially referring to backward-looking justice, redress of grievances. For all it’s progress, China, for example, cannot ever get justice for all the wrongs done between 1933 and 1945. Likewise Korea. Forward-looking justice is also elusive. If you erase all of history and start over, everybody “Should” come out equal. It ain’t happening.
Peace and prosperity are possible.
Jonathan, WarrenW:
Life isn’t fair but that does not mean every claim gets dismissed. In a well-functioning legal system all claims are treated equally and taken seriously. That certainly is not the case today in international affairs; Today powerful countries dictate when the rules will and will not apply.
Even in countries which seem to have good legal systems this only results from years of struggle and great effort. Many of the rights Americans enjoy were only gained through years of bitter struggle against entrenched, powerful interests; objecting to injustice and double standards is necessary for making progress.
It is true that in the real world, in the absence of a strong international legal system, many claims are abandoned in agreements. However, since I am not a negotiator why should I observe such restrictions? One can also ask what is accomplished by dredging up past crimes. One answer is that the same processes that produced these crimes are still operating today.
There is a double standard in how Palestinians are treated and how Israelis are treated. Palestinian claims are belittled and it seems to me this argument about imperfect justice is a way of dismissing Palestinian claims or treating them differently from Israeli claims.
Jonathan mentioned some specific examples:
“justice would require that the Jews who were made refugees from Arab countries after 1948 … be restored their citizenship and property.”
Palestinians had nothing to do with this and this is a separate issue. If injustices were committed they should be addressed. Holocaust survivors are still seeking restitution for their losses from WWII.
“the international community appears to have established 1949 as the cutoff”
Actually, UN resolutions call on Israel to allow Palestinians to return. Israel is in violation of 60+ resolutions.
“there’s plenty of blame to go around for the fact that it hasn’t happened.”
I guess we disagree on this point.
Helena wrote:
“let’s discuss them as claims, that can be considered, modified, debated, and negotiated, rather than as “rights” which in most cases are non-debatable and non-negotiable, and whose dogged pursuit too often leads only to impasse.”
I suppose this is what must happen during negotiations. I think the Palestinians have abandoned many of their claims. I think the biggest obstacle to a settlement is the United States and its defiance of the international consensus. I don’t see much possibility for a reasonable agreement under the current conditions.
It is true that in the real world, in the absence of a strong international legal system, many claims are abandoned in agreements.
When I said that the great majority of civil claims settle, I was speaking not only of the international context but of claims raised within functioning national legal systems. In the American legal system at least, it’s very rare for a claim not to settle, and the non-settling party usually regrets it.
I agree that there are some cases where it’s necessary to fight to the end, but these cases are (1) the minority, and (2) not susceptible to any settlement reasonably acceptable to all parties. Even most civil rights cases are not of this kind, and many have been settled by negotiation. I don’t see any persuasive reason why the claims of the Israelis and Palestinians are any different from the majority, especially since the broad outlines of a settlement are well known. Under these circumstances, fighting to the end rather than settling is counterproductive.
There is a double standard in how Palestinians are treated and how Israelis are treated. Palestinian claims are belittled and it seems to me this argument about imperfect justice is a way of dismissing Palestinian claims or treating them differently from Israeli claims.
I wouldn’t say that Palestinian claims are dismissed. There certainly seems to be a global consensus, including the United States and Israel, that the Palestinians are entitled to self-determination. Likewise, there is a consensus that the refugees and their descendants have a valid claim that must, at minimum, be settled with compensation. The Palestinians have also obtained recognition for their claim to East Jerusalem – which, it will be remembered, was designated as international rather than Palestinian territory in Resolution 181.
It seems to me that the various peace proposals that have been made over the past few years represent a serious attempt to address the Palestinian claims, even if not necessarily a sufficient attempt from the Palestinian standpoint. Can you explain further the claims you believe are being dismissed?
Palestinians had nothing to do with [the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries] and this is a separate issue.
I’m well aware of that, which is why I spoke in terms of the “Israeli-Arab” rather than the “Israeli-Palestinian” conflict. If one wants to do “justice” (defined in terms of historic rights and/or reparation for damages) for the 1948 conflict, full justice can’t be achieved between Israelis and Palestinians alone without including the other parties to that war. A settlement, on the other hand, can be achieved between Israelis and Palestinians on the basis of their mutual claims.
Actually, UN resolutions call on Israel to allow Palestinians to return.
Resolution 194 called for the return of those refugees willing to live at peace with their neighbors. In fact, several thousand refugees did return on this basis, during the period immediately after the war when the borders were relatively fluid. As far as I know, however, no organization representing the refugees as a class was willing to agree to this stipulation prior to the Algiers Declaration.
More recently, the United Nations as part of the Quartet appears to have joined the Taba/Geneva consensus. The Quartet road map does not call for a specific solution to the refugee issue. There has certainly been no serious peace proposal floated, by the UN or anyone else, that calls for an unlimited right of return; instead, such proposals recognize the refugees’ claim but call for financial settlement in most cases.
I guess we disagree on this point.
It seems to me that there was a window of opportunity in late 2000 and early 2001 when a deal could have been done along the lines of the Clinton plan or Taba, and it wasn’t the Israeli side that rejected those proposals. At the very least, I’d argue that the PA had the obligation to respond with a substantial counter-offer rather than kicking over the table. Your mileage may vary.
Very interesting site, beautiful design, thank.
Yo have nice site, admin! keep up good work man!
Very interesting site ! Good work !
It\’s a very good site !! Very nice work, admin 🙂 Good luck !
Jonathan, either I misunderstand you, or your statement on refugees shows remarkable ignorance, or is extremely misleading by its brevity. Whether a refugee is willing to live at peace with his neighbors is not a function of whether organizations purporting to represent him stipulate this. Indeed in addition to those agreed on returnees, there were those who surreptitiously left and came back and lived peacefully as Israeli Arabs. There were also those who attempted to, and in all likelihood, would have lived in peace, but were shot trying to enter Israel. In any case, what you say leaves out a great deal. One should recall that though the Arab states stupidly initially rejected 194, but (as has disappeared from many histories) they changed their minds a few months later, and formally accepted it in the unanimous GA 302 ( or so ) the one that set up UNRWA – which repeated paragraph 11 of 194. In particular, Jordan claimed be the successor of the proposed Palestinian state and to speak for the Palestinians and accepted 194 para 11. If one refers to the PLO, there are a multitude of formal offers to “live in peace” starting in the mid 70s long before the 1988 Algiers declaration if that is what you are referring to (and there were the Egyptian and Jordanian peace offers before the YK war.) There was an amusing bit in the NYT concerning an afaik unique, albeit imprecise allusion to the actual history in a Carter statement Helena referred to. What was amusing was the “correction” a couple days later to the party line, perhaps formally correct, but so misleading as to be a clear and knowing lie. On another point, concerning the Clinton Plan and Taba, it wasn’t the Palestinian side that rejected these proposals either. The claims that the Palestinians “kicked over the table” and the implication that they did not present substantial counteroffers there are fiction, and actually the most extreme version I have yet seen.
Keep a good work man!
Very good site, greate content !!
John, if you reread my comment, I did mention that several thousand refugees returned informally during the immediate postwar period. In his recent Nation piece reviewing Elias Khoury’s Gate of the Sun (link unfortunately not available), Palestinian journalist Raja Shehadeh argues that Arab governments prevented more of them from doing so. And in re Arab governments’ early acceptance of 194, I’d argue that an integral part of living in peace with one’s neighbor is not trying to overthrow the neighbor’s state.
Re the 2000-01 negotiations: if you have a reference to show that the Palestinians accepted the Clinton plan or Taba at the time they were offered, I’d be more than willing to reconsider my statement. The PA did “accept” both plans after Sharon was elected and they were no longer on the table, but as far as I know, it never accepted them during the tenure of the Israeli government that proposed them. An acceptance made too late is worse than useless; it’s mendacious. For purposes of this discussion, I’m willing to listen to evidence that the PA accepted either plan before the March 2001 Israeli election, or that it made a substantial counteroffer at a time when Barak could have taken it to the country. If the PA didn’t do either of these, I’d argue that my comment stands.
Very interesting site, beautiful design, thank.
Upon rechecking, I see that on January 3, 2001, the PA “accepted” the Clinton plan with reservations that basically amounted to a rejection. I don’t really consider that a bona fide acceptance – nor, if I remember correctly, did Palestinian journalists at the time.
Hello admin, nice site ! Good content, eautiful design, thank !
very nice site!!! good luck!!!