In Portugal, in 1974, it was the country’s conscripts and junior officers who– questioning why they had to spend long years ruling distant colonial outposts rather than enjoying the good life they saw their youthful peers elsewhere in Europe engaging in– went home from those outposts and toppled the fascist-military regime that had been (mis-)ruling their country since 1926.
In South Africa, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, young “Whites” who were similarly disaffected with the burdens of conscription and militarism that the apartheid system imposed on them started to question the moral worth of the apartheid system from within.
In Israel, student groups from throughout the country (who have their own specific gripes with the government) have now joined with residents of the painfully close-to-Gaza town of Sderot and disaffected army reservists in a nationwide anti-Olmert protest that is expected to converge in Tel Aviv on Thursday.
Remember that in Israel, most young men and women who go to university to study do so after they’ve spent their required time as conscripts in the military. That’s 36 months for men and 24 months for women. This fact has a number of consequences:
- 1. The students are very close to the slightly younger men and women who are still serving and have a close understanding of all aspects of the military life. This is notably different from the situation of most students in today’s US or UK.
2. Most Israeli undergraduates have considerably more experience of the world and personal maturity than their counterparts in the US or UK. (Especially since a large proportion of them have also taken a year off between army service and university to go travel the world.)
Remember, too, that there is a close link between Israel’s levels of defense spending ($7.69 billion in 2006, of which only $2.26 billion came from Uncle Sam) and its ability to underwrite either a decent eduction for university students or decent social services and support systems for the residents of socially marginalized towns like Sderot.
The politics of this week’s gathering protests are– and will most likely to continue for a while to be– mixed and fairly fluid. Some of the groups participating (including the Tafnit movement, founded by a former national-security adviser to both former PMs, E. Barak and A. Sharon) seem to be politically centrist or even rightwing. Others are probably more clearly pro-peace. But the country’s formerly big, almost “mainstream” pro-peace organization, Peace Now, is still reeling from the hasty decision some of its leaders made last July to support Olmert’s extremely escalatory, lethal– and also, as it turned out, deeply dysfunctional– war effort. (The Winograd report once again underlined the fact that, in the war’s early days Olmert and Halutz’s decisions were supported by a strong majority of Israel’s public and political elite. Not that that should be seen as removing for one moment the burden of constructive leadership from those individuals.)
As I noted here yesterday, the strongest, best-organized force in the anti-Olmert camp is currently the Israeli right wing. But I think the politics are fluid. There is a deep war-weariness in much of the country. That, too, was alluded to in the Winograd report, when it talked about weaknesses in “the national ethos”. I see that Ze’ev Schiff referred to that, as well, in this column in HaAretz today. When I sat and talked with Ze’ev in Tel Aviv in March last year, he talked quite a bit about this development, which he– unlike me– saw as a cause for deep concern.
So the politics in the gathering anti-Olmert protests will most likely be very mixed, and potentially very fluid. For the immediate future, that fact will most likely allow Olmert to succeed in his plan of hanging on in office in spite of everything.
But over the three or four years ahead, which broad direction is the Jewish Israeli public going to take? Let’s all try to figure out how to persuade them to follow the route taken by the Portuguese junior officers 33 years ago: No more colonial occupation of other people’s lands with all the wars, oppression, and suffering that situation entails for everyone concerned!
(Maybe the Portuguese democrats and their “White” South African counterparts could think about sending delegations to Israel to talk to people there about their experiences??)
“For the immediate future, that fact will most likely allow Olmert to succeed in his plan of hanging on in office in spite of everything.”
I’d be surprised if he lasts more than a couple of weeks.
“No more colonial occupation of other people’s lands with all the wars, oppression, and suffering that situation entails for everyone concerned!”
All nice and good, but that has very little to do with Israel’s problems. First of all, the occupation is not “colonial.” Israel is occupying an immediate neighbor who is belligerent, not going off to foreign lands to exploit other humans and make use of their natural resources. Second, the occupation is symptomatic, not causal. It primarily exists because of the enemy’s beliigerence
“(Maybe the Portuguese democrats and their “White” South African counterparts could think about sending delegations to Israel to talk to people there about their experiences??)”
Maybe, but it wouldn’t be very useful. The situations are so completely different.
Meanwhile, I’m waiting for Lebanon to commission a report on who in their country was responsible for dragging the country into a war that left over 1000 dead and with their infrastructure devastated.
The blogger below is spot on with his analysis.
http://www.beirutbeltway.com/beirutbeltway/2007/04/divine_victory_.html#comments
“So hurray, we have won. Israel is defeated. Strangely, their defeat will move them forward. As for our “divine victory”, well, it will keep us where we are, which is at the bottom of the lowest circles of hell.”
“not going off to foreign lands to exploit other humans and make use of their natural resources”
Water and land are natural resources. Palestinians are humans. Israel and the “territories” are occupied by people from foreign lands. What part of this don’t you understand?
The difference is that this is a battle between two neighbors, and that Israel has a legitimate claim to the lands. Israel does not “exploit” Palestinian labor (unless you consider it exploitation that before the intifada, Palestinians regularly traveled into Israel to take advantage of the job opportunities which raised their standard of living immensely.
When Israel allows Palestinians in to work, it’s exploitation, and when it doesn’t, it’s starvation. For some people, they will make up any reason to hate Israel.
Some more non-colonial land-grabbing, continuing business as usual by the greatest democracy in the Middle East:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=81844
David,
Exactly. In this case, Israel is not colonizing land. It is occupying it and building a barrier to ensure that suicide bombers and other murderers don’t get through to Israel. Nothing colonial about it.
So Joshua, just what is that “legitimate” claim that Israel has to these lands? Last time the U.N. ruled on the sovereignty question in the West Bank and Gaza they were determined to be part of the Palestinian Arab state. And of course if we consider that governments also gain their legitimacy from the consent of those governed, then the legitimate (i.e. Palestinian) occupants of these lands would get to choose their own government, and we would see the same outcome.
But is there some other magical mechanism you know of whereby the sovereignty question in those parts could be determined in a way that would bring about the outcome you claim? Do explain. (But please keep it within the length guidelines.) The law of Anschluss perhaps?
How do you name Maale Adoumim and settlement of the same kind ? I thought it was a colony ? At least that’s the French word regularly used to name these settlements. So if Israel is building colonies on Palestinians territories which the UN says it occupied ilegally. Then the result is a colonial occupation : aka people foreign to the land come in and settle there, expelling the former inhabitants from these zones.
I think that adding the condition that the occupier should come from abroad doesn’t change much to the thing itself. Further, most Israelians came from abroad and came with a Westernized mindset to occupy land/people from another culture. So IMO, you are only playing on the words, here, not to speak from the fact that Israel is stealing land & water from the Palestinians.
What part of this don’t you understand? – John C.
Apparently, he understands none of it.
Helena, the UN has never issued a ruling on what the final borders are in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. There are various resolutions calling for a negotiated solution. Until a few years ago, none of these resolutions called for a Palestinian state, and the UNSC resolution that Palestinians usually hang their hat on (UNSC 242) doesn’t mention Palestine at all. The understanding at the time was that Israel would withdrawal from some of the territories as part of a negotiated agreement with Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.
Since then, Palestinian nationalism has become the dominant strain of thought, and Egypt and Jordan have abdicated their claims to the territory they conquered in 1948. Israel recognized this nationalism when it agreed to the Oslo accords, which created the PNA. Those accords make clear that the final status of such lands is to be negotiated.
Nevertheless, your mis-statements are helpful, because they illustrate the thinking that has blocked a reasonable resolution for all involved. The Palestinians simply claim that the territories are all theirs as of right. As such, there is nothing to negotiate, and they can reject Israel’s existence, reject any measures that ensure a peace will hold, and engage in any interim tactics they want, such as suicide bombers. Doesn’t matter. Since their behavior doesn’t effect that these lands have somehow become immutably “Palestinian” even as they refuse to recognize that other lands are Israeli. We now have a new doctrine, the limited-liability war, whereby Arabs can attempt to engage in a genocidal war and, even if they lose, get everything they lost back as of right.
For starters, I would refer you to the work of the late Julius Stone, who makes a very compelling case as to why Israel can in fact make a claim on the lands it occupied.
In the meantime, I would ask that you stop misleading your readers by falsely claiming that the UN has declared the occupied territories to be “Palestinian.” It has done no such thing.
Here is the great “Professor Julius Stone” who is always touted as the end-all authority. His “impartiality and fairness” is far too clear to any reader. Since you may not wish to read his lengthy spun-out texts, I am posting a link to the excerpt, and a brief fragment on three topics, the territories, Jerusalem, and the settlements. I apologize for the length of the post.
[Not a problem, David. I’ve edited it for you, just leaving in the link so readers can there if they choose. ~ed.]
http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf
Thanks David! Stone can admittedly be a dense read. Because international law requires analysis and not sloganeering that we get from Helena. In any event, although it is difficult to do justice to a renowned scholar like Stone by posting a few paragraphs, it’s a good start.
I’m a bit confused why you use Professor Julius Stone in scare quotes. It really is not contested that this was one of the most influential and thorough international law scholars of the 20th century.
Anyway, a brief wiki bio is below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_stone
John C., you insist that ISRAEL and the territories are occupied by “people from foreign lands”. Not just the WB+GS+EJ, where illegal settlements have to stop. Then you’re not offering a reasonable alternative to Joshua’s hard rightwing stances. I think you’re being as extremist and intransigent as Joshua has been.
I’m not sure how “a settlement has to be negotiated” is a hard right wing stance. I’ve simply pointed out that Helena’s “the Palestinians are entitled to everything as of right” is not supported by scholars who had significantly more knowledge than she.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never voted for a Republican, or any other right wing candidate, in my life.
Nor do I see how it is “hard right” to recognize that Israelis are not foreign colonialists, but people with legitimate ties to the land. I always thought that recognizing the humanity of people was a good thing.
I’m pro-peace, pro-negotiations, and pro-states for both Israel and Palestine. That’s not hard right.
Unless you operate under Helena’s rules of special pleading. Where one condemns unprovoked wars of aggression unless it comes from Hezbollah, in which case one fawns over the “daring” and “inventive” resistance. Personally, I see that as a lot further rignt-wing.
What do you mean “the Palestinians are entitled to everything as of right”? Helena is not arguing for the whole of the mandate to be turned over to the Palestinians, and neither am I. But your insistance that Israel keep the WB+GS+EJ would mean that Israel controls the whole mandate. Neither extreme is acceptable; where’s the state of Palestine going to be then? As many justifications as you can come up with arguing for Israel to hold onto the territories, the only solutions that may work would still be a compromise where both sides give.
I’ve never said the Israelis can or should keep the whole mandate.
I do think that Israel can reasonably demand to keep portions of Jerusalem, especially the Jewish quarter and holy sites. It’s incredible to claim that the entire old city is “Palestinian land” but that’s what Helena’s argument amounts to.
I also think that some of the settlement blocs contiguous with the Israeli border can be annexed to Israel.
I do not believe the Palestinians are entitled as of right to 1:1 on land swaps. But if Israel offered that I’d be fine with that.
Helena, on the other hand, claims that the UN has determined that anything conquered by Egypt and Jordan in 1948 somehow became “Palestinian land” by some, as she would put it “magical mechanism.” Neither UN resolutions, nor any other body of international law, nor common sense, mandate this conclusion.
Helena, on the other hand, claims that the UN has determined that anything conquered by Egypt and Jordan in 1948 somehow became “Palestinian land” by some, as she would put it “magical mechanism.”
Joshua, I make no such claim. My reference is only to the UN’s Partition Plan of 1947, which was the only birth certificate the State of Israel ever had in international law and which also gives the Palestinian Arab state a grounding of exactly equal weightiness in international law. The Partition Plan did not award Jerusalem to either side, but to an internationally-governed body, so that area could perhaps appropriately be the subject of an international negotiation. In ’48 Jewish/Israeli forces did grab considerable bits of land outside what the UN awarded them. Egypt and Jordan came into Palestine at the invitation of the beleaguered indigenes and did not rule well; but they are not there now, have not been for the past almost-40 years, and are not any part of the present equation.
By the way I cut most of David’s comment. Julius Stone is one law prof. There are many others out there with a wide variety of views. More importantly, however, it is governments that are the signatories of and parties to the Geneva Conventions and other instruments of IHL, and all the governments of the world except those of Israel, the US, and was it Micronesia consider the implantation of Israeli settlers into the occupied territories to be quite illegal. As does the ICRC which is the depositary organization of the Geneva Conventions.
Anyway, let’s return this thread to a discussion of the riveting developments in Israel.
Wow, I point out the flaws in Helena’s argument, back it up with facts. And she deletes the post. Real open debate we have here.
Joshua, have you ever participated in such collaborative peace work? What are your thoughts regarding these efforts?
http://support.afsc.org/site/R?i=-uVyQpNzMlm4ZjxRLXLwVA..