I was at a fascinating post-Annapolis briefing this afternoon, jointly delievered by two Israeli peaceniks (Daniel Levy and Ori Nir), two Palestinian negotiations officials (Ghaith al-Omary and Greg Khalil) and one American negotiations expert (Scott Lasensky.) It was hosted by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, whose Executive Director Phil Wilcox chaired the session, and had many other great pro-peace organizations supporting it.
All the contributions from the panelists were interesting, some very inspiring indeed. Levy, who had been a key advisor to then-FM Shimon Peres during the very hurried negotiations of the last months of Barak’s premiership in 2000, is a very smart young British-Israeli. (His dad is the slightly disgraced and controversial Blair fundraiser/crony, Lord Levy. But Daniel seems smart and very thoughtful in his own right, as well as being, obviously, very well-connected.)
He reminded the hordes gathered there in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill that today is the 60th anniversary of the UN’s passing of the Partition Plan for Palestine.
“That was truly an amazing day,” he said.
- We had the nations of the world standing up and saying there should be a Jewish state on 56% of the land of Mandate Palestine. And Annapolis was similarly amazing, because there we had so many nations of the world– plus so many important Arab states– standing up and saying they recognize a Jewish state on 78% of Mandate Palestine. 78%!
So why would Olmert or anyone go to the Israeli people and say we need to fight for another decade or two to get to, what, 80%? What would be the point?
The 78% of the land of M.P. was what the Jewish state ended up controlling after the fighting of 1948-49– right up to the Armistice Line agreed on in the Armistice (ceasefire) Agreements of 1949. The remaining 22% of M.P. is what the Palestinians and the Arab peace Plan want to see as the territory of the independent Palestinian. Both Levy and Khalil noted that the Arabs are not now talking about the 22% of land that Israel conquered in 1948, that the UN had earlier allocated to the Palestinian Arab state. You can see a good mapped representation of those areas in the the Wikipedia page linked to above.
Levy also warned, incidentally, that the Annapolis-launched negotiations really represent Israel’s last chance at retaining a Jewish state. “If they fail,” he said, “Israel will become more and more like South Africa (I’m assuming he meant pre-democratic South Africa ~HC) and international support for it will fall, especially among US Jews.”
Anyway, there is a lot more to write about the event. I’ll have to wait a while to do that, though, as I have a bunch of other things to catch up with.
So mazel tov to all Israelis on the anniversary of the birth-certificate of your Jewish state! Do remember, though, that there was a twin brother given a birth certificate at exactly that same time, in the same incubator, but he hasn’t been allowed to see the light of day yet. It strikes me that the fate of both peoples is still irrevocably intertwined.
(Note to commenters: Yes, I am well aware the Arab states rejected the Partition Plan at the time. A regrettable but in the circumstances not incomprehensible position to take. Now, they are seeking significantly less than the P.P. We have discussed the Arab rejection of the P.P. here on JWN many times and don’t need to revisit it in this discussion. Let’s be forward looking! What can be done to help realize the hopefulness there is in the Annapolis process– however small it might appear as of now?)
Update, 20 mins. later:
Levy has put a thoughtful assessment of Annapolis up on his blog, here. I thought his analysis of the speeches the three principals made there was very perceptive. especially this comment:
- Only President Bush came up short, sticking to a simplistic good-versus-evil narrative that was not only patronizing, divisive and lacking any resonance with the Arab world, but might very well prove counterproductive.
Personally, I wish Levy were running US diplomacy right now. Couldn’t we naturalize him with the same haste that the Australian Zionist activist Martin Indyk was naturalized here in 1992 in order that he could immediately jump into helping run Clinton’s Middle East policy, and then have Levy be named Condi’s deputy?
Update, a further 30 mins later:
I have just checked my notes, and actually in making the reference to the two-state solution and South Africa, levy made clear that these were remarks that Olmert had made in a very recent interview with HaAretz. (And here it is in English.) Of course, this makes it an utterance of considerably greater political weight and impact. Sorry about the mistake.
Ilan Pappe is an Israeli historian that has a recent book out called “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”. To know the other side of what transpired 60 years ago, this is a must read.
In short, he claims the Israeli’s were not satisfied with the UN Plan but accepted it as a necessary first step. The plan from the beginning was to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their side of the partition to ensure a clear majority of Jewish (at least 80%), and also to eventually recover more of the land that was given to them under the partition. He goes into some detail how this was achieved.
“If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished,” Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz Wednesday.
Further proof of my thesis that the US “Israel lobby” and the State of Israel have different agendas. I can’t imagine any Lobbyist making the above statement.
Helena,
I am not trying to rehash past events by bringing up the partition plan, but instead talk about the future by bringing it up. I was wondering whether you think the Palestinians have a legal right to use the Partition Plan as the borders of the state their leaders keep demanding? From my reading, the Partition Plan has never lost the force of law internationally, and it was the document that set Israel’s borders. Also, the “green line” has no legal basis at all, it is simply an occupation line… So, regardless of whether it was accepted or rejected or will happen, do you believe it is legally binding?
Also, along this line, simply strategically, why don’t the Palestinian leaders make more maximalist demands based on their rights? Wouldn’t it be strategically more powerful for them to make legitimate demands that exceed the scraps thrown to them, and negotiate from there….. Rather than continue to accept the Israeli narrative as the basis of negotiations… From what i can tell, there is no current possibility of a negotiated peace largely because the israelis have no incentive to make peace and are perfectly happy with the status quo. Given a more maximalist negotiating position, wouldn’t they be more likely to actually get something they want? Plus, it would actually be based on their legal rights. Right now, it seems that the “demographic threat” (as olmert said today)is the only reason israel has for negotiating. Why don’t the palestinian leaders also put pressure on the negotiations?
“…he claims the Israeli’s were not satisfied with the UN Plan but accepted it as a necessary first step.”
That is pretty clear from the record. Ben Gurion, for one, made some very explicit statements to that effect as a matter of fact. I recall, for example, a quote in which he declared “the war will give us the land”.
What I find astonishing is that in the face of overwhelming evidence there are still those who will deny it all.
not to repeat myself, but the problem with levy’s perspective (and most of the israeli ‘peace camp’ which identifies itself as zionist) is that it doesn’t address the central issue of the majority of palestinians, which has nothing to do with the ‘1967’ 22% of palestine.
that central issue is the right of the refugees of 1948-9 to return home. they are the majority of palestinians by a substantial amount, and no attempt at a ‘solution’ which does not begin with them has any possibility of being more than temporary and ineffectual.
fatah’s decision to ignore the right of return and the condition of refugees is the reason it has lost its electoral backing and political legitimacy in the west bank and gaza; hamas’ popular support rests on its status as the most powerful political player which puts refugee issues at the top of its agenda.
but, really, helena: there already was a u.s. diplomatic policy run along the lines levy suggested: it was called the ‘oslo process’. the basic oslo premise was that the right of return could be dealt with after everything else. do you that really think that worked so well it should be repeated? does another decade of quiet land annexation followed by a revolt met with massacres sound like “a good deal”? there’s a convenient definition of insanity as ‘doing the same thing and expecting different results’. by that criteria, i’d say that expecting anything good out of a ‘1967-only’ deal like the one levy’s advocating is somewhat less than sane.
I am surprised you put such frosting atop this charade at Annapolis, Helena.
What was it W. himself uttered: “fool me once … uhhhhh… shame on you. Fool me twice … uhhhhhhhhhh .. you can’t get fooled again.”
Oslo was a swindler’s game, and Annapolis is a paper mache recreation of the same swindle.
It is good Olmert fears the Apartheid label. Of course, that label already applies, as it has for the last forty years.
The only real resolution of this mess is to recreate a secular, united Palestine open to all people of all faiths.
I have heard Daniel Levy on the radio twice in the last two weeks. The first time he was sickeningly and inexcusably patronizing toward his Palestinian interlocutor, who by the way is extremely articulate and speaks perfect English (not that it would have been any excuse for his behaviour if he were NOT well spoken). Three times Levy threatened to leave the discussion if the moderator did not conduct it by HIS rules. Both times he repeated the same old same old Israeli propaganda lines and spin about past peace negotiations that we have heard ad nauseum forever, taking no responsibility for the Israelis, and putting all the onus on the Palestinians. He also refused to recognize any of the numerous elephants in the room, even when some of them were clearly pointed out to him. His arrogance was palpable, especially in the discussion with a Palestinian interlocutor.
He strikes me as typical of a certain genre of Israeli “peacenik” – Israel is being oh, so very, very generous, are they not, by being willing to offer the Palestinians whatever Israel is willing to give up, and the Palestinians are being oh, so very intransigent in looking askance at Israel’s willingness to make “painful concessions” regarding part of what Israel stole from the Palestinians.
Shirin, this article:
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909042.html
contains a extended quote of Ben Gurion from 1947 that shows premeditation to remove Palestinians from the Galilee in the event that war breaks out. It appears to have been cited by historian Benny Morris, however I have not found it elsewhere than this article. Here it is:
“Regarding the Galilee, Mr. [Moshe] Sharett already told you that about 100,000 Arabs still now live in the pocket of Galilee. Let us assume that a war breaks out. Then we will be able to cleanse the entire area of Central Galilee, including all its refugees, in one stroke. In this context let me mention some mediators who offered to give us the Galilee without war. What they meant was the populated Galilee. They didn’t offer us the empty Galilee, which we could have only by means of a war. Therefore if a war is extended to cover the whole of Palestine, our greatest gain will be the Galilee. It is because without any special military effort which might imperil other fronts, only by using the troops already assigned for the task, we could accomplish our aim of cleansing the Galilee.”
“…there was a twin brother given a birth certificate at exactly that same time, in the same incubator, but he hasn’t been allowed to see the light of day yet.”
That is, quite simply, because the larger twin immediately began eating up the smaller twin, continues to eat it up until this day, and unless forcefully stopped will continue until it has consumed it completely.
Thanks, Patrick. You know, I remember that quote now, and I remember especially well that phrase “cleansing the Galilee” from Ben Gurion, and have used it in the past to argue that intentional ethnic cleansing was, in fact, what took place in 1947-’49. Astonishingly (and absurdly), the pro-Israel interlocutors, all of whom were “lefties” and “peaceniks”, rushed to spin that very clear statement of intent, claiming he really did not mean what his words explicitly say. (Or perhaps it is not so astonishing given that those same “peacenik” intellectuals have determinedly tried to pretend that Herzl’s “spirit across the border” diary entry does not mean he was thinking about population transfer – aka ethnic cleansing.)
Israeli historian Ilan Pappe’s latest book lays it right on the line from the title, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, to the content.
And all this is absolutely significant today because the calculated, systematic ethnic cleansing that began in earnest in 1947 has never stopped, and continues until this moment both in the Occupied Territories, and inside Israel.
Hmm, it’s usually Joshua or Vadim that hurl insults at Helena. I guess Sd wanted to add to the quota himself this time…It doesn’t matter what form a peace conference will take up. EVERY peace conference no matter what form it takes will be an swindle in Sd’s eyes. Since they can’t win in Sd’s eyes I’d advice peace negotiators to go ahead and ignore him.
I think of all the “intractable” issues, the right to return is the only actual “intractable” one, mainly because of Israel’s difficulty with coming to grips with whatever demographic changes will happen in the future. Therefore I disagree with rozele, the peace solution should end with the right to return, not begin with it. All other issues can be settled very easily: a State of Palestine in the WB+GS+EJ with full sovereignty instead of the compromised sovereignty of Barak’s old proposal, with its right to elect either Hamas or Fatah respected, with all settlements shut down, the wall moved back into Israel proper, maybe the UN controlling the Old city in between Israeli Jerusalem and Palestinian East Jerusalem, and fair water rights on both sides. Alongside these quick resolutions should accompany an ongoing negotiation to work out a right to return.
Inkan, I am not sure you have been fair to Sd, particularly in equating his remarks to the real, and absurdly outside-of-reality personal invective that Vadim, and in particular Joshua reflexively hurl at Helena and others here. I think, in fact, that Sd’s points about Annapolis were well taken, and I do not find his remarks to Helena insulting or out of line at all.
And while I agree with Sd that a single, non-confessional, non-ethnocratic, genuinely democratic state in all of historic Palestine is the only truly just solution, I find that in terms of a two-state solution you have put in all the essential elements. I do think, though, that the right of return needs to be addressed at least in principle much earlier than you do.
It is deeply ironic that the Israelis insist as a precondition on the recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and that they do so without any willingness at all to acknowledge that the crime of ethnic cleansing has been a necessary and integral part of establishing, maintaining, and expanding Israel as a Jewish state, and that return or compensation is owed to the victims of that crime and their descendants.
Hmm, it’s usually Joshua or Vadim that hurl insults at Helena.
When have I ever insulted Helena or anyone else? What on earth are you talking about?
real, and absurdly outside-of-reality personal invective that Vadim, and in particular Joshua reflexively hurl at Helena and others here.
Shirin confuses my taking offense at her anti-Israeli diatribes for personal attacks.
Shirin your ver broad claims and totally unsubstantiated claims about Israeli attitudes (about which you seem to know very little, never having visited israel, not speaking a word of hebrew etc) reveal obvious prejudice. We all have prejudices, and we should all be told when these prejudices offend other people. This shouldn’t be confused with personal attacks. I don’t know very much about you personally and it isn’t relevant to the hateful commentary you routinely post here. Example:
“It seems to me that most of them [Israelis] really don’t care about the Palestinians at all”
Although a deeply bigoted remark, this is the kind of thing that passes unnoticed here, unless it comes from someone like Doris, then everyone’s dudgeon kicks into high gear. Very sad.
Vadim, I don’t see you as an invective-hurler, in general. However, I’m not sure that the statement of Shirin’s that you cite there merits your description of it as a “deeply bigoted remark”, or “hateful commentary.” Firstly, Shirin makes clear that this is her impression about Israelis (“It seems to me… “). Secondly, this is not a completely ill-founded impression to have. There have been many indications– including the news reports of the Israeli public’s generally disinterested reaction to Annapolis– that at least “many” Israelis don’t care about the Palestinians; and it seems very possible to me that that “many” could actually make up a majority, that is “most” Israelis.
I am concerned that accusations of “hate-speech!” “bigotry!” “anti-Semitism!” are too frequently used to stifle constructive public discussion of these issues. From my perspective, Shirin seemed mistaken in lumping you in completely with Joshua like that. But then you turned around and unwarrantedly accused her of hate-speech.
I think we should all take a vow of abstinence against accusations of hate speech and try to focus instead on the substantive issues under discussion.
I am concerned that accusations of “hate-speech!” “bigotry!” “anti-Semitism!” are too frequently used to stifle constructive public discussion of these issues
Perhaps you can tell me how attributing -without evidence- indifference to suffering to an entire nation adds to ‘constructive public discussion.’ Shirin is fond of these very coarse generalizations about Israeli attitudes and she isn’t alone. We often hear on this page how Israelis are only interested in conquest, how they have always wanted all the land and none of the people etc. If similar remarks were made of Arabs ( “It seems to me that most Arabs prefer terror to peace”) you’d be outraged. About Israelis you seem not to care. Actually it seems that you’re sympathetic to coarse divisive remarks like this, which is a great shame.
Firstly, Shirin makes clear that this is her impression about Israelis (“It seems to me… “)
Bigoted opinions are still opinions. “It seems to me that most Arabs prefer terror to peace” is bigoted as well.
It is very reasonable to conclude that the majority of Israelis are not only indifferent to the suffering of the Palestinians, and that, in fact, few of them even think about it very much if at all. Polls show that not only are the majority indifferent to the suffering, they also strongly support the very actions on the part of their government and military that cause the suffering. There is also the lack of significant public expressions of concern, let alone outrage over the horrors their military subject Palestinians to on a daily basis, or the collective punishment, such as “putting the Palestinians on a diet”, as one government official so cleverly put it. And let us not overlook the fact that Israelis continue to elect and reelect governments that find it quite appropriate to starve Palestinians, and collectively punish them by shutting down their already shaky economy, cutting off power and fuel, (which also means cutting off water supplies and all sorts of other things), blocking shipments of medical supplies, and on and on and on.
And then there is the reality that despite the fact that most Israelis apparently do not much like the settlements, and would happily end the colonization project in the OPT, they continue over and over and over again to elect and reelect governments for whom the colonization project is a very high priority.
If there WERE any significant concern over the welfare of Palestinians one could reasonably expect to see SOME expression of it from the Israeli public. One could at least expect to see it expressed in the opinion polls, and yet polls seem to show the opposite.
My contacts over the decades with all kinds of Israelis, from activists fighting for Palestinian rights to Israeli students who strongly let me know that either they think it is fine to treat Palestinians that way, or at best that they could hardly care less, to the retired general who complained to me a few years ago over coffee that he was upset that they built Maale Adumim where they did because that was “his” land – that is, the land that he used for training purposes – oh, yes, and of course – has made it quite clear to me that very few Israelis really care much at all about what happens to Palestinians.
And, of course, I also have good informants in the Palestinian Israeli citizens I know and have known and worked with over the years.
If stating a logical conclusion based on decades of observation constitutes hate speech, then I guess I am guilty of hate speech.
PS Vadim, I really think you ought to check the definition of bigotry.
Polls show that not only are the majority indifferent to the suffering
What total crap. Please produce a single poll proving that majorities of Israelis are indifferent to Palestinian suffering or retract this absurd slander. (that’s open to the floor – the last time a poll was put forward proving that Israelis held a particular view it proved the opposite.)
If stating a logical conclusion based on decades of observation constitutes hate speech, then I guess I am guilty of hate speech.
Decades of sloppy inferences wouldn’t entitle me to blather in polite society about the criminal tendencies of black people, the lazy character of Mexicans, the terror-loving nature of Arabs or the cruel, warmongering nature of Israelis. Especially since in your case you’ve never set foot in Israel and seem not to have encountered very many Israelis in person except in protest environments where kettle-banging and chants are the vocabulary. Personal sentiments like these — disparaging entire peoples– serve no purpose in “constructive public discussion” and I’d think by now this would be obvious to Helena if not to you.
“Bigot” comes from “by god” and in its original sense means anyone who adheres stubbornly to an argument without evidence. It applies perfectly here though perhaps “prejudiced” would serve better. Would you prefer “prejudiced?”
Vadim, I am not going to enter into one of your famous a pissing contests with you. You are a past master in that arena, and I have no hope of winning, nor any desire to win that kind of a competition.
However, before I exit this exchange, I WILL inform you that there most certainly have been a number of polls that have contained questions that give a sense of Israelis’ concern – or rather lack thereof – for the suffering of Palestinians living under occupation. I am not aware of any that have asked a direct question, such as “Do you give a damn about the suffering inflicted by your military on Palestinians in the Occupied Territories”. However, answers to questions such as whether the military has used too much, not enough, or the right amount of force in a situation certainly reveal the degree to which the respondents are concerned about the effect of the occupation on the people who are subjected to it.
There have been a number of polls over the decades that have asked this and similar kinds of questions of Israelis, and consistently the great majority – typically around 3/4 as I recall – will choose either the right amount, or not enough, and only about 25% or so will choose too much. This response is consistent even when the international consensus is that the military has clearly used “excessive force”.
That, among quite a few other indicators, should tell us that most Israelis do not lose a lot of sleep over the conditions in which Palestinians under Israeli occupation are living.
PS Actually, Vadim, as I am sure you know, the commonly understood definition of bigot is someone who is religiously or racially intolerant.
http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2002/no45.htm
Wow, get a load of this poll. 52 percent of Palestinians oppose negotiations with Israel altogether. 70 percent support suicide bombing of Israeli civilians. And they oppose the Saudi peace initiative three to one!
Palestinians must hate peace and love terror!!! [/Shirin mode off]
I WILL inform you that there most certainly have been a number of polls that have contained questions that give a sense of Israelis’ concern – or rather lack thereof – for the suffering of Palestinians living under occupation.
You might have done us the favor of citing one, so we wouldnt have to rely on your memory (which also “informed” us that Israelis were the only country to demand ethnic identification on national ID cards.)
Perhaps whatever polls you’ve read have given you that sense because by your own admission you’re prejudiced against Israelis as a class. Why should any Israeli take your ridiculous “impressions” of their government & political views seriously?
Perhaps you’re unused to speaking TO political opponents, but would rather talk ABOUT them. Just don’t be surprised when they return the favor and ignore you.
The siege of Gaza, the likes of which haven’t been seen since Biafra 40 years ago, tells us more about Israeli indifference to Palestinian suffering than any poll could. Deeds, not words shall speak to me. Shared values, indeedy doo!
Oh dear. After the vilification of Carter and W&M, we now have Olmert talking of, er, apartheid and “[t]he Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America”. It’s too rich!
Even better, the new NIE shows Norman Podhoretz’s “Please Mr. President, as an American Jew, I beg you, bomb Iran.” fear/warmongering for what it is.
Small wonder that unable to mount a credible defense of the Zionist cause that seems to have slightly lost the plot we get pissing matches and personal insults. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Good points assisi asobie.
Shared values? Alas, I would say very much so, particularly since the Bush regime has been in power.
Pissing matches and personal insults have long been the stock in trade of those with indefensible arguments.
Pissing matches and personal insults have long been the stock in trade of those with indefensible arguments.
Didn’t you ‘exit this exchange’ three comments ago? Oh wait — as usual you aren’t addressing me! You’re speaking about me, just like you speak about the Israelis, over our heads as if from a soapbox. You’re not ‘exchanging’ anything — we’re getting these pearls of wisdom for free, since our output is completely worthless to you! Just so much piss.
Anyway, Shirin, one shouldn’t confuse “impressions” of Israeli opinions (delivered in this pompous impersonal way as if to no one in particular) for arguments. Arguments, Shirin acknowledge other arguments and attempt to engage them. Arguments demand proof. Arguments don’t address the mental disposition or personal qualities of one’s interlocutors but are confined to the arguments they have advanced.
“Please Mr. President, as an American Jew, I beg you, bomb Iran.”
Cite please? This doesn’t appear in commentary’s archives. It sounds as phony as shirin’s imaginary polls scientifically proving Israel’s evil racist nature.
“Please Mr. President, as an American Jew, I beg you, bomb Iran.”
According to this well known UPI editor, Norman Podhoretz did say exactly that in a Commentary piece in June of 2007. See this link:
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071206/COMMENTARY/112060010/1012
I also recall that Podhoretz wrote a whole op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for the bombing of Iran.
Vadim,
Phony citation:
The Case for Bombing Iran
I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
“…As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010139
And what of Biafra on the Mediterranean, aka the Gaza Strip? What more proof of Israeli compassion do you require?
Assisi congratulations, you’ve proven that Norman Podhoretz wrote something dumb once. What this non sequitur has to do with Israeli opinions is completely beyond me. Large majorities of Israelis oppose an attack on Iran. But Norman Podhoretz has jewish name and he claims to be a big Israel fan so I guess that’s close enough to be relevant here, eh?
What more proof of Israeli compassion do you require?
None. I’m uninterested in Israeli compassion. Why are you? Are you out to prove that Israelis lack compassion? Do you expect Israelis to find this “argument” compelling? Does it speak to any of their grievances, or those of the Palestinians? (of course not, it doesnt speak to them at all but over their heads as from a pulpit or a soapbox, just like Shirin’s tedious psychologizing)