(Note: On 11/21/07 I revised the text of this post just a little, to increase the accuracy of my portrayal of the USIP event. ~HC )
Because of my continuing interest in the politics of peacemaking and conflict transformation (as I recently explored the topic a little, here), I went to a panel discussion at the US Institute of Peace yesterday on the topic of “Constructing an Effective Ceasefire.”
Now, I know that what the Palestinians and the Bushites are hoping for from the upcoming “Annapolis” meeting is something of considerably greater impact than merely a ceasefire. Indeed, the PA still avers it is insistent on tangible and monitorable progress towards the final peace agreement with Israel that is, surely, the desire of the vast majority of the people in the world. The government of Israel– consistent with many years of foot-dragging now– wants to move much slower than that.
(That foot-dragging has allowed government-subsidized Israeli colonial corporations to implant large numbers of illegal colonies inside the occupied Palestinian territories. Coincidence, or what?)
But still, even though I recognize there are differences between a ceasefire and a final peace agreement, I thought it would be good to trek along to USIP and catch up with some state of the art in negotiations theory. The theorists on hand were:
- Dr. Ranabir Samaddar, head of the Calcutta Research Group, who has completed research on three ceasefire-negotiating experiences he was earlier actively engaged in, in Sri Lanka, Nagaland, and Nepal; and
Nita Yawanarajah, a staff member of the Policy Planning and Mediation Support Unit, at the UN’s Department of Political Affairs, described as “involved in UN negotiations and assessments of ceasefires in the Balkans and Sudan and …developing guidelines for ceasefire negotiations.”
It was a good refresher course. Particularly refreshing and illuminative for me because they focused mainly on situations well outside the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, the two regions I’m most familiar with.
Both took a cool, analytical look at what makes peace negotiations (in general, and not just those aiming at temporary ceasefires) effective.
Both looked dispassionately at the political components of successful peace negotiations. Samaddar noted, for example, that in government-insurgent conflicts, the governments have a strong interest in using the ceasefire to bring about the complete demilitarization of the insurgent side without opening up any of the insurgents’ grievances, while the insurgents seek strongly to use the ceasefire to get their political issues onto the table without, if possible, disarming.
Nothing new there. (Except perhaps to the people across in the US State Department who continue to parrot the Israeli line that all of Israel’s opponents need to disarm completely– at both the military and the ideological levels– before they can even be admitted to any negotiation.)
A successful negotiation would, the two panelists said, be one that laid out and won agreement to measurable, monitored steps being taken in parallel by each of the parties, so that neither would end up feeling taken advantage of by the negotiating process itself.
“But the prospects for peace are harmed if the government side insists too hard on the rebels’ demilitarization at the very beginning,” Dr. Samaddar underlined at one point. He also judged that governments frequently seem to have a self-serving and unhelpful understanding of why the rebels in any situation have accepted a ceasefire. “It is a queer understanding,” he said. “They frequently think that the rebels have agreed only because they are weak… And so instead of listening to the rebels’ grievances, the governments use the ceasefire to try to drive home a military advantage over the rebels. But that doesn’t build peace.”
But the most telling moments came when both he and Yawanarajah laid stress on the fact that, to be successful, a peace negotiation requires that both sides are experiencing a “mutually hurting stalemate.”
In question time, I asked Yawanarajah whether, in view of her analysis– which was considerably longer and more sophisticated than I’ve had time to describe here– she thought that the negotiators in “Annapolis” had “any hope in hell of success.” I mentioned, in particular, the fact that there very evidently is not a situation of a mutually hurting stalemate there. (This is a feature of the Palestine-Israel conflict that I have noted several times in recent years, including in my comments last year about Israelis sipping lattes in elegant malls in North Tel Aviv.)
Yawanarajah’s response– which she stressed she was giving in her personal capacity as an analyst and not as a UN official– was to concur with the judgment I’d expressed that they “didn’t seem to have a hope in hell” of succeeding.
H’mmm.
In her earlier presentation, she had noted that this whole question of “needing” a mutually hurting stalemate” raises thorny ethical questions. Should we, indeed, seek to impose hurt on the Israelis so that they would be hurting as much as the Palestinians? Probably not.
However, I would also note the following:
- 1. To equalize the amount of “hurt” each side is suffering, we could also seek to decrease the amount of hurt being intentionally inflicted by the Israelis and the US on the Palestinians– in both Gaza and the West Bank. This route should certainly be followed. The total economic lockdown imposed on the Palestinians is anti-humanitarian and quite possibly illegal under international law; and it should be ended.
2. The US, and much of the rest of what some people claim is an “international community”, is meanwhile actively involved in both maintaining the level of harm being inflicted on Palestinians and in providing continuing lovely benefits to Israel, through generous aid packages, trade preferences, etc etc.
3. To cut back on those generous benefits would not involve the imposition of any real harm on the Israelis. They could still have a fairly nice lifestyle. (But oh, could the government still pay for overseas travel for Israeli seniors, and for in-home indentured labor from Third World countries for infirm Israelis? Could it continue, in sum, to give benefits to older and infirm Israelis that are far, far in excess of what the US government for its own citizens? Perhaps not…) But cutting back on the benefits that the US and other outsiders currently heap onto Israelis would perhaps signal to them that they cannot simply continue with their land-grabbing project in the occupied areas, with its concomitant harsh repression of Palestinian rights, and continue to drag their feet in peacemaking, and still be treated with generosity by the outside world.
Just a couple of suggestions there. But I do think that at the moral level, there is a significant difference between “withholding benefits” and “inflicting harm”, especially if the withholding of benefits does not result in any real harm… And meantime, the continued and intentional inflicting of harm on the Palestinians should be ended.
Finally, if anyone thinks that a party that has been actively colluding with Israel’s anti-Palestinian project for many years now could realistically be considered to have the moral authority and the neutrality required to act as lead negotiator on this issue, I would love to hear their arguments.
Go on, Condi: Persuade me!
Until now, though, I see neither morality nor realism in the “Annapolis” set-up.
During my recent visit to Israel/palestine, I was struck by how different the Palestinians and Israelis view the current situation and each other. For the Palestinians, Israelis are a constant presence and irritant in their lives. Everything they do is controlled. They cannot move a quarter mile in any direction without running into Israeli soldiers or roadblocks. To the Israelis I met, on the other hand, the Palestinians might have just as well been on the moon. The Israelis were totally preoccupied with their materialistic (or in some cases religous) day to day lives – jobs, cars, money , vacations, etc. Even those living in the occupied territories rarely even see Palestinians. Many of the Jews-only roads that criss-cross the territories have walls built to block the view of the Palestinian villages they pass (these are not security walls, their only function is clearly to avoid the views of the Palestinians). While there is increasing despair in the Palestinian community which could lead to their temporarily accepting any deal to get something even approaching a normal life, the Israelis are generally very content with their lives and their situation now that the suicide bombing has stopped. There is not even a stalemate. The Zionist expansion plan rolls on unabated every day – more settlements, bigger settlements, more Jews-only roads, more roadblocks, etc. There is certainly no mutual hurt. The only thing I saw that really frightened Israelis was the prospect of boycott and/or sanctions against the apartheid regime. They have mounted a full court press against any talk of such actions (anyone even considering such things is obviously an anti-semite). Therefore I must agree that there is zero chance of any real solution coming out of Annapolis. There is a good chance that Abbas will make even more one sided concessions to get Israeli and US help to maintain his position, but any deal that he could make would never be accepted by the Palestinians in the long run.
H, excellent analysis. The USIP is doing some great work. The question for me is how many I/P peacemaking efforts toward mutual listening will have brought about a strong enough sense of mutual consciousness that will spurn a desire for mutual respect and co-existence?
On another note, H, you have written nothing on the Presidential quagmire in Lebanon…which appears to be US driven…given that the EU, France, Italy, Spain and Senator Kerry have worked toward reconcilliation, while the Bushites seem to have been unable to utter a word in this direction-I have written several US legislators who I know care about Lebanon, citing your important work in the Making of Modern Lebanon which reveals how the US has placed its own objectives before allowing reconcilliation in the country…(THANK YOU FOR THAT!)…
BTW, where can reviews of Amnesty After Atrocity be found?
Your thoughts?
KDJ
Which Israelis did you meet, Jack? You just say “Israelis”, you don’t make the people you’re describe sound fully human. How much awareness of the checkpoint situation in the Occupied Territories is there really? How do they understand these sanctions such that they want to oppose them?
jack…well done…sad but largely true.
To complete the picture, tho, you should have visited Sderot populated largely by Black Jews from Ethiopia. It is a desert town near Gaza but on the Israeli side of the Green Line (unlike the settlements you refer to).
The militants who daily fire Kassam rockets in their direction from Gaza are not, as you put it, “Men on the Moon”.
A Guardian reporter had this to say upon visiting the town:
What I found there could have been straight out of Studs Terkel’s chronicle of Depression-era America – a town utterly devoid of hope, a people feeling completely abandoned by their government, and an air of resignation that things aren’t going to get better any time soon…
Factories have closed, businesses have relocated out of range of the onslaught, and no company in its right mind would think of investing in such an imperilled area…
Pockmarked pavements and shattered buildings bear the scars of war, and the dozens of ugly concrete bomb shelters on every street are a constant reminder of the Sword of Damocles that hovers above the town….
The residents complain bitterly of apathy on the part of the government. Racism, elitism and plain indifference to an “unimportant” town were among the various accusations levelled at the authorities…
Whatever the casualty figures, there is an entire town suffering in silence, and an entire generation of children whose only experience of the Palestinians is terror and hate. They deserve as much sympathy as those trapped in the quagmire of Gaza, because they’re as undeserving victims as any other civilians caught up in the conflict.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seth_freedman/2007/11/the_other_side_of_collective_p.html
T – You are quite corredt that I did not get to Sderot, and i am sure that your description is accurate, even the point of the population being mostly black Jews. These people are suffering daily. These are the kind of situations into which the non-Ashkenazi Jews have been pushed for 60 years. I also met with a group Mizrachi Jews in Tel Aviv who were fighting the Israeli government to get recognition of their plight, and the deplorable conditions in which they live. My contacts with other Jews in Israel, which were limited to be sure, showed me that these people are also largely invisible to the successful middleclass in Israel, just as the Palestinians are. I do believe that Helena is correct that only a mutually hurtful stalemate can lead to real peace and recognition of the inevitable solution, and that Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, and similar places illustrate that. I did not mean to say that there is no suffering in Israel. But my observation was that among the Israelis who count, there is today little or no recognition or concern about the suffering of the “others”, whether they be Palestinians. Lebanese, Israeli Arabs, or Ethiopian or Mizrachi Jews. (not unlike our American past and still to some extent our present). Life is good, and there is no reason to change the status quo. It is all well and good to hold some photo-op meetings and make a few speeches to mollify the Americans, but real life goes on under the same overall plan as it has for the last 60 years.
The US and Israeli establishments are but one. Since Suez, any seeming good-cop/bad-cop is a smoke-screen. As Chomsky has pointed out more than adequately, the duo’s rejectionism will continue to the day that it is costing them more than they are willing to pay. As of today, it is quite cheap, as Jack’s travelogue recants. When they feel the pain, they will negotiate. Until that day, every once in a while they will just put on these dog and pony shows every once in a while, and call them Madrid, Camp David, Annapolis, etc.
If the Palestinian national desire resists and survives the brutal onslaught, well it will. If they don’t, sad as it is, they will be a forgotten nation, like many others. Israel will forever be tainted as a racist Apartheid state, but they will say “So what!”, and call the rest of the world racist, as they do anyway. The US has learned to live with the history of the native American genocide and feel no shame; Israelis have done the same. Yes, there are pockets of Israelis who have a conscience, but they will dissolve in the selfish waves of history. If the rest of the world show enough solidarity with the Palestinians to make the duo bleed, there is some hope. That does not seem to be the case as we speak. And never has a colonial aggressor power given in to an occupied people just out if the goodness of its heart. It has only happened with extreme reluctance, and only when there was no way but. To even talk about such “peace conferences” as if they were serious matters, by people who consider themselves “progressive”, is simply embarassing and naive.
Jack,
First of all, to be accurate, the majority of the population of Sderot is of North African origin, not Ethiopian. Amir Peretz grew up in Sderot and still lives there, for example. At the same time, the majority of those on the kibbutzim around Sderot (most of which were founded in during the same period) are Ashkenazim, so the point of having been “pushed” is not quite accurate. Further, the middle classes of Israel are, today, thoroughly mixed – so your accounts of having met any sort of representative sample of Israelis are questionable. I would suggest that you came to the region with a certain predisposition, and that you were gladly channeled according to this predisposition by likeminded souls. Nothing wrong with that, but it must be seen in the context.
That said, yes, I think that we in Israel are getting on with our lives after being under attack. I always thought that that was commendable, not a point for criticism.
Helena,
Could you tell us a bit more about the “overseas travel for Israeli seniors, and for in-home indentured labor…for infirm Israelis”?
JES –
Never having been there,I will have to let you and Truesdall who apparently have personal knowledge discuss the issue of whether more residents of Sderot belong to which second class groups of Jews in Israel, Ethiopian or Mizrachi. Support for the views of those Mizrachi who felt they were being mistreated and had been pushed to the frontier settlements comes as well from the Israeli scholar Ilan Pappe and his books. Perhaps he too has been misled. The British went on with their lives as best they could during the blitz. So did White South Africans during apartheid and white Mississippians and Alabamians during the 60’s. There are differences.
Jack,
Two things that I find extremely interesting about your post.
First, that you insist that Mizrahim are “second-class”, despite the fact that all social and economic indicators currently refute such an assumption.
Second, the fact that you somehow consider the British during the blitz to be similar to white South Africans under apartheid and white Southerners in the 60s. I would point out to you that, apart from the obvious difference (unless you meand to also equate black South Africans and Americans with Nazis), is the fact that neither white South Africans or white Southerners experienced the types of attacks on civilians that either the British or Israelis have.
JES –
Thank you for the correction. Now where do I find these “indicators” that contradict the people I talked to in Tel Aviv and the housing conditions I saw?
Well Jack,
You might start by looking at the Israel Bureau of Statistics. You might also have talked to some other Israelis and ventured a bit farther afield in looking at housing. And you might not have simply taken people at their word that what you were seeing were houses only of “Mizrahim”.
If you look at the marriage statistics, for example, you will find that the distinction between “Ashkenazim” and “Mizrahim” is rapidly disappearing, as marriages between the two groups have, from the outset, been commonplace. You could also look at the workplace – particularly in high-tech – and see that there is, today, little or no distinction. In fact, I doubt that you would be able to distinguish, because I know that I certainly can’t in most cases. You could have also looked at other neighborhoods than the ones you probably were dragged to, where you would find that there is little or no distinction.
Again, you appear to have arrived with preconceived notions and found like-minded individuals with a particular axe to grind to reinforce your prejudices. Don’t worry. It’s normal.
There are also Mizrahim and Mizrahim. The Yemenis don’t have the same social indicators or degree of integration that, say, the Iraqis do.
JES, the main point people are making is if Israel will make peace with the Palestinians. The answer is “no”, the reason being, “it doesn’t have to”. If there’s nothing to make Israel pursue a peace, then why will it? I think that was what Jack’s point was, that if the Israeli populace can live their lives without needing to give a second thought about the plight of Palestinians, then the Israeli government will do nothing about changing the situation, because the Israeli people will do nothing to oblige it. This apathy is very dangerous as it could let this situation worsen.
Now, initially I was concerned about Jack’s first post in that he might be speaking too broadly about the Israeli public. In describing all of them as uncaring of the situation he could’ve been turning Israelis into one-dimensional villains instead of humans. But there’s still a point that a motivating force to oblige Israel to negotiate is lacking and needed.
I’m not JES, but I think he was saying that there’s a difference between “getting on with, and even enjoying, one’s life during the conflict” and “living one’s life without needing to give [it] a second thought.” The fact is that, even while Israelis get on with their lives, the conflict is often just below the surface. Everyone knows someone who’s been injured or killed, the media are full of stories dealing with all sides of the conflict, Sderot has become a national political issue, etc., etc., etc.
Of course, the Israelis have an advantage over Palestinians (with the possible exception of those in Ramallah) because they can get on with their lives and pretend for part of the day that things are normal. The conflict isn’t laying nearly as much hurt on Israelis as on Palestinians: given the relative military strengths of the two, I don’t think that can be seriously disputed. That isn’t the same, though, as saying that the Israelis are suffering no harm at all. (And pace Helena’s “lattes” observation, judging Israel by North Tel Aviv is roughly equivalent to judging the United States by the Upper West Side of Manhattan; there are plenty of places in Israel where lattes in fancy malls aren’t an option.)
In any event, I have one more general nitpick with the main post. For a number of years, Helena was (quite rightly) critical of Israeli unilateralism, and argued (again rightly) that territorial withdrawals won’t end the conflict without an Israeli government willing to discuss final-status issues and treat the Palestinians as a partner. Well, Olmert is now doing just that, albeit reluctantly and under pressure. He has said, in public and in Hebrew, that the Annapolis summit will be a beginning rather than an end and that final-status talks will begin immediately afterward. He has also expressed willingness to begin negotiating with Syria with no preconditions. So while some skepticism is warranted and pressure should be put on Israel to advance the timetable, shouldn’t there be at least some recognition that Annapolis is a step in the right direction?
Thank you Jonathan. I agree with you on both points.
Inkan, I understood quite well what Jack was trying to say (I’m a Zionist; I’m not stupid), but I take issue with his overly simplistic (and, frankly, quite wrong) characterization of Israeli attitudes and Israeli society.
I also don’t agree with your ascribing apathy to Israelis in relation to peace. I don’t believe that Israelis are, by and large, apathetic. I think that it is quite clear to the majority of Israelis that we pay a high price – not just materially – for the current state of affairs, and I hope that you will excuse us for being concerned with our own plight in addition to that of the Palestinians.
OK Helena so it turns out Israeli society is adequately motivated to achieve a final peace agreement. We have to believe what the locals tell us.
Even with blogs like yours, Facebook, Youtube, and Google Earth and even with frequent genuinely inquisitive travel one never knows as much about a place as the locals. To presume to have better knowledge of the many peoples living in the middle east than they themselves do can only be prejudice, (unless they agree with you I guess). Just as it would be prejudice to think they don’t value their own lives like all humans and therefore strive to collectively protect them. Not that such universalities turn us into saints, you understand. One just must hope for honesty, but really how can one judge such things?
What is so exciting then, is that these locals seem to agree on even better news from the inside: Olmert is prepared to do what must be done at “Annapolis”, which we in your report learned (at least from Dr. Samaddars words) was to be “a party to measurable, monitored steps being taken in parallel by each of the parties to (said) final peace agreement.”
Well, Olmert is ready for that, that’s wonderful. I agree that’s really all the framework that is needed, and (unless anyone tells me otherwise) I guess we can all support it, albeit with astonishment, incredulity though sadly only when it actually happens. Don’t expect rousing applause simply to drag these tired old actors onstage. Their previous shows were not hits. As they say in Chicago “Show us the money”.
JES –
Thanks again for the information, but I went to the Central Bureau of Statistics website and couldn’t find any info at all on Mizrahim. Perhaps you could help direct me.
Jonathan –
I really wish you were right about Ohlmert being serious about negotiations, but all indications point otherwise. Haaretz points the he has just said that recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” is a new precondition to any real negotiations after Annapolis. This is, of course simply code for “no right of return.” Even though that ,in some form might be a reasonable outcome, no Palestinian can accept it as a precondition for any negotians.” Thus Ohlmert has already decided that there will be no real negotiations and Annapolis takes on more and more the appearance of the 40 year stall punctuated by occassional photo-ops depending on the political needs of the Israeli prime minister, the American President, and/or the PA/PLO chairman (I.e. stave off indictment, help sagging poll numbers, react to plummenting control and support, etc.) Without a real incentive on the Israeli side, there will never be real negotiations. Rabin finally found that incentive in what maintaining the occupation was doing to the Israeli soul. No one since seems to be so concerned.
Jes, Jonathan, et al. Gideon Levy probably is a no-nothing lefty, or indebted to the infrastructure or terror, or something like that, but he certainly doesn’t share your starry-eyed optimism about “New Likud”‘s change of heart.
“We will conduct talks every two weeks with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, we will go to Annapolis, but we will not discuss, heaven forbid, the “core” issues there. And our terrific lives will continue, while in the West Bank the masses will crowd together at the checkpoints for hours, be subject to humiliation and risk their lives every time they go outside.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/922571.html
If the Israeli government was even marginally serious about a meaningful step, wouldn’t they temporarily (for one month, only, lets say) halt illegal settlement activity? Or take some simple steps to stop the daily harrassment of Palestinian olive-pickers in their harvest season by the rabid settler crowd? No, that would be appeasement in the face of terror!
Unfortunately, Israel has shown that what its racist leaders have said about Arabs, namely that they only understand the language of brute force, applies to them more than their adversaries. Like the street-thug who can never show respect, unless they do so with a bloody nose
I am constantly astonished at how easily otherwise intelligent and discerning people become excited and enthused over the same empty blahblahblah again and again and again.
As for me this current “willingness” on the part of Olmert looks exactly like deja vu all over again. We have been here before, and the destination is yet another dead end that will allow the Israelis to pretend that it is all the Palestinians’ fault that their “generous offers” and “painful concessions” to “gift” the Palestinians with an ever smaller fraction of their land and their rights and their sovereignty come to naught.
To everyone who really believes that Olmert is sincere I offer you some beautiful oceanfront property in Baghdad. No, really, and the price is too good to pass up.
Jack,
You might try looking in the archives at the Vital Statistics tables. There are some statistics based on “Continent of Origin”. Of course you won’t find “Mizrahim”, as this is not a social or legal category, except when used for political purposes. I would be more inclined to accept your assertions if we continued to make such distinctions – particularly for those born in Israel. But we don’t, and this is simply not a factor on a day-to-day basis for most Israelis.
You could, of course, go to a town such as Yeruham and find a preponderance of people born in North Africa who have not integrated very well. But, by the same token, you could travel another half hour south, to Mitzpeh Ramon, and find a similar population of immigrants from the Soviet Union who have also not really integrated into Israeli society at large. It’s all a matter of where you look.
The fact that some individuals tend to bring up “ethnic differences” when it suits their interests – as did, for example, Aryeh Derhi when he was convicted of graft – does not make it so.
Well, I don’t know about “starry-eyed optimism”, but I don’t think that your assumptions about what I (I’ll let Jonathan speak for himself) think about Gideon Levy have any basis in fact. Levy has an opinion, which he makes a living sharing with us. He is entitled to that opinion without being a “[k]no[w]-nothing lefty”. That said, I don’t think that he is counted among the most astute political analysts in Israel, due largely to his ideological obsessions and overt negativism – about pretty much everything. (I was particularly offended by his recent dismissal of the genuine efforts to commemorate Yitzhak Rabin.)
I see no reason to doubt what Olmert has explicitly stated about the goals and his willingness to negotiate the “core” issues – perhaps not during the 24-hour Annapolis meeting – but within the reasonable timeframe that he has stated a willingness to accept. He is, I believe, attempting to speak on behalf of the Israeli people and will have to answer to us if he doesn’t deliver; we are not fools, after all.
What was that Druze town a few weeks back where the populace had failed to fully integrate the cellphone tower? I’m sure I saw something on TV.
Shirin, nobody is handing Olmert & Co a loaded gun, just a piece of paper to write a permanent peace treaty on, because they insist they are ready to do so. If they are not ready, if they expect or intend to fail and then again blame everyone but themselves, then who do you think will buy that puppy that doesn’t already own the whole pet store?
BTW that seaside property of yours, I might be interested in having my BP friends check it out,-has it been geologically surveyed?
Been away for a few days, late returning to the party.
David: Gideon Levy is right sometimes and wrong others. I disagree with his ideology but don’t have any preconceptions against him (unlike those you seem to have about me). I’d note, though, that Olmert has today announced a freeze on all settlement activity, and a number of settlers have recently complained that their previously-issued building permits were rescinded. This would meet one of your qualifications for being “even marginally serious,” and possibly to cut against Levy’s feeling that it’s all a sham.
I’d also note that the reaction of the right-wing opposition is often the best measure of whether diplomatic efforts are serious, and they’ve been getting quite hysterical lately.
Jack: As stated in my previous comment, I’m not wholeheartedly optimistic about Annapolis or about Olmert’s intentions. I think the approach to him has to be heavy on verification. Still, if he’s finally starting to do (not just say) some of the right things, I don’t think he should just be dismissed out of hand.
Shirin: Yes, obviously, Israeli peace moves only ever lead to dead ends. I guess that’s why Israel’s still in Sinai, Gaza and southern Lebanon, right? Look, I’m not saying Israel always lives up to its commitments, but arguing that it never does requires a very selective view of history.
Jonathan,
I have no preconceptions regarding your views, other than what I have understood from what you have expressed. And your views are the only thing I know about you from this forum and your own, which I read often. We have had a few long-threaded discussions here (if you remember), and you seldom have expressed opinions that were wildly off the mark.
Regarding the matter at hand, the “mutual pain” political psychology touched upon by Helena has been dissected by quite a few people, including Israeli peace activists. The Israeli establishment will not give an inch unless it “absolutely must”, and the sad reality is that as of today, there is no such force majeure. So it is as clear as the sun rising from the Eastern sea that Annapolis or no-Annapolis it will continue to be business as usual. To expect anyone in the Israeli political establishment to actually sign on to any semblance of a Palestinian statelet next to Israel is as delusional as expecting any US president to admit that since we have been an imperialist power for the past century, we will withdraw all our forces back to our soil and stop … You get the picture!
I completely disagree with interpreting right-wing histrionic fits as a sign of progress, either in Israel or the US. As far as they are concerned, and you know this better than I, if they admit that things are going to their liking, it is an admission that the peace camp is right to ask for concessions. So they always put on the pouty “Oh we are so oppressed” show, and the more they foam at the mouth you know they are pretty happy. Reminiscent of Gingrich’s “taking the country back for the Right” after 12 years of Reagan and Bush. The three axamples you have cited for Israeli “concessions” are quite different. The Sinai and the whole Camp David peace accord was a fundamentally different strategy at a very different time (Soviet-era post-Nasserite Egypt following the 1973 near-defeat, … you know the story and don’t need my historic review). Lebanon was a defeat. And Gaza is a big concentration camp/ghetto.
As Avnery has said in his eulogy-oid for Rabin in this edition of the LRB, with all the false expectations they have created, they are risking an explosion into a third intifada when the curtain falls on their show. But then, I don’t think the Palestinians are this naive.
David, I do remember our long-threaded discussions on Iran and other things, which I enjoyed a great deal. That’s precisely why I was surprised by your statement that I’d probably regard Gideon Levy as a terror-enabler or “know-nothing lefty.” Although maybe you didn’t mean that statement in the way I interpreted it, so I’ll let it rest.
Anyway, given that this thread is dead and I have to get to work, I’ll leave the rest of your points for another conversation. I’m sadly certain that we won’t lack for opportunities.
All right, maybe I will add something further in response to one of your arguments: specifically, how to parse the rhetoric of the Israeli far right. Much of that rhetoric (especially from the leadership) is, as you say, political theater. But if one becomes familiar with the workings of that subgroup, one learns to sift out the occasional expressions of genuine fear.
There are several signs. The first is when, rather than simply saying “we’re so oppressed” or “everyone hates us,” the settlers complain about specific grievances. They’ve been doing that lately: no building permits have been issued east of the Green Line for five months, existing permits have been rescinded, the purchasers of that house in Hebron are being evicted, police are harassing the hilltop youth, etc.
A second sign is what happens when settlers meet with senior officials. There was a meeting recently between Olmert and the settlement leadership, and these meetings are traditionally where the PM soothes the settlers and tells them they’re going to stay in place regardless of what the diplomats might be saying. It’s equally traditional for the settlers to leave these meetings very smugly. This time, instead of being smug, they were very agitated and were talking about organizing physical demonstrations.
Third, there are differences in the ways they express their complaints. Normally, they make statements in their own journals or forums and let it filter into the press. When they start writing plaintive op-ed pieces or letters to the editor in major papers, or where they physically demonstrate against the government, that’s a sign of fear. Both have been in evidence lately for the first time since Amona.
Fourth, there’s a certain intangible uptick in rhetoric, especially the use of Holocaust metaphors which are normally a red line. You’ll remember how the settlers suffered in Israeli public opinion before the Gaza evacuation when they compared the pullout to Nazi oppression. These days, in Arutz Sheva and the journals farther right, that kind of rhetoric is appearing again – e.g., various articles equating Annapolis to Auschwitz.
Finally, it’s important to remember that while the settlers have leaders, their movement isn’t exactly unified, and the rank and file also likes to speak its mind. Many of the latter don’t engage in the higher-order political thinking that you posit (i.e., “we have to complain or we’ll be admitting the left is correct”), and in any event they believe their cause is just and that there’s no need for such dissembling. If a statement comes from Joe Blow in Ofra rather than Pinchas Wallerstein or Nadia Matar, then the fears expressed are likely to be real.
As you can see, there’s more than a bit of kremlinology in my analysis, and I could be wrong in my taking of the political temperature. Still, I’ve been acquainted with the Israeli far right for a considerable time, and my read on their mood right now is that they’re more scared than they’ve been at any time since Gilad Shalit took the outposts temporarily off the agenda.
As for your other arguments about the conditions for Israeli peacemaking in general, I’d guess that our disagreement is down to a more fundamental dissension about the nature of the Israeli state. My belief based on my reading of the evidence is that Israeli colonialism in the West Bank is in many respects contingent and that it represents a hijacking of the Israeli political system rather than an inevitable outgrowth of that system. Also, I don’t believe that any single set of motives or goals can be applied across all Israeli governments of various parties and persuasions. You may disagree – but as I said, we can hash it out another time.
Jonathan,
Thanks for your response. My weak knowledge of Hebrew limits and considerably slows my use of Israeli media, and I appreciate the briefs you provided on the right wing pulse. I guess I am jaded, but it is immensely difficult for me to believe that a weak leader such as Olmert and a Quisling such as Abu Mazen can pull off anything worthwhile. And these are definitely the worst of times.
I do have a modest appreciation of the different strands of strategic (and tactical) planning in the Israeli establishment. The different books and essays available from and about the founding days, (Shlomo ben Ami, Abba Eban, and many more) give me enough of an idea not to take it as a monolith. Yet I still feel that temporal trends are more important than factional ideological differences, and the trend since the implosion of Oslo has been quite consistent: “Let’s go for the full Monty”.
By the way, have you read the book ‘Prison juive’ [translated to ‘The Jewish Prison’ I believe] by Jean Daniel (the old lion of French left journalism, editor of Le Nouvel Observateur and Libération). If you have, I’d be very interested in how you see it.