AP’s Sarah el-Deeb has an intriguing story on the wire today with background about a ceasefire proposal that Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh transmitted Tuesday to a reporter for Israel’s Channel 2 t.v., Suleiman al-Shafi. This, while Haaretz reports today that Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz– who was previously first the IDF chief of staff and then briefly Defense Minister– has said publicly that, “Israel should not rule out indirect negotiations with Hamas in an effort to halt Qassam rocket fire at southern Israel.”
Interesting if the ceasefire overture should work out, huh? I shan’t hold my breath for it– yet. Defense Minister Ehud Barak still seems to be making some fairly hard-line noises about Gaza… But who knows?
Deeb writes:
- Al-Shafi told The Associated Press that the Hamas leader complained that Israeli attacks have foiled his attempts to halt the rocket fire. Islamic Jihad, a smaller militant group, has been responsible for most of the rocket fire out of Gaza since Hamas seized control of the area last June.
“I am always trying to stop the rockets from all factions, especially Islamic Jihad, but Israel’s assassinations always catch me off guard and spoil my attempts,” the reporter quoted Haniyeh as saying.
Al-Shafi said he was surprised by the phone call and was unable to record the conversation…
For Israel’s government, the “ungovernability” of Gaza since PM Sharon undertook his intentionally un-negotiated withdrawal from the Strip in 2005 has always been a problem. (As, in Lebanon, after a slightly different form of ungovernability problem, after then-PM Barak undertook his intentionally un-negotiated withdrawal in 2000.)
In both cases, those Israeli leaders were arrogant enough to think that if, after having the IDF/IOF rule over great chunks of other people’s lands in a very brutal way for many years they just upped and pulled their troops out in an un-negotiated way, then they would thereafter be bound by none of the form of international commitments that would have been involved had they sought to negotiate their departure… And thus, they would retain considerable flexibility to be able to re-enter the evacuated terrain at will or use other violent methods against it in an attempt to quash the emergence of any bodies seeking revenge or even just some plain accountability for the many preceding years of suffering, or using violent means to continue to pursue some of their significant but still notably unaddressed grievances against Israel.
In Lebanon, that “un-negotiated withdrawal” tactic worked– to a degree. After the 2000 withdrawal a form of mutual deterrence rapidly emerged between Israel and the Hizbullah forces that had been responsible for making Israel’s lengthy occupation of the country too painful to be continued. But we can also note that, though there were never any formal negotiations between Israel and Hizbullah, in fact in both 1993 and 1996, Israel was only able to extricate itself from very damaging military positions inside Lebanon by concluding indirect ceasefires with Hizbullah that had been negotiated through the good offices of the governments of the US, Lebanon, and Syria.
Regarding Gaza, Israel has remained generally steadfastly opposed to concluding any kind of similar indirect negotiation with Hamas. Heck! It was even quite unwilling to do so with Pres. Mahmoud Abbas when he was still in charge of Gaza back in 2005.
Regarding Gaza, there is an additional question over how any indirect negotiations could be conducted. I highly doubt that Abu Mazen would want to be the conduit for them; but the Egyptian government might well be ready to do that.
As for the US, whose illustrious president is going to be visiting Israel very soon: what could we expect his attitude to be to the prospect of Israel engaging in some form of indirect negotiations with Hamas? Well, you could (re-)read the opening paragraphs of my recent Nation article on the need to talk to Hamas and Hizbullah to see what I think about that…
I highly doubt that Abu Mazen would want to be the conduit for them; but the Egyptian government might well be ready to do that.
Egypt has been the primary mediator in the on-and-off negotiations over Gilad Shalit, it wouldn’t surprise me if you were right. It also wouldn’t surprise me if the talks were already in progress.
Why are they negotiating with Hamas about the Qassams? I thought it was other groups, like Islamic Jihad, that have been firing Qassams.
Presumably because Hamas is in effective control of Gaza and is thus in a position to apply persuasion (or coercion) to the smaller militias.
Depending on which intel reports you believe, Hamas may also be supplying some of the other factions with money or hardware.
does Israel ever adhere to ceasefire ?
rephrasing, does Israel ever gave anything of what it promised, except grandiose destructions, further killing and more home demolitions and countless illegal settlements ?
This is Israel, this is what defines Israel as a country. Simply the truth.
Well, there was that whole Sinai thing, although that’s probably gone down the memory hole by now.
If you want a more recent example, Israel held to the November 23, 2006 Gaza ceasefire through several months of fairly constant violations from the other side. By the time the IDF resumed operations in Gaza, there had been several hundred Qassams and quite a few infiltration attempts.
Israel doesn’t always keep its commitments, to be sure. But saying it never does, much less with your essentialist melodrama, is pure fantasy.
H, readers:
I have lobbied _extensively_ for a UNIFIL style peacekeeping force for Gaza-where I lived for 1 month some years ago as an intern at the exemplary Gaza Community Mental Health Programme-
Why has the US not acted on this? Nothing will prevent the continued violence-including more violence-
UNIFIL has been extremely successful-particularly in just bringing about an end to violence-allowing people to breathe and live their life-
What are peoples thoughts about this? Gaza is so tiny-a very small force could have an extra-ordinary impact, for both the Gazans and the Israels
What are peoples thoughts about this?
I’ve advocated it for quite some time, as long as the force has the mandate to protect both the Palestinians and the Israelis from each other. Not just in Gaza but in the West Bank too – get the IDF out of there and establish some stability on the ground while negotiations happen.
The PNA and even Israel seem to be warming to the idea lately. I’d guess that the major problems would be (1) getting the acquiescence of Hamas and the smaller armed factions so that UNIFIP won’t become a target in its own right; and (2) getting enough firm troop commitments from reasonably neutral countries (the US won’t work) to do the job. The signals sent by Gaza’s one recent experience with international deployment, the Rafah crossing, are decidedly mixed.
I have written a slew of Senators about this; particularly that Gaza itself has disintegrated-the Myth of Hamas control is just that, a’la Alan Johnson.
A force in Gaza ought to be deployed on both borders-inside Gaza and inside Israel-there are several benefits to this-particularly that Gaza can begin to re-establish some normal rythm of everyday life, experience something other than violence, etc. Moroever, the demobilization of some of these fractious armed groups would be important. Prime Minister Prodi has offered to deploy troops to Gaza sometime ago.
Given that Hezbollah accepts a UNIFIL presence, there is indeed hope that Hamas would do the same-
The question of Gaza is complex, given that no state authority exists to authorize such a force-however, I believe that such a force could be assembled-particularly brokered by one of the Quartet members-
The question of Gaza is complex, given that no state authority exists to authorize such a force
Speaking in purely legal terms, the PNA is the internationally recognized entity with sovereignty over Gaza, so it could authorize the force. De facto, of course, Hamas’ consent or at least acquiescence would be required. I’m not sure this would happen if the force’s mission included collection of weapons – one of the ways UNIFIL has succeeded for the past 18 months is by fudging that issue tremendously.
I have been lobbying the US to take action on Gaza (Canada as well) for a year now-specifically activating for a UN force in Gaza. A Gazan I know told me that Israel has always rejected peacekeeping forces for Palestinians-whether that is the case or not, I do not know.
Further to this, the sheer question of human development is central to a peacekeeping role there-the continous acculturation to violence is a terrible dynamic which the US, and perhaps Canada as well, refuses to recognize. It would seem that given the recent AID pledges to the PA (why it was ever established as the Palestinian _Authority_ (Control, disciplining), versus the Palestinian Administration is another matter…however, with a peacekeeping force, these funds would go much further in developing Gaza…i.e. windmills to generate electricity, etc. are all projects I have written legislators about…the indifference is tragic…Gaza needs international administrative support-a peacekeeping force that also focusses on reconstruction in Gaza would be essential…Change the tenor of the street and everyday life…who listens to me?
as I said to a few friends, a debutante takes on Gaza!
“Well, there was that whole Sinai thing, although that’s probably gone down the memory hole by now.”
Israel “gave back” one part of its ill-gotten gains, which just happened to be the piece it cared the least about. And of course, it did not compensate the Egyptians for the oil it illegally took for its won profit while it was occupying sovereign Egyptian territory any more than it will ever compensate the Syrians for the water it has taken and the agricultural land it has used for its own profit.
In the mean time it has systematically – and illegally – colonized the land it occupies, and has – also illegally – “annexed” part of it, which just happens to be the sovereign territory of another state.
I hardly think the withdrawal from the Sinai is terribly significant when you look at the big picture.
The Palestinians have in the past BEGGED for a UN force. The Israelis consistently refused.
The overwhelming obstacle in the face of any discussion of international peacekeeping forces in any part of the OPTs has always been Israel’s adamant rejection of the idea. That attitude may be changing a little with respect to Gaza, but it has been longheld. (40 years and counting.)
I wouldn’t go overboard with enthusiasm about UNIFIL, whose presence from 1978 on never deterred Israel from undertaking its repeated, huge-scale assaults against Lebanon’s sovereignty and civilian population (both Lebanese and Palestinian): in 1981, 1982-5, 1993, 1996, 2006, etc. And nor did UNIFIL’s deployment have much success– though it did have some–in preventing Palestinian and Lebanese organizations from launching a number of (in the main, far less destructive) attacks against Israel in its 29 years in existence. And now, UNIFIL has an increasingly NATO-dominated coloration to it…
It is not UNIFIL but the mutual deterrence between Israel and Hizbullah themselves that has been the main anchor of whatever stability south Lebanon has known in the past 7 years. If UNIFIL does have a value (which I think it does), then that lies mainly in the reporting function it exercises, alongside UNTSO, along the Lebanese-Israeli border. (Though sadly the post-2006 version of UNIFIL doesn’t do nearly as much of that as the old UNIFIL did.)
Meanwhile UNDOF, which peacekeeps along the seam between sovereign Syria and the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan, has been much more successful. Overwhelmingly this is because of the robustness of the 1974 ceasefire there, to which both sides have generally adhered well except for Israel’s recent quite unjustified air assault against northern Syria. And in Sinai, the MNF, which is a US-led COTW-force, has similarly done well peacekeeping the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement of 1979. The major determining factor is, of course, having an empowered and capable state authority in existence on BOTH sides of the line, whether it’s a ceasefire line or a final border.
Re Israel and commitment-keeping– we should also look at the very serious attempt the Mossad made in Jordan in 1997 to poison a legal resident there, Mr. Khaled Meshaal. (Meshaal is also a Jordanian citizen, I think.) That was a major infringement of Jordanian sovereignty and an infraction of undertakings made as part of the 1994 Jordanian-Israeli peace agreement. Hence, the Israelis’ embarrassment when the plot went awry.
A Gazan I know told me that Israel has always rejected peacekeeping forces for Palestinians-whether that is the case or not, I do not know.
Up to now, they have. There’s a lot of historic distrust between Israel and the United Nations, and Israel has traditionally tried to avoid situations where its freedom of military action in active conflict zones was restricted. Shirin is correct about this.
(What she omits is that Hamas has also categorically rejected such a force, and has pledged to greet it with “shells and rockets.”)
In the past year or so, though, the Olmert government has been more conciliatory about the idea of an international force, and has pointedly not ruled one out. There are a number of reasons: the chastening experience of the Lebanon war, satisfaction at the performance of UNIFIL, greater flexibility over the compensation of such a force and the sheer desperate desire not to be dragged back into Gaza.
Curiously enough, there’s an article today in which the EU Middle East envoy is quoted as saying that both sides are warming to the idea, and that it might be on the table as part of the post-Annapolis “modalities” discussions. It could happen.
windmills to generate electricity, etc. are all projects I have written legislators about…
Distributed solar generation, along the lines of what’s being tried now in rural Morocco, is probably a better option under the circumstances. My priority would be desalination, though; clean water is probably the worst environmental crisis currently facing Gaza, and an improved water supply would have cascade effects on public health, agriculture and industrial development. After that, maybe the seaport combined with implementation of that Turkish proposal to reopen the Erez industrial park.
Which brings us back, in a roundabout way, to the original topic of the thread: welcome as a cease-fire would be, it would be a hell of a lot better for Israel and Hamas to negotiate a more inclusive package. Instead of a cessation of violence, something more: for instance, a ceasefire plus Gilad Shalit and recognition of Abbas’ negotiating authority in exchange for open border crossings (for both human and cargo traffic) and a go-ahead on the seaport. And, yes I know, a pony while we’re at it.
Ah, comments crossing in the mail.
The major determining factor is, of course, having an empowered and capable state authority in existence on BOTH sides of the line, whether it’s a ceasefire line or a final border.
Fair point, and this is a key reason why an international force in Gaza would require a strong enough mandate to substitute for (or at least facilitate) this authority. In particular, it would need the power to disarm and demobilize non-state militias, which is one of the factors that has historically handicapped UNIFIL.
I’m not sure, though, that the pre-2006 UNIFIL (and especially the pre-2000 UNIFIL) can really be equated to the current mission. Before 2000, southern Lebanon was occupied territory, and during 2000-06, the IDF and HA were cheek by jowl along the border. Since the 2006 war, though, UNIFIL has benefitted from coordination with the national army and has operated in, if not an actual demilitarized zone, at least one where HA doesn’t go armed in public. I’d argue that these and other factors have made UNIFIL’s current incarnation more effective at policing the border and will hopefully continue to make it so.
Re Israel and commitment-keeping– we should also look at the very serious attempt the Mossad made in Jordan in 1997 to poison a legal resident there, Mr. Khaled Meshaal.
Granted. Covert operations is a gray area, though – spying violates other countries’ sovereignty practically by definition, and Israel is far from the only country (or even the only one in the region) to cross that line.
I believe, though – and I’m willing to be proven wrong – that the Meshaal incident is the only violation of the Israel-Jordan treaty on record. I also believe that the Israel-Egypt treaty has held up consistently. My point vis-a-vis Sinai was that Israel made a commitment and implemented it over a period of years (a decade, in fact, if you count Israel’s acceptance of the Taba arbitration) and it isn’t unique in that regard. Again, I’m not contending that Israel’s track record of keeping commitments is perfect, or even that it’s particularly good where the Palestinians are concerned, but I am taking issue with the ironically named “world peace’s” argument that Israelis are existentially incapable of good faith.
Jonathan, I have also included the development of a de-salinization plant in my “wish list” for human development in Gaza…
Yes, H you are right regarding UNIFIL-it was evident that much of the International Community disregards the role of such peacekeepers when they were bombed out of their observation post during the war on Lebanon;
Frankly, Gaza needs a peacekeeping force just as much as the Israelis do. I see no justification for the rockets into Sderot-Gaza needs international support to develop-I see Gaza as held hostage to these small groups which have no other raison d’etre than sheer violence-Peacekeeping efforts are, as H has pointed out, not uniform in their purpose, nor outcome. However, a force in Gaza ought not be underestimated-indeed something the US could broker-kudos to Prime Minister Prodi for his foresight, and shame on the US for not engaging him in this important and generous contribution toward reducing the violence, which is useless and tragic. Moreover, the continued radicalization of the youth in Gaza is something that ought not be underestimated. One of the most important projects I tried to have established was an interactive childrens play museum in Gaza-yes, I was accused of being naive-however, the children of Gaza need way more play than they do guns, violent images, bombs, recruitment into armed groups, etc. Alas, I must be a windbag…
J, why not write up a piece “persuading Israel toward peacekeeping”…Note, H and J, among others, that Daud Kuttab had authored a piece calling for a peacekeeping force in Gaza quite sometime ago.
“I’m not sure this would happen if the force’s mission included collection of weapons – one of the ways UNIFIL has succeeded for the past 18 months is by fudging that issue tremendously.”
A friendly reminder, there are two sides in this conflict. Palestinians+Israelis, aspire to your neighbours what you aspire for yourself. Palestinians have equal rights if not more than any Israeli. They are not illegal aliens. OK
“The Palestinians have in the past BEGGED for a UN force. The Israelis consistently refused.”
The Palestinians saw what the Israelis did to the peace keepers in southern Lebanon.
The solution is simple, END THE OCCUPATION, and regain your humanity, what is happening in Gaza is appalling, the occupiers have turned themselves into first class criminals.
The current contests over Gaza and Lebanon are well described in a piece by Nadim Shehadi-“Riviera Versus Citadel-The Battle for Lebanon”.
Indeed while Israel controls all of Gaza, at least indirectly, will the Palestinians be able to re-build Gaza with a different vision? Or am I of an orientalist, colonizing perview? I certainly hope not, however, what has become of Gaza surely must be intolerable…what of the potential for human development?
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-middle_east_politics/riviera_citadel_3841.jsp
“(What she omits is that Hamas has also categorically rejected such a force, and has pledged to greet it with “shells and rockets.”)”
Be that as it may, the PLO and the PNA, the official “representatives” and “government” of the Palestinian people have consistently begged and pleaded for some kind of international protective force, and the Israelis have flatly refused any kind of force that, as you say, would “restrict their military actions” – i.e. their ability to do anything they want to anyone they want in any manner they want to any extent they want any time they want. A rather good indication of their intent, I would say.
My point vis-a-vis Sinai was that Israel made a commitment
How is this? Isn’t essentialist melodrama, is more pure fantasy.
Lawman talking that Sinai is not a piece of land belong to Egypt stolen in war by Israelis.
Is this the law you believen or this new invented Jonathan Edelstein’s law here.
“the occupiers have turned themselves into first class criminals.”
Israel, beginning well before statehood, as never given a damn either about international law or about the humanity, welfare, or rights of any human being other than Jewish ones. That is vividly demonstrated in their treatment of the Palestinians both pre and post-statehood, the Lebanese, the Egyptians, and the Golan Syrians, as well as their own “equal” non-Jewish – i.e. Palestinian – citizens. Just look, for example, at the various internal ethnic cleansing efforts that have taken place since statehood. Look at the unrecognized “Arab” villages. Look at the terrible treatment of the Bedouin in the Negev. Look at the systematic denial of government services to “Arab” neighborhoods versus Jewish ones. Look at the differential between educational and employment opportunities for Jews versus non-Jews. Look at the differential in land rights between Jews and “Arabs”. Look, look, look, and everywhere you look you will see disregard on the part of the State of Israel for the rights of those who are not Jewish.
Very interesting post and comments.
There is much greater chance of a Hamas/Israel ceasefire now that Hamas is no longer the government of the PA and, if the polls are to be believed, have very little electoral suppport in Gaza and WB since their coup.
As for a substantial Unifil force on Lebanon lines – ie one with teeth – if Hamas agrees to this plus a ceasefire I would say it would almost certainly indicate that Iran and US are moving to rapprochement
Shirin,
I cannot agree with you more, but let us not forget that , although a minority, there are some from the Jewish faith who regards the treatment of the Palestinians wrong, the least to say. And no doubt they are fewer than the goodwill Jewish people on the Palestinian side who wants the total destruction of a Zionist state, the number is growing, as someone had pointed.
The two people have no choice but to live together, equally and cooperatively. Tit for tat is a broken record, scoring eloquently in English ain’t the solution, JUSTICE for BOTH is the final resolution.
Update on the Hamas ceasefire proposal
While the talk here about Hamas ceasefire proposal , the real question here is with historical facts about Israeli and Palestinians saga, the Hamas ceasefire proposal will be unbalanced and short living one, whatever Hamas did and doing they are legitimate government as voting matter (for some they don’t like this) despite Hamas behaviours and links to outside support, but Hamas put under increasing pursuers and in a bad situation they can not continue their promises to their voters this due to Israelis polices and restrictions after Hamas win the election, also US and others allies from Arab who impose sanctions or stopped all the aid to Palestinians due to US commands.
So if you talking Hamas ceasefire proposal there are many doubts to be the long living one as this is like you beat a kid to your demand.
The case of peace between Israel and Palestinians should be built on equal rights and respect for both sides for each others less than that it will be waste of time and will be more broken deals more fires and more deaths between both sides, there is no peace expected in short term as the recent poll from Israelis that 2/3 of the Israeli’s youth in Israeli believe that Arab/Palestinians are not welcomes and have racist view against them, may some argue same as per Palestinians but let face the fact that if any one put himself in their shoes how he can respond to and what view he can say to us.
Read this report with consideration to the suffering of people there, mainly due to Israeli polices and actions, we do not omitting Palestinians (Hams & Fattah) responsibility of some of the blame of misery because of their corruptions and miss use the politics in this case, but if someone like the lawyer! Jonathan Edelstein thinks its is essentialist melodrama, is pure fantasy. then he omitting all concerns risen by many International agencies and other humanitarians independent concerns about the life hood under Israeli occupation and the relates on the ground he is the man he living with Pure fantasy we can say.
WFP Report:
Salah, I actually agree with pretty much everything you said in your last comment (there are some things I’d dispute but they aren’t major enough to argue about). My statement about “essentialist melodrama” and “pure fantasy” was directed at the portrayal of Israelis as demonic oppressor-bots who are constitutionally incapable of good faith.
Salah, I actually agree with pretty much everything you said
Its good to hear that Jonathan Edelstein, what’s concerned me is a folk like you stating things in regards of Palestinians Israeli conflicted favouring one side on another where all facts from different sources telling loudly that Israeli polices and actions toward Palestinian beyond any humane limits which made a complete society striving to the death, which we “Iraqis” saw it in 1991 sanction and then after in 2003 when Iraq made Hell on Earth.
So please take your views with bigger contrast and bigger than your believe and love as a lawyer you should be close to defending the victims in this case.
Jonathan, I for one do not consider Israelis to be “oppressor-bots”, or “bots” of any kind, nor do I find them constitutionally incapable of good faith. However, their extremely consistent record of bad faith extends back to well before statehood, and it is therefore very difficult to trust their word on anything.
It is very, very sad that an act of good faith on their part comes as a surprise.
Israel has a record comparable to other governments that make diplomatic promises and then have to deal with domestic politics, judicial processes, fast-moving events and the ham-handed cussedness of their own leaders – i.e., good on non-controversial issues and poor to mediocre on others. Governments in general aren’t good at keeping controversial commitments.
(“Congratulations, Turkey, you’re a candidate country… um, sorry, but on consultation with France and Germany, your application has been put on hold until 2378.” “We’ll contribute 5000 troops to the Somali peacekeeping force… er, make that a dozen Humvees, and you pay for the gas.” “Sure, I’ll sign Kyoto, now watch me get it past the Senate.”)
In Israel’s case, subtract a few points for political fragmentation (which empowers extreme ideologies), being involved in an active military conflict, having significant pressure groups outside the state’s direct control, and having interlocutors who aren’t always scrupulous about their commitments. Its bottom line in terms of controversial issues is probably similar to countries like Russia, Armenia and Sri Lanka – not good, but not requiring any kind of exceptionalism to explain.
In this occasion A Plea for “Merry Christmas”
Jonathan, no, Israel does not have a record comparable to other countries, and your examples are not even remotely equivalent to Israel’s consistent egregious record of flagrantly thumbing its nose at critical international agreements to which it is a signatory. How can you compare promising 5,000 troops and changing it to a dozen humvees, or Turkey’s on-again-off-again candidacy for the EU to Israel’s egregious and constant contempt for the international community international law, fundamental principles of human rights, and to its own solemn signature on agreements? These agreements include, but are not limited to the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (oh – ooops! I forgot that Israel refuses to sign that one – at least it is honest on that subject), and the list goes on and on.
And then there is its consistent record of flagrant nose-thumbing at its own agreements, starting with UNGA 181, which, as the documentary record shows, Israel’s founders “accepted” with the full intention of ignoring it. Come to think of it, how many UN resolutions has Israel actually honoured, even after signing them?
And how about Israel’s habit of ignoring ceasefires by continuing to conduct “operations”, including assassinations (aka extra judicial executions, aka state murders) during a ceasefire, while expecting the Palestinian Authority, which they have systematically crippled, to control every single action of every single Palestinian, and then using any act of violence by any Palestinian as an excuse to declare that the Palestinians have broken the ceasefire and return to “business” as usual?
With all respect, Jonathan, please! You are not talking here to some naive, unitiated American audience. You are talking here to people who have spent years, sometimes decades, closely studying and observing the dynamic.
Of course, Shirin, how could I not have known? Every other country on earth scrupulously honors all the human rights conventions, whether in peacetime or war, and Israel simply isn’t comparable with anyplace else on the planet in that regard. And of course I should have realized that Israel was required to obey the letter of a partition resolution that the other side rejected to the tune of five armies. How could I possibly have missed that?
I don’t believe I’m writing for a naive or uninformed audience (I don’t think being American matters, because other countries have their own forms of ignorance). I do, however, believe that I’m writing for an audience that tends to miss the forest for one particular tree. You may well have spent decades studying the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – I have no reason to doubt you on that score, although you seem to have missed all the nuance – but you obviously haven’t put significant time into studying the dynamics of other, similar conflicts. If you had, you’d realize that there’s absolutely nothing unique about Israel-Palestine. I argued here a few months back that the dynamics of the Sri Lanka conflict are an almost exact match, and there are plenty of others to choose from – Cyprus, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Western Sahara. All of them show the same pattern of commitments made and broken, and the same progressive brutalization of both sides.
If you don’t believe me, ask Helena. She has personal experience of quite a few conflicts, and has written about some that make the Israeli-Palestinian one look like a church social. One of the points she’s made compellingly, aside from the fact that many of them share underlying dynamics, is that all the parties are ultimately capable of good faith if they work together to create the necessary trust. Israel has often acted badly in that regard, but so have its interlocutors, and the honors seem to me about even.
And my point in terms of Turkey etc. was that it’s easy for governments to make commitments and easy to break them, and breaking of promises is an everyday event in the absence of any enforceable international legal system. Pervasive cynicism about diplomacy existed long before Israel was a gleam in Herzl’s eye, and it was there for a reason. You are of course correct that every broken promise is different in kind and degree, but that doesn’t make the underlying concept non-comparable.
I’ll leave the conversation here, because we’re straying far from the original topic, because I’m losing my equanimity and because I’m arguing a cause I don’t really want to argue. Believe it or not, I have no desire to defend Israel’s human rights record, because I think many of the things the Israeli government does are appalling. I’m on record, here and elsewhere, as opposing them. But people like you and “world peace” go well beyond that. In “world peace’s” world, Israelis don’t have “humanity,” and you once described them as a nation with “dirty souls.” Reading millions of people out of the human race is precisely what the Kahanists are all about, and when I see that sort of thing applied to anyone, much less my own, it’s much more likely to get my dander up than to persuade me. Make of that what you will.
Jonathan, I do not have time right now for a complete response, but, just responding to your first paragraph:
1. When you said Israel has a record comparable to “other countries”, I assumed you meant other western democracies. If you meant to compare Israel instead to a different category of “other countries”, then I would have to agree that it has a record comparable to those other countries. But I am sure that is not something you note with any kind of pride, so not sure why you note it at all.
2. Israel agreed to 181 knowing full well they had no intention, and never had any intention of honouring that agreement. At the time they agreed to it they were already planning and reparing for the expansion and the ethnic cleansing that was to come. Given that the Arabs (completely rightfully) refused 181, if they did not intend to accept the 56% of the land – which included most of the best land, and the best part of the seacoast by the way, the right thing to do was to refuse 181.
But the undeniable point, Jonathan, is that Israel , and before them the Zionist founders, have consistently exhibited their contempt for internationally accepted norms of behaviour, except, of course, when they are whining about the Arabs not following them.
Jonathan, what Israel exhibits is not mere “cynicism about diplomacy”. What Israel exhibits, and has exhibited starting before statehood is flagrant contempt for other countries’ and other peoples’ rights. Israel has even exhibited contempt for the rights of its own non-Jewish citizens.
As for your last paragraph, a few comments:
1. Please do not hold me responsible for other peoples’ statements. I have never said that Israelis or anyone else don’t have humanity. In fact, I not only have never written millions of people out of the human race, I have not written even the most vile individuals out of it. If you do that, then you can also deny human rights to certain individuals, and if humanity, and therefore human rights, can be denied to any person, even the worst of the worst, they can be guaranteed to no one.
2. I have no recollection of making the “dirty souls” remark, though if you say I did, then I must have. I find it difficult to believe that I said it in quite the way you remember, though. I have never in my life made a habit of characterizing entire societies in either positive or negative terms. I can believe that I might have said Israel has a dirty soul, but to me that is a reference to a political entity, not to human beings.
Israel has often acted badly in that regard, but so have its interlocutors, and the honors seem to me about even.
Yes. And always speak of the oppressed (the Palestinians), as if they are the equals of the oppressor (the superpower called Israel).
Don’t call the Gaza Strip for what it is: an Open Air Prison (or worse, but some words should better be avoided), guarded by the Israeli Defense Forces (with a little help of its European friends, who monitor the Egyptian border for Israel).
And please, don’t say that Israel has created hell on earth in the West Bank, or that it has built separation walls, and settlements, and “Palestinians not allowed” roads; or that it has flooded the West bank with obstacles and checkpoints, imprisoning the Palestinians in their own towns and villages.
And if that’s not enough, there’s always the old argument of “double standards”. According to this argument, people are always complaining about Israel. Granted, Israel has done some pretty appalling things. But so have other countries, countries that are never mentioned. There’s “absolutely nothing unique about Israel-Palestine“, runs the argument, and “there are plenty of others to choose from – Cyprus, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Western Sahara“. But the country that is selected for criticism, is always Israel. There’s something fishy about that, isn’t there?
In reality, of course, Israel is not like “any other” country. For Israel is the Apple in the Eye of every influential American politician, from Hillery Clinton and Nancy Pelosi to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (thanks partly to a very powerful Jewish Lobby, which does not accept any criticism of Israel). The USA arms Israel. It gives Israel all it wants, from military and economical aid to political support, vetoing resolutions in the UN calling for Israel to abide by International Law, allowing Israel to use American weapons against civilian populations, allowing Israel to occupy, to colonize and to oppress. Thanks to the US, Israel is above the law. With the blessing of the USA, it can do as it pleases, and it does.
There is, of course, another side to this extreme American support. The crimes of Israel are the crimes of the USA. Much more so than is the case in many other countries, including “Cyprus, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Western Sahara“.
Yet despite the fact that Israel’s crimes are America’s crimes , to select Israel for criticism is suspect (runs the argument of “double standards”).
There are, of course, other ways to write about the subject. This is how Israeli journalist Amira Hass writes about it:
“The truth is that nearly every Palestinian has many reasons to be fed up with life to the point of suicide and thoughts of revenge, and those thoughts are not linked only to military attacks. Even without killing, the Israeli occupation regime kills — hope, plans, relationships, ways of life. Living among Palestinians brings daily examples of the thousands of shades that despair has, just as the regime of occupation and colonization brings with it thousands of variants of material and mental abuse. Every moment, people mourn for the lives they could have had and which they are not experiencing. How explosive is the daily insult which people experience, under a foreign rule that decides who will live in their own houses and who will not, who will have access to their lands and who will not, when the bulldozer will tear up your grandparents’ land in order to attach it to a highway and a green settlement, who will waste several hours every day at a checkpoint, who will send their children to university and who will send them to beg, who will lose their source of livelihood, who will see their family and when, and who will not. Massive is the insult felt by the many who depend on charity. Added to all this, of course, is the constant opprobrium of a disappointing and failed Palestinian leadership and the absence of hope in its ability to effect change.”
source: http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=23929
Yet despite the fact that Israel’s crimes are America’s crimes
Yes, menno hart, pretending that the State of Israel and the people it holds under occupation are coequal actors in the drama and therefore have the same freedoms, the same power, and the same obligations, is yet another of the favourite ploys of Israel’s “liberal” apologists.
Menno, thanks so much for the link to the article about the Hebron Fund fundraiser. Unbelievable that that organization should have tax-free status (or indeed any legal status at all) in the USA.
Helena
Menno, thanks so much for the link to the article about the Hebron Fund fundraiser.
Just frindly correction Helena it was me who posted the Hebron Fund fundraiser link.
Helena
Menno, thanks so much for the link to the article about the Hebron Fund fundraiser.
Just friendly correction Helena it was me who posted the Hebron Fund fundraiser link.
I can believe that I might have said Israel has a dirty soul, but to me that is a reference to a political entity, not to human beings.
A distinction without a difference. Is “dirty souled” meant as a flattering expression? Every day, like a broken record we wade through these tedious coarse descriptions of Israeli society that come as naturally to you as breathing.
I have never in my life made a habit of characterizing entire societies in either positive or negative terms
Are you kidding? It’s not a habit but an addiction! It contaminates every thread.
internationally accepted norms of behaviour[sic]
Accepted by whom? The Russian government? Last I checked they’ve killed about 100,000 civilians in Chechnya. Have we ever heard you rhapsodi[s]ing about Russia’s “dirty soul”, its flagrant nose thumbing at the many human rights conventions it has signed ? Oh, pardon me! Those documents apply to “western nations” only. Because comparing the Israelis to the Russians or the Chinese just isn’t sporting.
Perhaps we should be comparing them to the USA (only please let’s not talk about the native Americans whose land Shirin herself occupies to this day!) As “non-western” entities of course Arab governments get a hall pass. Perhaps Israel’s racist behavio[u]r should be measured against the French? Maybe the virtuous Swiss (of “sicherheit schaffen” fame)? Danger, Will Robinson!
People are all alike Shirin. Israelis are no less virtuous than any western or non-western people, no less trustworthy than your own pious, judgmental self.
You are not talking here to some naive, unitiated[sic] American audience
Apparently he is. Anglicisms notwithstanding, you are American, although it may pain you to admit the fact [ if it’s any help I find a few Hail Marys works for that “dirty soul” feeling…]
Israel is not like “any other” country. For Israel is the Apple
Over $55 billion in aid from America. Israel, a prosperous country, receives $3.2 billion, (or $8 million a day) in foreign aid – more than any other country.
All right, I’ve slept on it, calmed down a bit and will make an attempt at an answer.
When you said Israel has a record comparable to “other countries”, I assumed you meant other western democracies. If you meant to compare Israel instead to a different category of “other countries,” then I would have to agree that it has a record comparable to those other countries. But I am sure that is not something you note with any kind of pride, so not sure why you note it at all.
In the comment to which you responded, I specifically listed some of the countries to which I believe that Israel is comparable in terms of its record of keeping commitments. These were Russia, Armenia and Sri Lanka, which I don’t think anyone is likely to confuse with generic “Western democracies” although they also aren’t the worst countries on earth. (Keep in mind, also, that Israel isn’t necessarily comparable to them in other respects.)
And no, I don’t note it with any kind of pride. I don’t believe that Russia or Sri Lanka is an acceptable standard for Israel to follow. The reason I “note it at all,” to use your words, is because there are those who insist that Israel is unique, that it isn’t comparable to any country, and that it alone of all places is inherently evil and irredeemable. That’s the sort of rhetoric that makes me defend things I really don’t want to defend. If this wasn’t what you were implying in your previous comments, I apologize for the misinterpretation, but you should be aware that certain people, like the ironically named “world peace,” who very clearly do believe things along these lines.
Israel agreed to 181 knowing full well they had no intention, and never had any intention of honouring that agreement.
Benny Morris would dispute this. Your statement can be made as an argument but not as undisputed fact. And because it would take several books to argue out (and indeed has; I’ll refer readers to Morris on the one hand and Pappe on the other), I’ll leave it at that.
What Israel exhibits, and has exhibited starting before statehood is flagrant contempt for other countries’ and other peoples’ rights. Israel has even exhibited contempt for the rights of its own non-Jewish citizens.
That’s a bit of an overstatement, no? As I argued above (and was not refuted, although I’m still willing to be proven wrong), Israel has respected the rights of those countries that have made peace with it, with the single exception of the botched Meshaal assassination in Jordan. Helena also pointed out that Israel has generally adhered to its ceasefire with Syria for more than 30 years, although there have been sporadic lapses from both sides. Obviously this isn’t true for places from which Israel faces an active military threat, but I don’t think Israel is any worse in that regard than the colonial settler state of which we are both citizens.
In terms of the status of Israel’s non-Jewish citizens, you’re also telling only half the story. I’ve written a great deal about discrimination against minorities in Israel, and occasionally donated my time to legal efforts against same, so I’m not about to deny that it exists. However, as you’re well aware, there are powerful institutions in Israel (such as the courts) that are forces for equality, and that government agencies have sometimes made efforts (although often insufficient) to remedy the discrimination.
Journalist Suhil Kiwan once referred to Palestinian-Israelis as “supreme status citizens” – i.e., people who had to go to the Supreme Court to realize their citizenship status. This is, on the one hand, an indictment of the Israeli state, but also a recognition that the “supremes” will act when nobody else will. There are plenty of places where minorities do not even have “supreme status.” And again, I am not noting this with any kind of pride, but simply with the desire to correct the record when Israel is described as a purely malevolent entity.
Please do not hold me responsible for other peoples’ statements. I have never said that Israelis or anyone else don’t have humanity.
I was responding both to you and to “world peace.” I think I was clear in attributing the “humanity” statement to him, her or it. For what it’s worth, I don’t hold you responsible for it.
I have no recollection of making the “dirty souls” remark, though if you say I did, then I must have. I find it difficult to believe that I said it in quite the way you remember, though. I have never in my life made a habit of characterizing entire societies in either positive or negative terms. I can believe that I might have said Israel has a dirty soul, but to me that is a reference to a political entity, not to human beings.
The comment was made in this thread, and does refer to Israel the nation. I’ll have to agree with Vadim, though, that this is a distinction without a difference. My reasons for thinking so are twofold. First, nations (or “political entities” if you will) are composed of human beings. Second, and more to the point, once you start describing a nation as having a “dirty soul” – i.e., evil in essence – then you’ve effectively written it off as irredeemable, and given de facto moral sanction to the most extreme measures against it and its people. Frankly, I find this to be exactly the type of dehumanization that has fed a great deal of the world’s conflicts – and yes, before you ask, I do react the same way to people who describe Palestinians as a “death cult” or such. However, if you didn’t mean to “characterize an entire society,” then I’ll accept that this wasn’t what you meant, although it’s hard to interpret the statement any other way.
Anyway, we really are straying far afield here. Hopefully this came off as a bit less of a rant.
Menno, power differentials aren’t everything. The more powerful side has the capacity to do much more damage, but the less powerful side is also capable of doing things to keep a conflict going. That’s why the term “asymmetric warfare” exists in the first place, and the methods of asymmetric warfare are often precisely those that create fear and undermine readiness for peace among the target population.
I’m not saying that Israelis and Palestinians are equal. Clearly, Israel is the more powerful side. I’ve argued in the past that, as the party with greater power, Israel has the responsibility to take the initiative in ending the occupation and building trust. Nevertheless, the Palestinians also have factors under their control – methods of warfare, rhetoric, negotiating positions – that they can use either to prolong the conflict or try to end it. The various organizations who act for them often seem to have done their best to feed Israeli fears of annihilation rather than promising peace in return for freedom. Israel’s use of its power doesn’t occur in a vacuum.
I’ll defer to Helena here, because she has much more personal experience with asymmetric conflicts than I do, but I think she’d agree that all parties, including the less powerful, need to participate in creating the conditions for trust and peacemaking. I’ll refer you to her posts about Uganda and Mozambique, both of which are countries where she’s spent extensive time.
(BTW, Israel is hardly alone in having the support of a foreign patron – Ethiopia and Colombia have the US, Armenia has Russia and Morocco in the Western Sahara has France – and I don’t think you’re American so I’m not exactly sure how that argument applies to you. Nor can Israel really be called a “superpower” – its power is limited by logistics, domestic constraints and international opinion. It’s a regional power at most. But I digress.)
Jonathan, thank you for referring me to the “dirty soul” comment. I do remember this discussion, and now I remember the “dirty soul” remark. What I said was “Israel has a dirty soul”, and I know exactly what I intended and did not intend by that remark, and what I did not intend was to say that every single Israeli human being has a dirty soul. What I intended to convey by that remark was that the entity that is the State of Israel has a dirty soul. I repeat that I have always viewed human beings as individuals, and do not tend to characterize entire collections of people either in positive or in negative ways.
Jonathan, you can interpret what I said all you want in whatever way you want to, but that will not change what my real intent was. I know what I meant to convey. I can’t help how you or Vadim choose to interpret it.
Jonathan,
As you say, since Israel is “the party with greater power, Israel has the responsibility to take the initiative in ending the occupation and building trust.” My point is that Israel doesn’t take any serious initiative to end the occupation or to build trust. It doesn’t even give any signs that it has the intention of ever doing so. Yes, of course, Israeli politicians, especially when talking to an international audience, are telling the world that they long for a just and lasting peace, and that they are willing to make great sacrifices to achieve it. At the same time, they continue their building program in the settlements, and their siege of Gaza. These facts speak much louder than all the lofty words about peace and justice that Israeli politicians uttered in the last months put together.
Asymmetric warfare can’t be the excuse. There is a lot of asymmetric warfare, but it’s not the asymmetry you are referring to. There were almost no suicide bombings during the last year. There are a lot of (peaceful) demonstrations against The Wall, and the Israeli forces tend to crush them brutally. Though, in the absence of suicide bombings, the argument of ‘asymmetric warfare’ to justify a brutal and bloody occupation can’t be used any more, Israel continues with its horrific mix of building settlements, Seperation Walls, and “Palestinians not allowed” roads, and its policy of roadblocks and checkpoints to immobilize Palestinians, and make their life miserable. There is asymmetry here, but not the one you meant.
And Gaza? Israel continues its amazing siege of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip, blocking imports and exports, reducing the supply of fuel, threatening power cuts, conducting incursions with tanks and bulldozers, and continuing its policy of assassinations (euphemistically called “targeted killings”). It’s true, there are Palestinian attacks with Qassam rockets on Israel, and these attacks form a real threat and a real terror for the inhabitants of Sderot and surrounding area, but it’s also true that the number of people killed by these attacks is small, and that the siege of Gaza, the collective punishments meted out by Israel, and the constant incursions and air-attacks are completely disproportionate, to say the least.
You say: “Israel is hardly alone in having the support of a foreign patron – Ethiopia and Colombia have the US, Armenia has Russia and Morocco in the Western Sahara has France – and I don’t think you’re American so I’m not exactly sure how that argument applies to you.”
The more direct one is involved in something, the greater ones responsibility is for what’s going on. I may live in Holland, but Holland, with the rest of Europe, almost always follows the American lead in foreign policy, whether it’s in occupying Iraq, or fighting in Afghanistan, or in boycotting Palestinians, or in “peacemaking” in the Middle East. Holland is, like most other European countries, a Nato member, and Nato is not so much an alliance as an extension of the American army. One could make a case for calling the American President “The Great Shepard in Washington”, and the European Union his “flock”. Which makes the Nato his flock in uniform.
But what makes Israel special? USA policy itself. For whatever reason, American politicians seem to think that they have to pledge fealty to the AIPAC and Israel, in order to have any chance in American politics.
Some shocking examples of this subservience of American politicians towards AIPAC and Israel can be found here: http://www.aipac.org/2785_2859.asp#
Yes, Israel is a special case. And it’s USA policy which makes it special. In official America it is not possible to have a debate about Israel. In official America, Israel is beyond criticism. It must be supported, come what may. Precisely because Israel is beyond criticism in official America (whose unflinching support makes it possible for Israel to do what it does), criticism of Israeli crimes and the shared responsibility of the USA for these crimes is of the greatest importance. Or else we are doomed to accept that Israel is beyond criticism in official America.
More Israelis declare the zionist project dead … as Palestinians continue to suffer