… is here. Also here.
It contains some key points from my recent interview with Ramallah PM Salam Fayad.
25 thoughts on “My IPS piece on Israel’s lurch to the right, and peace prospects”
Comments are closed.
Just World News with Helena Cobban
Info, analysis, discussion – to build a more just world
Helena,
The question remains how this dispute can be resolved. I do not see the point of your argument, other than to bash the Israelis.
One has to ask in particular why you focus so much on the Yisrael Beiteinu party while thinking it a good thing that the Hamas party–which seems, if we go by its covenant, to advocate ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, even genocide–join the PA? Where is the logic there? Compared to Hamas, Yisrael Beiteinu is angelic in its stated position, advocating that Israel cede land to create a Palestinian Arab state. Hamas, you will note, advocates the end of Israel but is willing to enter into a long term truce if Israel cedes land. A truce, not an end to the dispute!!!
Moreover, the dispute has religion laying beneath all corners, with Palestinian Arabs demanding East Jerusalem for its capitol. That demand, unless we ignore everything written in Arabic about the issue, is almost entirely about religion. The same for quite a number, albeit not all, of the settlements in the West Bank by Jews. Yet, you seek only the problems on the Jewish side of the divide. I do not understand that at all.
So, we have Yisrael Beiteinu seeking to divide the country by religion. Is that really a bad idea, if Jews and Arabs are unable to live together and, given the last hundred years as predicate, fairly unlikely to get along anytime soon?
I am not sure your point is at all well considered. Were I an Israeli – which I am not and do not desire to be -, I do not know which of the many parties, on the left or the right, I would favor. I want peace. I see, however, no path to peace. So, someone with my view has to take a leap, acting accordingly on short term necessity to survive or, by contrast, doing all I can to make peace possible or, perhaps, both at once. I am not sure. But even then, the question really is whether Arabs and Jews can cohabit, over the long term, in one polity. I am skeptical.
So with have Yisrael Beiteinu that says, lets have Israel for those who accept a national state for Jews and Palestine for those who prefer to live in a national state for Arabs. Is that really racist? Or, is it shrewdly pragmatic, even if expressed with typically Russian exaggeration? I am not sure. I do note that the “Russian speak” of Avigdor Lieberman is pretty awful. But, note: unlike some leaders of Hamas about Jews, he does not speak of massacring the Arabs as a people. He does not claim that an Arab state is a sin against God. So, I think you are being a bit hyper-sensitive to how he speaks – and, if you listen to the way Soviet leaders and people typically communicate, his is really not out of the norm. And, his primary audience is one raised in the USSR so he speaks with the type of language understood by his audience, accustomed to the type of rhetoric that was – and let us be frank here – normal for people like Yeltsin and Putin.
Which is to say, I think your comment is not well considered.
I would suggest you consider what historian Benny Morris has written regarding the long term likelihood of where this dispute is heading. His view is that the long term will lead to one of two outcomes: an all Arab state with essentially no Jews or a primarily Jewish state with a small Arab minority. These, to me, are the most likely futures, whichever way Israel goes just now.
In any event, I see your approach as making an unhappy outcome all the more likely.
honestly, I start reading the comments in Helena’s blog by reading who is the author and I save time and effort of reading the long epistles of the hazbaras
bysta,
In other words, bysta, you are prejudiced against the views of a person with a Jewish sounding name.
Are you, in fact, able to address the content of what I have written or are you limited to insults?
N:
You repeat that the dispute is mostly or largely religious, and I’m not sure what significance that has for you.
My opposition to Zionism is not religious, but anti-colonial but I guess that’s neither here nor there.
If person A believes the people who left Israel in 1948 when it was a war zone and their descendents have a legitimate right to return that supercedes Israel’s supposed right to maintain a Jewish identity and person B believes God does not want a Jewish state, do you think person B is worse, or more unreachable or something than person A?
I’m person A. Would I be less reasonable in your eyes if I was person B? Why?
I’m sure you disagree with me about the right to return. I’m sure you can produce an argument that is convincing to you, but not to me, that I’m wrong about the right to return.
I’ll say an argument that convinces a Jewish person will not necessarily convince an Arab person – not that either is bad, but both bring different emotional responses to the issue.
You say you don’t live in Israel and don’t plan to. It is more than clear to me that you still empathize much more strongly with Israeli Jews than with Arabs. This impacts what arguments seem convincing to you.
Most non-Jewish people in the region will not be convinced by your argument. If religion was taken out entirely, most people in the region still would not be convinced by your argument. I’m not sure why this assertion that religion is a key is so important to you. I’ve been puzzled ever since I first saw it.
About the two possible outcomes. I think a third outcome is possible, in which Jews remain in Israel with strong protections for individual liberties and a decent amount of political power. Not that different from South Africa.
If most Jews would refuse to live in Israel with a non-Jewish political majority, and for that reason, despite there not being any physical threat to their safeties, leave, then I do not consider that a bad outcome. That is my take on Morris’ alternative in which there are few remaining Jews.
Morris’ other alternative, few remaining Arabs cannot be accomplished without forced ethnic cleansing.
Now that a two-state solution is more clearly becoming unreachable, the question of which one-state vision is preferable is becoming more important.
I personally am unconvinced by your arguments that the mostly Jewish vision is preferable. My feeling is that if you were not Jewish, or at least did not connect more empathically with Israeli Jews than with Arabs, you would find those arguments less convincing yourself.
N.,
my earlier comment was not based on the sound of commenter’s name but on the content of your other contributions in previous chapters;
btw. I did not use insults (I would not use insults in Helena’s blog), but a slightly pejorative word ‘epistle’. If you are offended by that – my sincere apology.
Nine miles away from Jerusalem, in an interview Tuesday in Ramallah, Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayad defined the PA’s three conditions for resuming any peace talks with a new Israeli government.
Fayad was installed as PA prime minister by President Mahmoud Abbas on an emergency basis back in June 2007, after forces loyal to the U.S.-backed Abbas were forcibly evicted from Gaza by forces loyal to the elected Hamas government.
So Fayad has no business speaking for the Palestinians. Period. He is a member of the IFP. A Contra. A comprador. On the take. Complicit with the enemies of the Palestinian people.
Only the democratically elected government of Palestine can speak for the Palestinians. If you have questions as to who the democratically elected government of Palestine are, hold internationally sanctioned and observed elections in Palestine and see.
Arnold,
It is my distinct impression that if religion were not at the center of the dispute, it would have been resolved long ago.
I should add, I do not understand your anti-colonial argument. Since when does anti-colonialism apply as an argument against individuals seeking refuge from oppression? And, since when do efforts to help refugees apply to their offspring?
I note that the arguments made by the Arab nationalist movement were, from the beginning, laced with religious metaphors and edicts. Was religion the whole story? Certainly not. Was it an important part of the story? Certainly yes. Is religion the part of the story which prevents settlement? Almost certainly so.
You misinterpret Professor Morris’ remarks. His view is that the Arab side will most likely expel or kill off the Jewish side. It is not that Jews will not want to live in the country. It is that they will not be able to live in the country, because the religious bigots on the Arab side – and please note that I am not calling all people on the Arab side religious, much less religious bigots – will make it impossible for Jews to remain in their homeland.
The above point is well driven home in interviews conducted by and reports in The New York Times. By way of example, here is what appeared in the Grey Lady back in 2002 (Source: “Bombers Gloating in Gaza as They See Goal Within Reach: No More Israel,” By Joel Brinkley, New York Times, April 4, 2002):
The goals of Hamas are straightforward. As Sheik Yassin put it, “our equation does not focus on a cease-fire; our equation focuses on an end to the occupation.” By that he means an end to the Jewish occupation of historical Palestine.
Hamas wants Israeli withdrawal from all of the West Bank and Gaza, the dismantling of all Israeli settlements and full right of return for the four million Palestinians who live in other states. After that, the Jews could remain, living “in an Islamic state with Islamic law,” Dr. Zahar said. “From our ideological point of view, it is not allowed to recognize that Israel controls one square meter of historic Palestine.”
Mr. Shenab insisted that he was not joking when he said, “There are a lot of open areas in the United States that could absorb the Jews.”
Your view is based on the theory that such statements – and there are enough to stack them up to the Sun – are basically hyperbole. My theory is that such statements are more than likely made in earnest or, without evidence showing them to be hyperbole, to be treated as if they are made in earnest.
In my view, there are lots of potential ways to resolve the dispute. However, the one state solution is cruel to both Arabs and Jews. It is, I think, mean spirited – in my view, amazingly mean spirited – to advocate the return to Jews to the whim of Christians and Muslims – neither of whom can be trusted to care sufficiently for Jews to protect their well being, much less their lives. It means creating a civil war type situation akin to Lebanon and that means, in the end, that Israel, which has its problems, will become more like Lebanon, a country which has had violence and death on a scale that has never occurred in Israel. So, even if you are correct with your anti-colonial rhetoric, what you propose is still wrong headed.
The reality is that there are two parties who have legitimate aspirations. They also both have illegitimate aspirations. A one state solution negates the legitimate aspiration of Jews entirely to live a life no longer at the whim of Christians and Muslims. And, it places the parties closer to each other where bloodshed on a massive scale will almost certainly occur.
That does not mean that a two state solution could work. At the moment, I think it a fools errand. But, that could change over time.
Arnold,
A quick correction: There were three paragraphs in the NY Times quote. Only the first appears above in italics. So, the entire quoted material reads as follows:
The goals of Hamas are straightforward. As Sheik Yassin put it, “our equation does not focus on a cease-fire; our equation focuses on an end to the occupation.” By that he means an end to the Jewish occupation of historical Palestine.
Hamas wants Israeli withdrawal from all of the West Bank and Gaza, the dismantling of all Israeli settlements and full right of return for the four million Palestinians who live in other states. After that, the Jews could remain, living “in an Islamic state with Islamic law,” Dr. Zahar said. “From our ideological point of view, it is not allowed to recognize that Israel controls one square meter of historic Palestine.”
Mr. Shenab insisted that he was not joking when he said, “There are a lot of open areas in the United States that could absorb the Jews.”
bysta,
I still ask – repeating my earlier comment – are you, in fact, able to address the content of what I have written? How able reading my comment and then explaining what is wrong with it.
honestly, I start reading the comments in Helena’s blog by reading who is the author and I save time and effort of reading the long epistles of the hazbaras
Congratulations. So why share this with the rest of us? Do you have any idea how pathetic and insecure this remark sounds?
N:
It seems to me that Hamas’ goal is, as you quote:
After that, the Jews could remain, living “in an Islamic state with Islamic law,”
Assuming that is what the political balance would be, after including refugees, that strikes me as reasonable.
My take is that Jewish individuals having strong protections for their individual liberties is well within the realm of negotiation if a one-state solution is being negotiated.
The Arab argument that if the US feels very strongly that there must be a Jewish state, it is more fair for the US to supply the territory than the Palestinians is also reasonable to me.
Not that any Jews should be forced out, but any who want to leave to be in a Jewish state that does not involve dispossesing Palestinians should of course be free to.
There was no strong religious aspect to Apartheid, but Black people in Africa identified with Black people in South Africa and were completely immune to the arguments and justifications of White South Africans.
I’m as certain that Arabs would oppose Israel if not for religion as you are that they would approve Israel if not for religion.
Arabs believe the Palestinians were unjustly forced out to make way for a Jewish state. I agree with that and I have no religious reason to agree. You disagree, but I guess you’re saying Arabs only believe what they do because of Islam. I actually find that silly.
I think it is possible to reach an agreement in which individual Jewish rights are respected while still allowing refugees and their descendents to return.
I don’t even dream of convincing you that refugees and their descendents should have a right to return, but you’re not going to convince the people of Egypt or Jordan or Iraq or Iran or Lebanon or Saudi Arabia the other way, religion or not.
Now the US can pay a lot of money to keep these people relatively powerless to enact policies that reflect their sensibilities.
Helena Cobban seems to me to be on your side, supporting efforts to hold the Arab and Muslim world impotent and undemocratic because she believes this is necessary for a two-state solution, and she cannot envision peace without a two state solution.
N:
I don’t even dream of convincing you that refugees and their descendents should have a right to return, but you’re not going to convince the people of Egypt or Jordan or Iraq or Iran or Lebanon or Saudi Arabia the other way, religion or not.
And further my quote above, if religion is an important reason you can’t convince them, why does that make a difference to you?
I don’t concede that religion is an important factor because the idea strikes me as silly as I said before. But I could concede that without anything changing as far as I can see. What is the importance of this point to your argument?
Arnold,
I think that religious conviction that is deeply held is among the strongest forces, if not the strongest force, on Earth. And, I note that the objection to Jewish rule, for religious reasons, is an important feature of the Hamas view of the dispute.
That objection is based in theology which holds that Jewish rule is violates God’s will. It is akin to the Christian view that Jews are eternally damned and should roam the Earth for the sin of killing Jesus. That view in Christianity played an important part in how Jews were treated – or do you deny that?
The Hamas version of Jew hatred is that Jews attempted to kill Mohammad and that Jews double crossed him – leading to the view that Jews were an eternally evil people. Such views play a central role in the mythology of the Islamist movement. Moreover, Jews are accused of attempting to destroy Islam by controlling Attaturk and causing him to eliminate the Caliphate. On top of that is the classical Islamic theological view that only Muslim rule is legitimate. Again – such is not the view of all Muslims today. But, such is the view, or at least such is the expressed view, of Hamas and other Islamists.
So, I think that if such views are held in earnest, there is no imaginable settlement that is possible. Such is a deeply religious view that is not subject to reason.
I do not see your point about refugees. The standard approach in the world for solving refugee problems is for them to be settled wherever they can find refuge. That is the approach that was used in Europe – where ethnic Germans were expelled from their ancestral homes in places like Danzig and in the former Czechoslovakia. I think it amazing that you would expect Jews to take in Arabs when, in fact, Arab can be settled with other Arabs. Note: Germans expelled from Poland have no right of return. Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia have no right of return. And note: there are many such people who think that they ought have a right of return. And, their claim is as good, if not better, than Arabs who lost their homes.
As for your history, had the Arab side not started a war to prevent partition, no one would have lost homes. As things turned out, large numbers of people on both sides lost their homes. That includes Jews, if you bother to do some investigation, not just Arabs. But again: partition was not a sin. It was a practical way to deal with a practical problem. It was something that had support among many educated Palestinian Arabs until the Grand Mufti’s movement killed such leaders and otherwise terrorized the rest of those who did not want bloodshed. See, in this regard, Hillel Cohen’s very interesting book Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948.
So, in my view, it was not colonialism but horrendous political judgment and, I should add, bigotry by those associated with the Grand Mufti. And, he was truly a world class bigot who, you will note, thought that the Germans would not only win WWII but would follow through on their agreement with him and his political movement to massacre the entire Jewish population of historic Palestine. There has been a lot of recent and first class scholarship regarding him and the agreement reached by him with Hitler to exterminate the Jews of historic Palestine. See, for example, Klaus Michael Mallmann and Martin Cuppers 2006 book Halbmond und Hakenkreuz: Das Dritte Reich, die Araber und Palästina (“Crescent Moon and Swastika: The Third Reich, the Arabs, and Palestine”).
Again, had the Arab side not held bigoted views about Jews and not been driven by religion, the dispute might have been avoided and, on top of that, might still be resolved. But, with the Arab side willing to accept religious lunatics as their leaders, the only hope for peace is to keep the two sides apart.
No, I didn’t mention refugees so that you’d see my point.
Egyptians see my point and would act according to that sensibility but are held under an US-sponsored dictatorship.
Jordanians see my point and are held under an unpopular dictatorship.
Iranians see my point, and preventing Iran from accumulating resources to act more effectively in accordance with that sensibility is a primary and very expensive part of US Middle East policy.
Palestinians see my point. Helena Cobban supports measures to pressure Palestinians to vote for parties that do not reflect that. At pain of siege and starvation.
Etc, etc, all around the region.
I’m not going to bother argue that you are wrong, though that’s what I think. My only assertion here is that it is widely believed in the Middle East and preventing the region from acting on the belief that Israel is illegitimate requires far too many resources for Israel to accomplish without outside patrons like the United States.
You think the Arabs should have accepted the partition. The Arabs were the majority of the territory and did not believe it should be divided to make room for a Jewish state. They had the right to deny that and if the deal could not be improved so that they accepted it, then another arrangment should have been reached. 1948 was an injustice. You disagree. You’ll never convince the Arabs.
Also your narrative of the innocent Jews who would not have had war except for the unreasonable Arabs is not accepted in the region any more than your belief that the refugees should not be able to return. I won’t bother to really argue the issue, even though I could. (The first organized forces to use arms were Jewish.) The people of the region don’t accept it.
Now, are you arguing that under no circumstances can Jews live at peace in majority Christian countries? Because of Christian religious hatred of Jews?
I think that argument fails in the case of both Christians and Muslims. I think it is possible to negotiate an arrangment that will keep individual Jews safe. I think the United States could guarantee such an arrangment and I think the Arabs would accept such an arrangement.
I also think that if the United States believes it is critical for there to be a reservation that will always guarantee admission, refuge and self-rule to Jews, the US can and should create such a reservation without imposing on the Palestinians.
A good idea for everyone here to go re-read the Commenters’ Guidelines.
Especially the one about not hogging the discourse: It is never courteous to hog the discourse. Please limit each comment to 300 words. Try not to comment more than once in every five or six comments in any single discussion. If you have more to say, post those lengthier thoughts on your own blog or website and put in a hyperlink to them.
But the one on saliency to the topic of the post is also important.
Arnold,
My last comment on this post in order to abide by Helena’s wishes. You write: “Also your narrative of the innocent Jews who would not have had war except for the unreasonable Arabs is not accepted in the region …”
Whether something is accepted in the region has exactly nothing to do with whether it is true. Perception and truth are different things. In fact, the scholarship shows it was certainly true that Jews were not going to start any war unless attacked. And, so does common sense. Jews, in very large numbers, lived in tent cities outside of Tel Aviv for years. Such refugees, not starting unnecessary wars, was the main concern of the Jewish population of that time. But, again, the Arab side did start that war and, as such, they bear responsibility for that mistake, just like the mistake they made in supporting Germany during WWII.
That is it for me. And, my apology to our kind host Helena.
The dispute is not and has never been largely religious. Political Zionism never had its basis in religion. It was a secular nationalist movement. The majority of Israeli Jews are secular, not religious. The Palestinians’ objections to Zionism was not and is not religious, but rather the objection every indigenous group has to attempts by outsiders to take over their land.
Insisting on casting the dispute as principally a religious one is simply a way to avoid serious work on a solution.
Arnold,
The idea that religion is a determining or critical factor in the dispute is not only silly, it is demonstrably contra factual. It also forces us either to believe that religion has been the key factor in every dispute between colonizer and colonized, ethnic cleanser and ethnically cleansed, oppressor and oppressed, or that this dispute is somehow unique among such disputes.
Of course, in insisting that religion is the basis of the dispute, N. Friedman makes the classic mistake of failing to take into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of Arab and other Middle Eastern Christians, secular persons, and adherents to other religions are and have always been as passionately and actively opposed to Zionism and Israel as are Muslims.
Or perhaps N. Friedman is unaware of the Christian opposition to Zionism, including George Habash, the notorious head of the “terrorist” group PFLP, or Edward Sa`id, or Hanan Ashrawi to mention but three of the more recognizable names. And perhaps N. Friedman is unaware of the virtual unanimity of the opposition throughout the Middle East regardless of religion or lack thereof.
Shirin,
If you had read what I wrote, I said that religion was not the only issue. But, it is an issue and mostly on the Arab side. And, at present, it is the primary reason the dispute does not settle.
Citing opposition by Christians to Israel ought to give you pause, since, in fact, Christianity – or at least many of its forms – have doctrinal opposition to Jews in the Christian Holy Land and, I might add, to any normal life for Jews.
In any event, not all Christians in the Middle East opposed Israel. In particular, Copts and Maronites have not been avid opponents to Israel. Maronite indifference to and, at times support of, Israel is one reason why Lebanon, as a country, has stayed out of most of the wars.
However, that the dispute has a religious element – an important element – to it is beyond all question.
N. Friedman, the premises on which you base your arguments are so consistently inaccurate or just plain factually wrong that trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to find the bottom of a black hole – an utterly useless exercise. As long as you insist upon ignoring facts in place of your convenient assumptions there is simply no point in trying to engage with you.
Religion is absolutely not the primary reason the dispute does not settle. Despite efforts by elements on both sides it is an issue only with small minorities.
Middle Eastern Christians are not and have never been doctrinally opposed to Jews in in the “Christian holy land” or anywhere else, and there has not been significant opposition to Jews in the “Christian holy land” on the part of western Christians for a very long time.
You are also wrong about the views of Copts and Maronites.
And you are demonstrably factually incorrect in claiming that Lebanon has stayed out of most of Israel’s wars (and interesting that you admit, probably inadvertently, that with but one exception they have been Israel’s wars).
Shirin,
The Middle East is the home of Palestinian Replacement Theology, which is an offshoot of a form of neo-Marcionism. Marcionism is a form of supercessionism which, in its essence, holds that Jews are not worthy of God’s love, such love having been transferred to Christians. In its Palestinian Replacement Theology form, such view is that Jews are replaced in God’s love by Palestine’s Arabs. Jews, as such, are illegitimate.
Now, I say that religion goes to the heart of the dispute because it has always been used – from day one – by leaders of Palestine’s Arabs to garner support. That includes, most particularly, the Grand Mufti, who spent years in Berlin writing speeches that were broadcast to Arabs over the radio, in which he spewed out religious arguments why Jews were depraved and should be killed.
Hamas says similar things. Its leaders say that Israel is a sin against God. The Hamas covenant says that as well.
That is called religion.
Palestinian Replacement Theology – oh my god! How desperate ARE you, anyway?
Whatever, N. I barely have time to talk about all the real things going on in this world. I REALLY don’t have time for nonsense like this.
Shirin,
Investigate Rev. Naim Ateek of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem. Read a less kind interpretation of the replacement theology here.
Alternatively, you can keep your head in the sand.
N., I am very familiar with Sabeel and Reverend Ateek, and I make a point of never reading anything whose title contains the non-word “dhimmitude”.
The Middle East is the home of Palestinian Replacement Theology, which is an offshoot of a form of neo-Marcionism. Marcionism is a form of supercessionism which, in its essence, holds that Jews are not worthy of God’s love
ALL Rubbish hateful and discussing stuff N. (Noah).
Go and breathe together with Daniel Pips…..
Hasbra with Honour
Btw, wonder Helana’s slince from N. comments apart from advicing reading her guidlines &300 Words…