well look at that.... the I/P conflict solved on a smoke break >- ) The problems I see is that Israel would prefer land swaps for the settlements, over using the green line as a border (this muddies the waters). And also that there does not seem to be a whole lot of support for restraint in Israel. Judging by social media since the assault on Gaza began, the general consensus seems to be that Palestine deserves to be bombed if a missile is launched at Israel, regardless of who did it, why it was done, or how much damage it inflicts. The self-defence angle is always the go-to response despite the fact that rocket attacks always increase during Israeli air strikes. I don't think restraint and rule of law is too much to ask after 50 years of occupation.
If there was a withdrawal, and an end to the blockade, the Palestinians would have to commit to prosecuting or turning over anyone who attacks israel. And Israel would have to agree to let this happen, possibly even work with the Palestinians from an intelligence standpoint, without retaliating with military force. The end of the bush doctrine of pre emptive strikes, and the policy of collective punishment and strikes against targets sans proof of guilt is the first step post-withdrawal. And there would be a long cooling off period, probably 2 or 3 generations of relative peace, before true peace is achieved. The israeli's, in their position of power, and as a state with a military who follows orders from the state, have much more control over whether this works than the Palestinians who would have to deal with the problems all fledgling sovereign nations deal with - power struggles between factions who have different ideas on how the state should move forward. The israeli's would need to show restraint, and maybe an international peacekeeping force on the border could help in that regard. The first step is always to end the occupation/blockade, and dismantle (or preferably hand over) the settlements.
I agree with this entirely. My only caveat would be that I don't see a good reason for the Palestinians to wait until after the end of the occupation to start policing themselves in the way you suggest. If anything they should start doing so immediately. The likelihood of Israel acting peacefully and with restraint would be much greater if the Palestinians show themselves to be actively policing those that attempt to attack Israel. And in the long term, Israelis will feel much more secure in ending the occupation if the Palestinians have acted to prevent violence and build trust.
Basically, I don't see that the Palestinians gain anything at all from firing missiles at Israel except for a propaganda victory if they are able to goad Israel into retaliating (excessively) and Palestinians die. At this point it's not as if anyone is unaware of how this plays out. Hamas knows that if they fire hundreds of missiles into Israel there will be a forceful response. Violence isn't getting the Palestinians any closer to a state. If anything, I think, it's massively counterproductive to their cause.
In short, I think many people too often think about the Palestinians as if they have zero agency when in fact both sides are responsive to the actions of the other. You only need to look at the relatively prolonged periods of ceasefire between Israel and Gaza to see this. Although there were certainly breaches of the ceasefire by both sides, so long as it was clear that Hamas was cracking down on rocket fire into Israel, Israel didn't (over)react to the sporadic rockets that were fired with the sort of operation that is now underway. Israel is certainly the more powerful party and is capable of doing more to move the conflict toward a peaceful resolution, but the Palestinians can and should act in a manner that is more likely to influence Israel to take the necessary steps.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I should add that the way things are headed, this scenario is a pipe dream. Israel will continue down it's current path until the two state solution is dead (it may already be). If this happens, I think eventually the world will be forced to demand equal rights for all peoples within 'eretz israel'....at which point, the Jewishness of the state is in trouble. This is why yosi tells us that many Israelis do see the settlements and aggressive policies as detrimental to the 'liberal' approach to Zionism.
I'd actually go further than that and say that many see such policies as not just detrimental to liberal Zionism, but as inherently anti-Zionist (which is my position). The logic there is that the common thread that runs through every form of Zionism is Jewish self-determination in a part of our ancestral homeland. Insofar as the settlements risk undermining Jewish self-determination (which they do), and insofar as they systematically lead to a blatant disregard for and undermining of the rule of law (and hence the sovereignty of the state), which they do, they are fundamentally anti-Zionist.
Truth. I hope your side wins your internal struggle before it's too late for everyone.
If there was a withdrawal, and an end to the blockade, the Palestinians would have to commit to prosecuting or turning over anyone who attacks israel. And Israel would have to agree to let this happen, possibly even work with the Palestinians from an intelligence standpoint, without retaliating with military force. The end of the bush doctrine of pre emptive strikes, and the policy of collective punishment and strikes against targets sans proof of guilt is the first step post-withdrawal. And there would be a long cooling off period, probably 2 or 3 generations of relative peace, before true peace is achieved. The israeli's, in their position of power, and as a state with a military who follows orders from the state, have much more control over whether this works than the Palestinians who would have to deal with the problems all fledgling sovereign nations deal with - power struggles between factions who have different ideas on how the state should move forward. The israeli's would need to show restraint, and maybe an international peacekeeping force on the border could help in that regard. The first step is always to end the occupation/blockade, and dismantle (or preferably hand over) the settlements.
I agree with this entirely. My only caveat would be that I don't see a good reason for the Palestinians to wait until after the end of the occupation to start policing themselves in the way you suggest. If anything they should start doing so immediately. The likelihood of Israel acting peacefully and with restraint would be much greater if the Palestinians show themselves to be actively policing those that attempt to attack Israel. And in the long term, Israelis will feel much more secure in ending the occupation if the Palestinians have acted to prevent violence and build trust.
Basically, I don't see that the Palestinians gain anything at all from firing missiles at Israel except for a propaganda victory if they are able to goad Israel into retaliating (excessively) and Palestinians die. At this point it's not as if anyone is unaware of how this plays out. Hamas knows that if they fire hundreds of missiles into Israel there will be a forceful response. Violence isn't getting the Palestinians any closer to a state. If anything, I think, it's massively counterproductive to their cause.
In short, I think many people too often think about the Palestinians as if they have zero agency when in fact both sides are responsive to the actions of the other. You only need to look at the relatively prolonged periods of ceasefire between Israel and Gaza to see this. Although there were certainly breaches of the ceasefire by both sides, so long as it was clear that Hamas was cracking down on rocket fire into Israel, Israel didn't (over)react to the sporadic rockets that were fired with the sort of operation that is now underway. Israel is certainly the more powerful party and is capable of doing more to move the conflict toward a peaceful resolution, but the Palestinians can and should act in a manner that is more likely to influence Israel to take the necessary steps.
This is where the disagreement is: Why do the Palestinians, as an occupied people, have to lay down their arms first, and police their resistance movement? As I said, the FIRST step is to end the occupation and blockade, and get Israeli's off of Palestinian land....thus removing any doubt about the validity of violent resistance. Without that first step, there is always an excuse to continue down the current path.
The two-state solution is like a corpse that many "liberal" Zionists wish to perform voodoo over and revive. It's not going to happen. It's dead, dead, dead. And guess what, the Israelis were the ones themselves who prevented it from ever coming to fruition. Not the Palestinians. That's because the Israelis (even the "liberal" governments like that run by Livni) were never interested in making any deal that is in the least bit favorable to the Palestinians. We don't even need to go back to Camp David anymore to prove this: Just look at the startling 2011 revelations by Al Jazeera known as the "Palestine Papers" in which leaked documents of the negotiations revealed that even when the Palestinians were agreeing to the most insane demands, Israel still refused to make a deal.
Yosi's blame the victim mentality that Palestinians aren't doing enough is a typical argument of a client of an oppressive state (this is not an insult - you are a client of the Israeli government and society, which I consider an oppressive state). But the fact of the matter is that this conflict didn't begin a few weeks ago with "exchanges of fire" but rather several decades ago with the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land, who still languish in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and even war-torn Syria, waiting to return home. And Israel is doing everything it can to ensure that their plight is ignored, and their right to return home denied. And by emphasizing on only the territories occupied in the 1967 Israeli invasion, Israel hopes that the discrimination Palestinians living within Israel proper face is also ignored.
All the arguments used here regarding the "hate both sides feel toward one another" are the same straw-man arguments propped up by those defending Apartheid South Africa only a couple decades ago, but many people saw through those arguments just as they are beginning to see through it in this case. This is about one side denying another their rights, and that's it. This isn't about mutual hate, this is about power and control, and the way the power dynamic is now (and has been since the start of this colonial project), one side has been using pretexts of shitty little resistance tactics like rockets that have only sprung up in recent years, and suicide bombings before that, as well as the nonviolent resistance that existed within Palestinian society since the start of the colonial project, as straw man arguments to continue the exploitation of a people and the expropriation of their land. That was a run-on sentence but you get the idea here.
People need to ignore these arguments. What is necessary here is a secular state in ALL of the land that can be shared equally among all the people. If the Israelis end their settler-colonial project and give rights to the Palestinians then we can begin dialogue initiatives, working together and building a proper state. But until then, prepare for more arguments that defenders of Apartheid South Africa used ("there is too much animosity between both sides, they can't live together!", "it will be civil war!", "if we give Palestinians equal rights, and allow refugees to come home, they will outnumber the Jews and then oppress them!", etc etc.) History will judge, as it did once, who is on the right side. Here is an example of an article, written in 1989, defending Apartheid South Africa. The similarities with those defending Israel are startling, such as how White South Africans "built" South Africa:
"Contrary to popular belief, the whites did not take the country from the blacks. When the Dutch settled in the Cape in 1652, they found a barren, largely unpopulated land. Together with French and German settlers, they built a dynamic society.
It was not until 100 years later, as they advanced across these vast unexplored territories that they met with the blacks who were moving south. Contrary to myth, the blacks were never run off their land. They settled in tribal lands of their own choice. When the whites met the blacks, the blacks had no written language, no technological knowledge, no cure for infectious diseases. In the 20th century, economic activity organized by whites gradually drew blacks out of their tribal lands into the cash economy and into the cities."
I also agree with you...and this is where Finkelstein's negative comments toward the BDS movement originate from (if I remember correctly, he backed away slightly from them soon thereafter). If the Israeli's don't see an opportunity to self-determine as a jewish state under any peace plan, they won't play along. So some see the BDS movement as pushing toward a single state as an end goal, even tho the stated goals don't say this. In my personal opinion....the single state is the best way to guarantee lasting peace. But I don't see it as realistic without massive bloodshed along the way. It would take severe international pressure, including from the US, using sanctions and every tool available, to force Israel to accept this. And they would probably bomb the shit out of all Palestinian land before they allowed it to happen.
Still, you're right...I fear the two state solution is already dead. Nettanyahu confirmed as much the other day:
Lots of folks are talking about this. Last Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a press conference in Hebrew in which he stated that he would never accept Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank because Israel’s security needs are too great in an era of Islamic radicalism. His remarks have been summarized by David Horovitz in the Times of Israel, with limited quotations.
“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan,” Netanyahu said, leading Horovitz to say: “That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state.” Just Bantustans, what we’ve observed again and again in recent years.
Here are fuller excerpts of Horovitz’s account:
He made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank. He indicated that he sees Israel standing almost alone on the frontlines against vicious Islamic radicalism, while the rest of the as-yet free world does its best not to notice the march of extremism. And he more than intimated that he considers the current American, John Kerry-led diplomatic team to be, let’s be polite, naive.
Netanyahu has stressed often in the past that he doesn’t want Israel to become a binational state — implying that he favors some kind of accommodation with and separation from the Palestinians. But on Friday he made explicit that this could not extend to full Palestinian sovereignty. Why? Because, given the march of Islamic extremism across the Middle East, he said, Israel simply cannot afford to give up control over the territory immediately to its east, including the eastern border — that is, the border between Israel and Jordan, and the West Bank and Jordan.
The priority right now, Netanyahu stressed, was to “take care of Hamas.” But the wider lesson of the current escalation was that Israel had to ensure that “we don’t get another Gaza in Judea and Samaria.” Amid the current conflict, he elaborated, “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”
Not relinquishing security control west of the Jordan, it should be emphasized, means not giving a Palestinian entity full sovereignty there. It means not acceding to Mahmoud Abbas’s demands, to Barack Obama’s demands, to the international community’s demands. This is not merely demanding a demilitarized Palestine; it is insisting upon ongoing Israeli security oversight inside and at the borders of the West Bank. That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state. A less-than-sovereign entity? Maybe, though this will never satisfy the Palestinians or the international community. A fully sovereign Palestine? Out of the question.
He wasn’t saying that he doesn’t support a two-state solution. He was saying that it’s impossible. This was not a new, dramatic change of stance by the prime minister. It was a new, dramatic exposition of his long-held stance….
“If we were to pull out of Judea and Samaria, like they tell us to,” he said bitterly — leaving it to us to fill in who the many and various foolish “theys” are — “there’d be a possibility of thousands of tunnels” being dug by terrorists to attack Israel, he said…
Netanyahu hammered home the point: Never mind what the naive outsiders recommend, “I told John Kerry and General Allen, the Americans’ expert, ‘We live here, I live here, I know what we need to ensure the security of Israel’s people.’”
Earlier this spring, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon sparked a storm in Israel-US ties when he told a private gathering that the US-Kerry-Allen security proposals weren’t worth the paper they were written on. Netanyahu on Friday said the same, and more, in public.
Netanyahu didn’t say he was ruling out all territorial compromise, but he did go to some lengths to highlight the danger of relinquishing what he called “adjacent territory.”
These remarks are what Jeff Halper reflected in his great post on our site last week, saying that Israel’s plan for Palestinians is to “submit, leave or die.” They demonstrate that the era of the two-state solution is past, and we have entered a period of full-on struggle for equal rights inside one state that was generated by an ideology of Jewish nationalism–Zionism. It is no surprise that Palestinians quoted by Pam Bailey on our site have cheered the Hamas rockets as a symbol of undying resistance to that discriminatory regime, which doesn’t hesitate to use violence. It is no surprise that Rana Baker at Open Democracy also praises the rockets and says that Palestinians will never yield to the Zionist vision.
The Israeli Jewish public must understand that there shall be no security so long as they do not turn their anger and frustration at their very supremacist privilege and ideological system which is embodied in the Israeli government, left-wing, centrist, or right-wing. No one is asking them to leave, but they must accept Palestinian resistance insofar as they accept the arrogance which characterises the Zionist ideology. The radical potential of Palestinian rockets, of sirens going off, lies in these rockets’ ability to disrupt a system of privilege which Israeli Jews enjoy at the expense of colonised and displaced Palestinians. Rockets, in other words, are a radical declaration of existence and unmediated expression of self-determination.
continued: (why oh why did they bring back the fucking character limits?! My pet peeve!)
I happen to disagree with Baker, but the conflict has been freshly envenomed by Israel’s wanton killing of scores of civilians and children; and it is clear that many, many young Palestinians share her belief about the best ways to counter violent enslavement. And who has the right to instruct slaves on the ill-considered nature of their rebellion? Historian David McCullough said on Charlie Rose the other day that more than half the American colonists were against revolution; their sentiments were less important than the determination of idealists who were willing to use violence. Nelson Mandela also endorsed the use of violence at a crucial point in the South African struggle; and the Algerian rebels dedicated themselves to violent revolution after a 1945 massacre. The only argument I’d make to these young violent Palestinians is that help really is on the way: a global nonviolent movement to put pressure on Israel to transform itself is afoot. That’s why I’m for BDS, as actually a conservative outcome here, neither continued ethnic cleansing and periodic massacre, nor violent revolution. BDS has pressured Israel as no other international action before, even actions by the U.N. As Israelis themselves say, it is an existential threat, a threat of delegitimization. Is it possible for Israel to transform itself and grant Palestinian freedom and maintain itself as a Jewish state? I think not; that moment is passed, that was the magic trick of the two-state compromise, and it has patently failed. The ideology of Jewish nationalism won’t pass from the stage without deep grief and violence. Part of the struggle ahead therefore is to convince the adherents of the Jewish state in America, all the Jewish organizations and religious groups who believe that we need a Jewish state even though we are doing fine here, of the historical error in this belief. The record is clear, that the implementation of the Zionist vision has only generated rising violence in Israel and its environs (as the State Department and Franklin Roosevelt predicted in 1940s when plans for such a state were put forward). American Jews can do the greatest service to the future of Israel and Palestine and the broader Middle East by saying they don’t need a Jewish state; they are happy to see the end of Jewish privilege in that land. This is the great work that Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews Say No are doing, preparing the Jewish community for exodus from a false belief.
Maybe they (and I) are a lot of pacifistic Hippies, but maybe it will be possible one day...
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
continued: (why oh why did they bring back the fucking character limits?! My pet peeve!)
I happen to disagree with Baker, but the conflict has been freshly envenomed by Israel’s wanton killing of scores of civilians and children; and it is clear that many, many young Palestinians share her belief about the best ways to counter violent enslavement. And who has the right to instruct slaves on the ill-considered nature of their rebellion? Historian David McCullough said on Charlie Rose the other day that more than half the American colonists were against revolution; their sentiments were less important than the determination of idealists who were willing to use violence. Nelson Mandela also endorsed the use of violence at a crucial point in the South African struggle; and the Algerian rebels dedicated themselves to violent revolution after a 1945 massacre. The only argument I’d make to these young violent Palestinians is that help really is on the way: a global nonviolent movement to put pressure on Israel to transform itself is afoot. That’s why I’m for BDS, as actually a conservative outcome here, neither continued ethnic cleansing and periodic massacre, nor violent revolution. BDS has pressured Israel as no other international action before, even actions by the U.N. As Israelis themselves say, it is an existential threat, a threat of delegitimization. Is it possible for Israel to transform itself and grant Palestinian freedom and maintain itself as a Jewish state? I think not; that moment is passed, that was the magic trick of the two-state compromise, and it has patently failed. The ideology of Jewish nationalism won’t pass from the stage without deep grief and violence. Part of the struggle ahead therefore is to convince the adherents of the Jewish state in America, all the Jewish organizations and religious groups who believe that we need a Jewish state even though we are doing fine here, of the historical error in this belief. The record is clear, that the implementation of the Zionist vision has only generated rising violence in Israel and its environs (as the State Department and Franklin Roosevelt predicted in 1940s when plans for such a state were put forward). American Jews can do the greatest service to the future of Israel and Palestine and the broader Middle East by saying they don’t need a Jewish state; they are happy to see the end of Jewish privilege in that land. This is the great work that Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews Say No are doing, preparing the Jewish community for exodus from a false belief.
Honestly, as an anti-religious (but spiritual) pro-peace hippie, I'd love to see Israel welcome Palestinians into a new, secular state, who recognizes the cultural, historical, and religious meaning of the land. I could see the immigration laws (ie. Law of Return) being a tremendous issue of contention though - it would have to be abolished, and something tells me some people would have a thing or two to say about that.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,777
Maybe they (and I) are a lot of pacifistic Hippies, but maybe it will be possible one day...
Love this photo. Maybe if we just keep sowing it around the internet like seeds, it will take root and grow.
My thoughts exactly... That's why I posted it here...
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Maybe they (and I) are a lot of pacifistic Hippies, but maybe it will be possible one day...
Love this photo. Maybe if we just keep sowing it around the internet like seeds, it will take root and grow.
All due respect, as I appreciate the intentions behind the photo, I actually have much to disagree with it. First, the manner in which each person identifies his religion, as Jewish and Muslim, plays into the incorrect but mistakenly accepted narrative that this is a religious conflict. It's not, and there are others such as Christian Palestinians that often face the brunt of this misunderstanding, with their stories being ignored or forgotten. Second, the way in which they ask a question "Why can't we just get along?" ignores the fact that there exists a power dynamic there. This is not a conflict between two peoples that simply hate each other. This is a conflict in which one party (Zionists) wants to impose its vision of a state at the exclusion and the expense of another. If Zionists simply abandoned their project to establish a majority-Jewish country in which only a certain number of Palestinians are accepted to live within (hence the expulsions, house demolitions, etc.) and in which Palestinians face discriminatory apartheid-like laws and conditions that force them to live like second-class citizens -- if all this was abandoned, and equal rights were given to Palestinians, THEN can we say "let's get along" with a nice smilie face
Mark Twain I believe said History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. It was the same in other cases, such as Apartheid South Africa, and it will play out similarly in this one.
Maybe they (and I) are a lot of pacifistic Hippies, but maybe it will be possible one day...
Love this photo. Maybe if we just keep sowing it around the internet like seeds, it will take root and grow.
All due respect, as I appreciate the intentions behind the photo, I actually have much to disagree with it. First, the manner in which each person identifies his religion, as Jewish and Muslim, plays into the incorrect but mistakenly accepted narrative that this is a religious conflict. It's not, and there are others such as Christian Palestinians that often face the brunt of this misunderstanding, with their stories being ignored or forgotten. Second, the way in which they ask a question "Why can't we just get along?" ignores the fact that there exists a power dynamic there. This is not a conflict between two peoples that simply hate each other. This is a conflict in which one party (Zionists) wants to impose its vision of a state at the exclusion and the expense of another. If Zionists simply abandoned their project to establish a majority-Jewish country in which only a certain number of Palestinians are accepted to live within (hence the expulsions, house demolitions, etc.) and in which Palestinians face discriminatory apartheid-like laws and conditions that force them to live like second-class citizens -- if all this was abandoned, and equal rights were given to Palestinians, THEN can we say "let's get along" with a nice smilie face
Mark Twain I believe said History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. It was the same in other cases, such as Apartheid South Africa, and it will play out similarly in this one.
Maybe they (and I) are a lot of pacifistic Hippies, but maybe it will be possible one day...
Love this photo. Maybe if we just keep sowing it around the internet like seeds, it will take root and grow.
All due respect, as I appreciate the intentions behind the photo, I actually have much to disagree with it. First, the manner in which each person identifies his religion, as Jewish and Muslim, plays into the incorrect but mistakenly accepted narrative that this is a religious conflict. It's not, and there are others such as Christian Palestinians that often face the brunt of this misunderstanding, with their stories being ignored or forgotten. Second, the way in which they ask a question "Why can't we just get along?" ignores the fact that there exists a power dynamic there. This is not a conflict between two peoples that simply hate each other. This is a conflict in which one party (Zionists) wants to impose its vision of a state at the exclusion and the expense of another. If Zionists simply abandoned their project to establish a majority-Jewish country in which only a certain number of Palestinians are accepted to live within (hence the expulsions, house demolitions, etc.) and in which Palestinians face discriminatory apartheid-like laws and conditions that force them to live like second-class citizens -- if all this was abandoned, and equal rights were given to Palestinians, THEN can we say "let's get along" with a nice smilie face
Mark Twain I believe said History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. It was the same in other cases, such as Apartheid South Africa, and it will play out similarly in this one.
Good Point...but I kind of think is this Land Based or Religious Based maybe a bit of Both.
If there was a withdrawal, and an end to the blockade, the Palestinians would have to commit to prosecuting or turning over anyone who attacks israel. And Israel would have to agree to let this happen, possibly even work with the Palestinians from an intelligence standpoint, without retaliating with military force. The end of the bush doctrine of pre emptive strikes, and the policy of collective punishment and strikes against targets sans proof of guilt is the first step post-withdrawal. And there would be a long cooling off period, probably 2 or 3 generations of relative peace, before true peace is achieved. The israeli's, in their position of power, and as a state with a military who follows orders from the state, have much more control over whether this works than the Palestinians who would have to deal with the problems all fledgling sovereign nations deal with - power struggles between factions who have different ideas on how the state should move forward. The israeli's would need to show restraint, and maybe an international peacekeeping force on the border could help in that regard. The first step is always to end the occupation/blockade, and dismantle (or preferably hand over) the settlements.
I agree with this entirely. My only caveat would be that I don't see a good reason for the Palestinians to wait until after the end of the occupation to start policing themselves in the way you suggest. If anything they should start doing so immediately. The likelihood of Israel acting peacefully and with restraint would be much greater if the Palestinians show themselves to be actively policing those that attempt to attack Israel. And in the long term, Israelis will feel much more secure in ending the occupation if the Palestinians have acted to prevent violence and build trust.
Basically, I don't see that the Palestinians gain anything at all from firing missiles at Israel except for a propaganda victory if they are able to goad Israel into retaliating (excessively) and Palestinians die. At this point it's not as if anyone is unaware of how this plays out. Hamas knows that if they fire hundreds of missiles into Israel there will be a forceful response. Violence isn't getting the Palestinians any closer to a state. If anything, I think, it's massively counterproductive to their cause.
In short, I think many people too often think about the Palestinians as if they have zero agency when in fact both sides are responsive to the actions of the other. You only need to look at the relatively prolonged periods of ceasefire between Israel and Gaza to see this. Although there were certainly breaches of the ceasefire by both sides, so long as it was clear that Hamas was cracking down on rocket fire into Israel, Israel didn't (over)react to the sporadic rockets that were fired with the sort of operation that is now underway. Israel is certainly the more powerful party and is capable of doing more to move the conflict toward a peaceful resolution, but the Palestinians can and should act in a manner that is more likely to influence Israel to take the necessary steps.
This is where the disagreement is: Why do the Palestinians, as an occupied people, have to lay down their arms first, and police their resistance movement? As I said, the FIRST step is to end the occupation and blockade, and get Israeli's off of Palestinian land....thus removing any doubt about the validity of violent resistance. Without that first step, there is always an excuse to continue down the current path.
I don't see it as a situation where either side SHOULD act first in the sense that until such action is taken the opposite side has no responsibility to act. I think both sides should act as soon as possible regardless of what the other side is doing. I don't mean to imply in any way that the Palestinians must in some sense "go first." I simply think that there are certain actions that each side can take that would be in their own self-interest and that would help to further a peaceful resolution (and the obverse is true as well -- they can act in ways that are contrary to their shared long-term interest in peace). For the Palestinians I think this means abandoning violence in favor of building institutional capacity and civil society with an eye towards a future state (think along the lines of what the Kurds have been doing for a few decades now in Northern Iraq). Again, I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't also act immediately as well, or that somehow Palestinian action should be a condition precedent to Israeli action. I think both sides should act immediately to do what they can to further a peaceful settlement, which is in both sides' best interest.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I don't see it as a situation where either side SHOULD act first in the sense that until such action is taken the opposite side has no responsibility to act. I think both sides should act as soon as possible regardless of what the other side is doing. I don't mean to imply in any way that the Palestinians must in some sense "go first." I simply think that there are certain actions that each side can take that would be in their own self-interest and that would help to further a peaceful resolution (and the obverse is true as well -- they can act in ways that are contrary to their shared long-term interest in peace). For the Palestinians I think this means abandoning violence in favor of building institutional capacity and civil society with an eye towards a future state (think along the lines of what the Kurds have been doing for a few decades now in Northern Iraq). Again, I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't also act immediately as well, or that somehow Palestinian action should be a condition precedent to Israeli action. I think both sides should act immediately to do what they can to further a peaceful settlement, which is in both sides' best interest.
Hamas has simply asked that Israel abide by the conditions of the 2012 ceasefire. A ceasefire agreement that Israel has systematically violated. Hamas simply asks that Israel be held accontable to international law. Unfortunately, due to 100% unconditional support from the U.S, Israel is not held accountable under any conditions and is free to reign terror on it's neighbours at will.
200 Palestinian civilians have been killed - approx 90% of them civilians. 1 Israeli has reportedly been killed. And Yosi says the Palestinians need to renounce violence.
If there was a withdrawal, and an end to the blockade, the Palestinians would have to commit to prosecuting or turning over anyone who attacks israel. And Israel would have to agree to let this happen, possibly even work with the Palestinians from an intelligence standpoint, without retaliating with military force. The end of the bush doctrine of pre emptive strikes, and the policy of collective punishment and strikes against targets sans proof of guilt is the first step post-withdrawal. And there would be a long cooling off period, probably 2 or 3 generations of relative peace, before true peace is achieved. The israeli's, in their position of power, and as a state with a military who follows orders from the state, have much more control over whether this works than the Palestinians who would have to deal with the problems all fledgling sovereign nations deal with - power struggles between factions who have different ideas on how the state should move forward. The israeli's would need to show restraint, and maybe an international peacekeeping force on the border could help in that regard. The first step is always to end the occupation/blockade, and dismantle (or preferably hand over) the settlements.
I agree with this entirely. My only caveat would be that I don't see a good reason for the Palestinians to wait until after the end of the occupation to start policing themselves in the way you suggest. If anything they should start doing so immediately. The likelihood of Israel acting peacefully and with restraint would be much greater if the Palestinians show themselves to be actively policing those that attempt to attack Israel. And in the long term, Israelis will feel much more secure in ending the occupation if the Palestinians have acted to prevent violence and build trust.
Basically, I don't see that the Palestinians gain anything at all from firing missiles at Israel except for a propaganda victory if they are able to goad Israel into retaliating (excessively) and Palestinians die. At this point it's not as if anyone is unaware of how this plays out. Hamas knows that if they fire hundreds of missiles into Israel there will be a forceful response. Violence isn't getting the Palestinians any closer to a state. If anything, I think, it's massively counterproductive to their cause.
In short, I think many people too often think about the Palestinians as if they have zero agency when in fact both sides are responsive to the actions of the other. You only need to look at the relatively prolonged periods of ceasefire between Israel and Gaza to see this. Although there were certainly breaches of the ceasefire by both sides, so long as it was clear that Hamas was cracking down on rocket fire into Israel, Israel didn't (over)react to the sporadic rockets that were fired with the sort of operation that is now underway. Israel is certainly the more powerful party and is capable of doing more to move the conflict toward a peaceful resolution, but the Palestinians can and should act in a manner that is more likely to influence Israel to take the necessary steps.
This is where the disagreement is: Why do the Palestinians, as an occupied people, have to lay down their arms first, and police their resistance movement? As I said, the FIRST step is to end the occupation and blockade, and get Israeli's off of Palestinian land....thus removing any doubt about the validity of violent resistance. Without that first step, there is always an excuse to continue down the current path.
I don't see it as a situation where either side SHOULD act first in the sense that until such action is taken the opposite side has no responsibility to act. I think both sides should act as soon as possible regardless of what the other side is doing. I don't mean to imply in any way that the Palestinians must in some sense "go first." I simply think that there are certain actions that each side can take that would be in their own self-interest and that would help to further a peaceful resolution (and the obverse is true as well -- they can act in ways that are contrary to their shared long-term interest in peace). For the Palestinians I think this means abandoning violence in favor of building institutional capacity and civil society with an eye towards a future state (think along the lines of what the Kurds have been doing for a few decades now in Northern Iraq). Again, I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't also act immediately as well, or that somehow Palestinian action should be a condition precedent to Israeli action. I think both sides should act immediately to do what they can to further a peaceful settlement, which is in both sides' best interest.
This argument simply does not correspond with what is actually occuring on the ground. When was the last time you heard of any Palestinian armed resistance in the Israeli-occupied West Bank? The Israeli-backed and US-funded Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank has done everything in its power to suppress all resistance there. And yet, Israel is still taking more land, building thousands of settlement homes, denying Palestinians access to water, free movement, and so much more. The Palestinians in the occupied West Bank have been nonviolently protesting for years and yet they are still killed by Israeli military forces regularly, and their initiatives only end up costing them more land taken by the Israeli government.
Your argument continues to ignore the power dynamic that exists in this conflict. There is one side representing one of the largest military arsenals in the world, and which is a force colonizing and settling the other's land. Your comparison to the Kurds of northern Iraq is ridiculous because it is devoid of any contextualization. You think the Kurds would have been able to do anything were it not for the Western support, especially from the US, that they've been receiving? Support that they only get because it is politically favorable for the US to exploit? Why did the Kurds never get a state to begin with? Because it was not politically favorable to Western powers when they carved up the Middle East. Why are they not allowed to secede from Iraq now? Because the US does not want them to. Why do they have autonomy in northern Iraq? Because the US let them. Similarly, why can Israel act with complete impunity at the Palestinians' expense? I bet you can figure that one out, I can't hold your hand all the way through it all Until the US joins the rest of the international community into forcing Israel to give up its colonizing efforts and grant the Palestinians equal rights, this power dynamic will remain and Israel will continue oppressing the Palestinians. As Byrnzie eloquently pointed out, this is not a conflict between two equal military forces, so let's not treat it as such.
Maybe they (and I) are a lot of pacifistic Hippies, but maybe it will be possible one day...
Love this photo. Maybe if we just keep sowing it around the internet like seeds, it will take root and grow.
All due respect, as I appreciate the intentions behind the photo, I actually have much to disagree with it. First, the manner in which each person identifies his religion, as Jewish and Muslim, plays into the incorrect but mistakenly accepted narrative that this is a religious conflict. It's not, and there are others such as Christian Palestinians that often face the brunt of this misunderstanding, with their stories being ignored or forgotten. Second, the way in which they ask a question "Why can't we just get along?" ignores the fact that there exists a power dynamic there. This is not a conflict between two peoples that simply hate each other. This is a conflict in which one party (Zionists) wants to impose its vision of a state at the exclusion and the expense of another. If Zionists simply abandoned their project to establish a majority-Jewish country in which only a certain number of Palestinians are accepted to live within (hence the expulsions, house demolitions, etc.) and in which Palestinians face discriminatory apartheid-like laws and conditions that force them to live like second-class citizens -- if all this was abandoned, and equal rights were given to Palestinians, THEN can we say "let's get along" with a nice smilie face
Mark Twain I believe said History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. It was the same in other cases, such as Apartheid South Africa, and it will play out similarly in this one.
I'm not going to respond to much of what you have written. I have some pretty significant disagreements, but I respect your opinions and where they're coming from. I do have one thought/question, though. You write that at root the conflict is about power and control. And you suggest that the two state solution is dead, and that a one state solution is to be preferred (or is the only viable option left). Implicit in the demographics of a one state solution, however, is a Palestinian majority, which would mean the effective end of Jewish self-determination. Put another way, the one state solution (assuming it doesn't immediately disintegrate into civil war, which I think is the almost inevitable outcome of that scenario) would give a Palestinian majority power and control over a Jewish minority. From the Israeli perspective this doesn't seem like a solution to the conflict so much as a reversal of the prevailing power dynamics. The immediate response, I'm sure, is not to worry, such a binational state will be respectful of individual rights. But that isn't really a response because it completely elides the issue raised, which is communal rather than individual rights, i.e., the communal right to self-determination. This is where my question comes in. What is your response to the fact that the one state solution you're advocating for necessarily entails stripping Jews of rights that they are not only entitled to (as are all national groups), but that have actually been affirmatively granted and recognized by the international community and exercised for over 60 years?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I don't see it as a situation where either side SHOULD act first in the sense that until such action is taken the opposite side has no responsibility to act. I think both sides should act as soon as possible regardless of what the other side is doing. I don't mean to imply in any way that the Palestinians must in some sense "go first." I simply think that there are certain actions that each side can take that would be in their own self-interest and that would help to further a peaceful resolution (and the obverse is true as well -- they can act in ways that are contrary to their shared long-term interest in peace). For the Palestinians I think this means abandoning violence in favor of building institutional capacity and civil society with an eye towards a future state (think along the lines of what the Kurds have been doing for a few decades now in Northern Iraq). Again, I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't also act immediately as well, or that somehow Palestinian action should be a condition precedent to Israeli action. I think both sides should act immediately to do what they can to further a peaceful settlement, which is in both sides' best interest.
Hamas has simply asked that Israel abide by the conditions of the 2012 ceasefire. A ceasefire agreement that Israel has systematically violated. Hamas simply asks that Israel be held accontable to international law. Unfortunately, due to 100% unconditional support from the U.S, Israel is not held accountable under any conditions and is free to reign terror on it's neighbours at will.
200 Palestinian civilians have been killed - approx 90% of them civilians. 1 Israeli has reportedly been killed. And Yosi says the Palestinians need to renounce violence.
Let me ask you, what are the Palestinians gaining from firing hundreds of missiles at Israel? How does this choice of action help them in any appreciable way?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
If there was a withdrawal, and an end to the blockade, the Palestinians would have to commit to prosecuting or turning over anyone who attacks israel. And Israel would have to agree to let this happen, possibly even work with the Palestinians from an intelligence standpoint, without retaliating with military force. The end of the bush doctrine of pre emptive strikes, and the policy of collective punishment and strikes against targets sans proof of guilt is the first step post-withdrawal. And there would be a long cooling off period, probably 2 or 3 generations of relative peace, before true peace is achieved. The israeli's, in their position of power, and as a state with a military who follows orders from the state, have much more control over whether this works than the Palestinians who would have to deal with the problems all fledgling sovereign nations deal with - power struggles between factions who have different ideas on how the state should move forward. The israeli's would need to show restraint, and maybe an international peacekeeping force on the border could help in that regard. The first step is always to end the occupation/blockade, and dismantle (or preferably hand over) the settlements.
I agree with this entirely. My only caveat would be that I don't see a good reason for the Palestinians to wait until after the end of the occupation to start policing themselves in the way you suggest. If anything they should start doing so immediately. The likelihood of Israel acting peacefully and with restraint would be much greater if the Palestinians show themselves to be actively policing those that attempt to attack Israel. And in the long term, Israelis will feel much more secure in ending the occupation if the Palestinians have acted to prevent violence and build trust.
Basically, I don't see that the Palestinians gain anything at all from firing missiles at Israel except for a propaganda victory if they are able to goad Israel into retaliating (excessively) and Palestinians die. At this point it's not as if anyone is unaware of how this plays out. Hamas knows that if they fire hundreds of missiles into Israel there will be a forceful response. Violence isn't getting the Palestinians any closer to a state. If anything, I think, it's massively counterproductive to their cause.
In short, I think many people too often think about the Palestinians as if they have zero agency when in fact both sides are responsive to the actions of the other. You only need to look at the relatively prolonged periods of ceasefire between Israel and Gaza to see this. Although there were certainly breaches of the ceasefire by both sides, so long as it was clear that Hamas was cracking down on rocket fire into Israel, Israel didn't (over)react to the sporadic rockets that were fired with the sort of operation that is now underway. Israel is certainly the more powerful party and is capable of doing more to move the conflict toward a peaceful resolution, but the Palestinians can and should act in a manner that is more likely to influence Israel to take the necessary steps.
This is where the disagreement is: Why do the Palestinians, as an occupied people, have to lay down their arms first, and police their resistance movement? As I said, the FIRST step is to end the occupation and blockade, and get Israeli's off of Palestinian land....thus removing any doubt about the validity of violent resistance. Without that first step, there is always an excuse to continue down the current path.
I don't see it as a situation where either side SHOULD act first in the sense that until such action is taken the opposite side has no responsibility to act. I think both sides should act as soon as possible regardless of what the other side is doing. I don't mean to imply in any way that the Palestinians must in some sense "go first." I simply think that there are certain actions that each side can take that would be in their own self-interest and that would help to further a peaceful resolution (and the obverse is true as well -- they can act in ways that are contrary to their shared long-term interest in peace). For the Palestinians I think this means abandoning violence in favor of building institutional capacity and civil society with an eye towards a future state (think along the lines of what the Kurds have been doing for a few decades now in Northern Iraq). Again, I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't also act immediately as well, or that somehow Palestinian action should be a condition precedent to Israeli action. I think both sides should act immediately to do what they can to further a peaceful settlement, which is in both sides' best interest.
This argument simply does not correspond with what is actually occuring on the ground. When was the last time you heard of any Palestinian armed resistance in the Israeli-occupied West Bank? The Israeli-backed and US-funded Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank has done everything in its power to suppress all resistance there. And yet, Israel is still taking more land, building thousands of settlement homes, denying Palestinians access to water, free movement, and so much more. The Palestinians in the occupied West Bank have been nonviolently protesting for years and yet they are still killed by Israeli military forces regularly, and their initiatives only end up costing them more land taken by the Israeli government.
Your argument continues to ignore the power dynamic that exists in this conflict. There is one side representing one of the largest military arsenals in the world, and which is a force colonizing and settling the other's land. Your comparison to the Kurds of northern Iraq is ridiculous because it is devoid of any contextualization. You think the Kurds would have been able to do anything were it not for the Western support, especially from the US, that they've been receiving? Support that they only get because it is politically favorable for the US to exploit? Why did the Kurds never get a state to begin with? Because it was not politically favorable to Western powers when they carved up the Middle East. Why are they not allowed to secede from Iraq now? Because the US does not want them to. Why do they have autonomy in northern Iraq? Because the US let them. Similarly, why can Israel act with complete impunity at the Palestinians' expense? I bet you can figure that one out, I can't hold your hand all the way through it all Until the US joins the rest of the international community into forcing Israel to give up its colonizing efforts and grant the Palestinians equal rights, this power dynamic will remain and Israel will continue oppressing the Palestinians. As Byrnzie eloquently pointed out, this is not a conflict between two equal military forces, so let's not treat it as such.
I don't think I am treating it as such. I'm simply saying that the Palestinians should exercise their agency as human beings to act in ways that further rather than harm their interests. As far as I can tell firing missiles into Israel is doing more harm than good (except, perhaps, for Hamas, which can leverage current events to fend off challenges to their rule of Gaza from the even more extreme Islamist groups to their right). My point is that the Palestinians of Gaza would probably be much better off if their government wasn't ineffectually firing missiles at the country next door known for violent military overreaction.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Let me ask you, what are the Palestinians gaining from firing hundreds of missiles at Israel? How does this choice of action help them in any appreciable way?
When Hamas abides by any ceasefires, you drop bombs on them regardless.
What are they gaining from firing missiles at Israel? On the face of it, not a lot. Though maybe they're gaining what the indians who walked into British gun fire during the Rebellion of 1930 in Peshawar gained, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qissa_Khwani_bazaar_massacre or the Native Americans who tried fighting back at the massacre of Wounded Knee gained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre - a degree of self-respect, and a refusal to simply lie down and be trodden into the Earth.
What are the Israeli's gaining from dropping hundreds of bombs on Gaza? We already know the answer to that. They're hoping to neutralize another 'Palestinian Peace Offensive', and to destroy the P.A/Hamas unity deal.
Maybe they (and I) are a lot of pacifistic Hippies, but maybe it will be possible one day...
Love this photo. Maybe if we just keep sowing it around the internet like seeds, it will take root and grow.
All due respect, as I appreciate the intentions behind the photo, I actually have much to disagree with it. First, the manner in which each person identifies his religion, as Jewish and Muslim, plays into the incorrect but mistakenly accepted narrative that this is a religious conflict. It's not, and there are others such as Christian Palestinians that often face the brunt of this misunderstanding, with their stories being ignored or forgotten. Second, the way in which they ask a question "Why can't we just get along?" ignores the fact that there exists a power dynamic there. This is not a conflict between two peoples that simply hate each other. This is a conflict in which one party (Zionists) wants to impose its vision of a state at the exclusion and the expense of another. If Zionists simply abandoned their project to establish a majority-Jewish country in which only a certain number of Palestinians are accepted to live within (hence the expulsions, house demolitions, etc.) and in which Palestinians face discriminatory apartheid-like laws and conditions that force them to live like second-class citizens -- if all this was abandoned, and equal rights were given to Palestinians, THEN can we say "let's get along" with a nice smilie face
Mark Twain I believe said History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. It was the same in other cases, such as Apartheid South Africa, and it will play out similarly in this one.
I'm not going to respond to much of what you have written. I have some pretty significant disagreements, but I respect your opinions and where they're coming from. I do have one thought/question, though. You write that at root the conflict is about power and control. And you suggest that the two state solution is dead, and that a one state solution is to be preferred (or is the only viable option left). Implicit in the demographics of a one state solution, however, is a Palestinian majority, which would mean the effective end of Jewish self-determination. Put another way, the one state solution (assuming it doesn't immediately disintegrate into civil war, which I think is the almost inevitable outcome of that scenario) would give a Palestinian majority power and control over a Jewish minority. From the Israeli perspective this doesn't seem like a solution to the conflict so much as a reversal of the prevailing power dynamics. The immediate response, I'm sure, is not to worry, such a binational state will be respectful of individual rights. But that isn't really a response because it completely elides the issue raised, which is communal rather than individual rights, i.e., the communal right to self-determination. This is where my question comes in. What is your response to the fact that the one state solution you're advocating for necessarily entails stripping Jews of rights that they are not only entitled to (as are all national groups), but that have actually been affirmatively granted and recognized by the international community and exercised for over 60 years?
Ok, the first issue here is that you are assuming that Palestinians are one large monolithic group, whose mascot is probably an angry Arab holding an Ali Baba sword (I'm obviously being sarcastic here, not trying to put words in your mouth). In all seriousness, we need to recognize that Palestinians, just like Israelis, have plurality among them and many groups within that have different political visions. They will not be one big angry political party allied against all Jews. This is the same argument Afrikaners made for decades about giving black South Africans equal rights ("they will turn against us since they will be the majority!", "it will be civil war!", etc). It simply does not play out. Because the fact of the matter is that political rights will not even change the power dynamic in favor of the Palestinians, given the overwhelming economic power Israelis hold over Palestinians (which is what occured in South Africa after apartheid ended). But it's a start to reach some level of equality.
As for the argument of self-determination, this self-determination cannot come at the expense of another population. It is completely ridiculous to use the liberal ideal of self-determination to justify a settler colonial project. Could the French have claimed a right to self-determination in Algeria? Of course not. But that is not to suggest that Israelis have to leave. Of course they've been living there for a few generations now and it is their home - fine. But we cannot deny Palestinians the right to self-determination, and it is completely nonsensical to demand that they only exercise that right in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip when the overwhelming majority of those who were forcibly displaced by Zionist forces, and many of whom still languish in refugee camps, came from areas within Israel proper and have no connection to the West Bank or to Gaza. They should have the right to return home, even if that home is within what the Zionists now claim is "Israel", a Jewish-majority nation that refuses to allow Palestinians to return home after they were forcibly kicked out all to preserve this settler colonial project. The way to reconcile these two claims to self-determination is to allow them both to live in one secular state that recognizes both peoples, all religions, and allows them to express their political visions within a pluralist, democratic model.
The U.S is on the wrong side of history on this issue, just as it was on the wrong side of history regarding it's support for Apartheid South Africa.
Hopefully with enough public pressure, this will change. But first of all, people need to begin seeing beyond the barrage of mainstream media bullshit/pro-Israeli propaganda that they're fed every day. $4Billion of your taxes are being used to drop bombs on women and children, and to maintain an illegal occupation and land-grab. If I was an American, I wouldn't be too happy about that.
But again, while that solution sounds great in theory, in practice it effectively means no self-determination for Jews. I recognize that Palestinians are not a monolithic group (funny you should use this phrase since I've been saying the same thing about Jews, Israelis, and Zionists to a certain someone else who keeps telling me that I'm just pleading complexity to "muddy the waters"). I'm not claiming that a Palestinian majority would always act in unison on every or even most issues, but clearly, and by definition, a state in which Jews are the minority is not a state in which Jews are exercising self-determination (unless they do so undemocratically). Quite to the contrary, they are living subject to the political power of the majority. You write that "self-determination cannot come at the expense of another population," but that is de facto what you are arguing for.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
But again, while that solution sounds great in theory, in practice it effectively means no self-determination for Jews. I recognize that Palestinians are not a monolithic group (funny you should use this phrase since I've been saying the same thing about Jews, Israelis, and Zionists to a certain someone else who keeps telling me that I'm just pleading complexity to "muddy the waters"). I'm not claiming that a Palestinian majority would always act in unison on every or even most issues, but clearly, and by definition, a state in which Jews are the minority is not a state in which Jews are exercising self-determination (unless they do so undemocratically). Quite to the contrary, they are living subject to the political power of the majority. You write that "self-determination cannot come at the expense of another population," but that is de facto what you are arguing for.
What are you talking about? You can't justify a settler colonial project on the basis of self-determination. You ignored the issues I raised and simply state that unless Jews are granted land in which they expelled the original inhabitants - many of whom still languish in camps and await the opportunity to return to their homes - and in which they forcibly maintain a majority population, they are denied their alleged right to self-determination. What a shame that liberal concepts are abused in such a manner, although there is historic precedent for this in other conflicts. But these straw-man arguments failed when they were raised to defend the apartheid regime in South Africa and they will fail here too.
I'm not going to argue with you about the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination in Israel/Palestine, except to say that what you dismiss as an "alleged" right was in fact recognized and legitimated in a grant of statehood by the international community. So the Jewish right to self-determination in Israel/Palestine is actually a fact of international law. Be that as it may, I don't think I'm going to convince you on this point so I won't continue to try.
As for the issues you raised -- I don't think the analogy to France in Algeria is apt. France was a true colonial power in Algeria. Israel is not a satellite of some foreign colonial power. Israelis understand themselves as an indigenous people who have returned to the homeland from which they were forcibly exiled. That isn't to deny that the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land as well. Really, I don't have a good answer to the issues you raise, but I don't think you do either. At a certain level Israeli and Palestinian claims are mutually exclusive. Your solution is to provide the most perfect justice for the Palestinians. I don't blame you for wanting that. But to achieve that result requires prioritizing the rights of Palestinians over the rights of Israelis. I'm sure you don't see it that way, but I suspect that's because you don't really think that Jews do, in fact, have a right to self-determination, which brings us back to the top.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
And here lies the problem with Zionism: simply requesting that Palestinians be allowed to return to their homes and be given equal rights means we are privileging Palestinians over Jews. The irony...
@ Fuck. "Mark Twain I believe said History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. It was the same in other cases, such as Apartheid South Africa, and it will play out similarly in this one."
History does repeat itself all the time, because people are to stubborn to learn from their mistakes, unfortunately, Apartheid may be the most resent example, which regiment was overpowered. But an other late 19th, early 20th century example of course is the second class citizenship of the Jews in Europe, starting 50 to 60 years before the outbreak of World War II. The only reason why the Jews "have" Israel is because of that war and the guild, Europe felt after this tragedy. The British "gave" Israel "back" to the Jews, afterward, as if it was an empty country, except it wasn't...
What I find truly sad about this conflict in particular is that the oppressed became the oppressors... In my opinion both, Jews and Palestinians, have a right of self-determination, and living on the land, which both call home, I don't have a solution for the conflict, I only observe the fear and anger to one another goes deep. It Looks like there is no room for anything else then blaming the guild on the opposite side, but for all the citizens of Israel/Palestine, I hope there may be one soon. Cause everybody gets hurt and grieved at the moment.
Post edited by Aafke on
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Comments
The problems I see is that Israel would prefer land swaps for the settlements, over using the green line as a border (this muddies the waters). And also that there does not seem to be a whole lot of support for restraint in Israel. Judging by social media since the assault on Gaza began, the general consensus seems to be that Palestine deserves to be bombed if a missile is launched at Israel, regardless of who did it, why it was done, or how much damage it inflicts. The self-defence angle is always the go-to response despite the fact that rocket attacks always increase during Israeli air strikes. I don't think restraint and rule of law is too much to ask after 50 years of occupation.
Basically, I don't see that the Palestinians gain anything at all from firing missiles at Israel except for a propaganda victory if they are able to goad Israel into retaliating (excessively) and Palestinians die. At this point it's not as if anyone is unaware of how this plays out. Hamas knows that if they fire hundreds of missiles into Israel there will be a forceful response. Violence isn't getting the Palestinians any closer to a state. If anything, I think, it's massively counterproductive to their cause.
In short, I think many people too often think about the Palestinians as if they have zero agency when in fact both sides are responsive to the actions of the other. You only need to look at the relatively prolonged periods of ceasefire between Israel and Gaza to see this. Although there were certainly breaches of the ceasefire by both sides, so long as it was clear that Hamas was cracking down on rocket fire into Israel, Israel didn't (over)react to the sporadic rockets that were fired with the sort of operation that is now underway. Israel is certainly the more powerful party and is capable of doing more to move the conflict toward a peaceful resolution, but the Palestinians can and should act in a manner that is more likely to influence Israel to take the necessary steps.
Yosi's blame the victim mentality that Palestinians aren't doing enough is a typical argument of a client of an oppressive state (this is not an insult - you are a client of the Israeli government and society, which I consider an oppressive state). But the fact of the matter is that this conflict didn't begin a few weeks ago with "exchanges of fire" but rather several decades ago with the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land, who still languish in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and even war-torn Syria, waiting to return home. And Israel is doing everything it can to ensure that their plight is ignored, and their right to return home denied. And by emphasizing on only the territories occupied in the 1967 Israeli invasion, Israel hopes that the discrimination Palestinians living within Israel proper face is also ignored.
All the arguments used here regarding the "hate both sides feel toward one another" are the same straw-man arguments propped up by those defending Apartheid South Africa only a couple decades ago, but many people saw through those arguments just as they are beginning to see through it in this case. This is about one side denying another their rights, and that's it. This isn't about mutual hate, this is about power and control, and the way the power dynamic is now (and has been since the start of this colonial project), one side has been using pretexts of shitty little resistance tactics like rockets that have only sprung up in recent years, and suicide bombings before that, as well as the nonviolent resistance that existed within Palestinian society since the start of the colonial project, as straw man arguments to continue the exploitation of a people and the expropriation of their land. That was a run-on sentence but you get the idea here.
People need to ignore these arguments. What is necessary here is a secular state in ALL of the land that can be shared equally among all the people. If the Israelis end their settler-colonial project and give rights to the Palestinians then we can begin dialogue initiatives, working together and building a proper state. But until then, prepare for more arguments that defenders of Apartheid South Africa used ("there is too much animosity between both sides, they can't live together!", "it will be civil war!", "if we give Palestinians equal rights, and allow refugees to come home, they will outnumber the Jews and then oppress them!", etc etc.) History will judge, as it did once, who is on the right side. Here is an example of an article, written in 1989, defending Apartheid South Africa. The similarities with those defending Israel are startling, such as how White South Africans "built" South Africa:
"Contrary to popular belief, the whites did not take the country from the blacks. When the Dutch settled in the Cape in 1652, they found a barren, largely unpopulated land. Together with French and German settlers, they built a dynamic society.
It was not until 100 years later, as they advanced across these vast unexplored territories that they met with the blacks who were moving south. Contrary to myth, the blacks were never run off their land. They settled in tribal lands of their own choice. When the whites met the blacks, the blacks had no written language, no technological knowledge, no cure for infectious diseases. In the 20th century, economic activity organized by whites gradually drew blacks out of their tribal lands into the cash economy and into the cities."
http://m.csmonitor.com/1989/1012/ekri.html
In my personal opinion....the single state is the best way to guarantee lasting peace. But I don't see it as realistic without massive bloodshed along the way. It would take severe international pressure, including from the US, using sanctions and every tool available, to force Israel to accept this. And they would probably bomb the shit out of all Palestinian land before they allowed it to happen.
Still, you're right...I fear the two state solution is already dead. Nettanyahu confirmed as much the other day:
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/netanyahu-palestinian-state.html
Lots of folks are talking about this. Last Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a press conference in Hebrew in which he stated that he would never accept Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank because Israel’s security needs are too great in an era of Islamic radicalism. His remarks have been summarized by David Horovitz in the Times of Israel, with limited quotations.
“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan,” Netanyahu said, leading Horovitz to say: “That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state.” Just Bantustans, what we’ve observed again and again in recent years.
Here are fuller excerpts of Horovitz’s account:
He made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank. He indicated that he sees Israel standing almost alone on the frontlines against vicious Islamic radicalism, while the rest of the as-yet free world does its best not to notice the march of extremism. And he more than intimated that he considers the current American, John Kerry-led diplomatic team to be, let’s be polite, naive.
Netanyahu has stressed often in the past that he doesn’t want Israel to become a binational state — implying that he favors some kind of accommodation with and separation from the Palestinians. But on Friday he made explicit that this could not extend to full Palestinian sovereignty. Why? Because, given the march of Islamic extremism across the Middle East, he said, Israel simply cannot afford to give up control over the territory immediately to its east, including the eastern border — that is, the border between Israel and Jordan, and the West Bank and Jordan.
The priority right now, Netanyahu stressed, was to “take care of Hamas.” But the wider lesson of the current escalation was that Israel had to ensure that “we don’t get another Gaza in Judea and Samaria.” Amid the current conflict, he elaborated, “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”
Not relinquishing security control west of the Jordan, it should be emphasized, means not giving a Palestinian entity full sovereignty there. It means not acceding to Mahmoud Abbas’s demands, to Barack Obama’s demands, to the international community’s demands. This is not merely demanding a demilitarized Palestine; it is insisting upon ongoing Israeli security oversight inside and at the borders of the West Bank. That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state. A less-than-sovereign entity? Maybe, though this will never satisfy the Palestinians or the international community. A fully sovereign Palestine? Out of the question.
He wasn’t saying that he doesn’t support a two-state solution. He was saying that it’s impossible. This was not a new, dramatic change of stance by the prime minister. It was a new, dramatic exposition of his long-held stance….
“If we were to pull out of Judea and Samaria, like they tell us to,” he said bitterly — leaving it to us to fill in who the many and various foolish “theys” are — “there’d be a possibility of thousands of tunnels” being dug by terrorists to attack Israel, he said…
Netanyahu hammered home the point: Never mind what the naive outsiders recommend, “I told John Kerry and General Allen, the Americans’ expert, ‘We live here, I live here, I know what we need to ensure the security of Israel’s people.’”
Earlier this spring, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon sparked a storm in Israel-US ties when he told a private gathering that the US-Kerry-Allen security proposals weren’t worth the paper they were written on. Netanyahu on Friday said the same, and more, in public.
Netanyahu didn’t say he was ruling out all territorial compromise, but he did go to some lengths to highlight the danger of relinquishing what he called “adjacent territory.”
These remarks are what Jeff Halper reflected in his great post on our site last week, saying that Israel’s plan for Palestinians is to “submit, leave or die.” They demonstrate that the era of the two-state solution is past, and we have entered a period of full-on struggle for equal rights inside one state that was generated by an ideology of Jewish nationalism–Zionism. It is no surprise that Palestinians quoted by Pam Bailey on our site have cheered the Hamas rockets as a symbol of undying resistance to that discriminatory regime, which doesn’t hesitate to use violence. It is no surprise that Rana Baker at Open Democracy also praises the rockets and says that Palestinians will never yield to the Zionist vision.
The Israeli Jewish public must understand that there shall be no security so long as they do not turn their anger and frustration at their very supremacist privilege and ideological system which is embodied in the Israeli government, left-wing, centrist, or right-wing. No one is asking them to leave, but they must accept Palestinian resistance insofar as they accept the arrogance which characterises the Zionist ideology. The radical potential of Palestinian rockets, of sirens going off, lies in these rockets’ ability to disrupt a system of privilege which Israeli Jews enjoy at the expense of colonised and displaced Palestinians. Rockets, in other words, are a radical declaration of existence and unmediated expression of self-determination.
(why oh why did they bring back the fucking character limits?! My pet peeve!)
I happen to disagree with Baker, but the conflict has been freshly envenomed by Israel’s wanton killing of scores of civilians and children; and it is clear that many, many young Palestinians share her belief about the best ways to counter violent enslavement. And who has the right to instruct slaves on the ill-considered nature of their rebellion? Historian David McCullough said on Charlie Rose the other day that more than half the American colonists were against revolution; their sentiments were less important than the determination of idealists who were willing to use violence. Nelson Mandela also endorsed the use of violence at a crucial point in the South African struggle; and the Algerian rebels dedicated themselves to violent revolution after a 1945 massacre. The only argument I’d make to these young violent Palestinians is that help really is on the way: a global nonviolent movement to put pressure on Israel to transform itself is afoot. That’s why I’m for BDS, as actually a conservative outcome here, neither continued ethnic cleansing and periodic massacre, nor violent revolution. BDS has pressured Israel as no other international action before, even actions by the U.N. As Israelis themselves say, it is an existential threat, a threat of delegitimization. Is it possible for Israel to transform itself and grant Palestinian freedom and maintain itself as a Jewish state? I think not; that moment is passed, that was the magic trick of the two-state compromise, and it has patently failed. The ideology of Jewish nationalism won’t pass from the stage without deep grief and violence. Part of the struggle ahead therefore is to convince the adherents of the Jewish state in America, all the Jewish organizations and religious groups who believe that we need a Jewish state even though we are doing fine here, of the historical error in this belief. The record is clear, that the implementation of the Zionist vision has only generated rising violence in Israel and its environs (as the State Department and Franklin Roosevelt predicted in 1940s when plans for such a state were put forward). American Jews can do the greatest service to the future of Israel and Palestine and the broader Middle East by saying they don’t need a Jewish state; they are happy to see the end of Jewish privilege in that land. This is the great work that Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews Say No are doing, preparing the Jewish community for exodus from a false belief.
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Mark Twain I believe said History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. It was the same in other cases, such as Apartheid South Africa, and it will play out similarly in this one.
Unfortunately, due to 100% unconditional support from the U.S, Israel is not held accountable under any conditions and is free to reign terror on it's neighbours at will.
200 Palestinian civilians have been killed - approx 90% of them civilians. 1 Israeli has reportedly been killed. And Yosi says the Palestinians need to renounce violence.
Your argument continues to ignore the power dynamic that exists in this conflict. There is one side representing one of the largest military arsenals in the world, and which is a force colonizing and settling the other's land. Your comparison to the Kurds of northern Iraq is ridiculous because it is devoid of any contextualization. You think the Kurds would have been able to do anything were it not for the Western support, especially from the US, that they've been receiving? Support that they only get because it is politically favorable for the US to exploit? Why did the Kurds never get a state to begin with? Because it was not politically favorable to Western powers when they carved up the Middle East. Why are they not allowed to secede from Iraq now? Because the US does not want them to. Why do they have autonomy in northern Iraq? Because the US let them. Similarly, why can Israel act with complete impunity at the Palestinians' expense? I bet you can figure that one out, I can't hold your hand all the way through it all
I'm not going to respond to much of what you have written. I have some pretty significant disagreements, but I respect your opinions and where they're coming from. I do have one thought/question, though. You write that at root the conflict is about power and control. And you suggest that the two state solution is dead, and that a one state solution is to be preferred (or is the only viable option left). Implicit in the demographics of a one state solution, however, is a Palestinian majority, which would mean the effective end of Jewish self-determination. Put another way, the one state solution (assuming it doesn't immediately disintegrate into civil war, which I think is the almost inevitable outcome of that scenario) would give a Palestinian majority power and control over a Jewish minority. From the Israeli perspective this doesn't seem like a solution to the conflict so much as a reversal of the prevailing power dynamics. The immediate response, I'm sure, is not to worry, such a binational state will be respectful of individual rights. But that isn't really a response because it completely elides the issue raised, which is communal rather than individual rights, i.e., the communal right to self-determination. This is where my question comes in. What is your response to the fact that the one state solution you're advocating for necessarily entails stripping Jews of rights that they are not only entitled to (as are all national groups), but that have actually been affirmatively granted and recognized by the international community and exercised for over 60 years?
What are they gaining from firing missiles at Israel? On the face of it, not a lot. Though maybe they're gaining what the indians who walked into British gun fire during the Rebellion of 1930 in Peshawar gained, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qissa_Khwani_bazaar_massacre or the Native Americans who tried fighting back at the massacre of Wounded Knee gained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre - a degree of self-respect, and a refusal to simply lie down and be trodden into the Earth.
What are the Israeli's gaining from dropping hundreds of bombs on Gaza? We already know the answer to that. They're hoping to neutralize another 'Palestinian Peace Offensive', and to destroy the P.A/Hamas unity deal.
As for the argument of self-determination, this self-determination cannot come at the expense of another population. It is completely ridiculous to use the liberal ideal of self-determination to justify a settler colonial project. Could the French have claimed a right to self-determination in Algeria? Of course not. But that is not to suggest that Israelis have to leave. Of course they've been living there for a few generations now and it is their home - fine. But we cannot deny Palestinians the right to self-determination, and it is completely nonsensical to demand that they only exercise that right in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip when the overwhelming majority of those who were forcibly displaced by Zionist forces, and many of whom still languish in refugee camps, came from areas within Israel proper and have no connection to the West Bank or to Gaza. They should have the right to return home, even if that home is within what the Zionists now claim is "Israel", a Jewish-majority nation that refuses to allow Palestinians to return home after they were forcibly kicked out all to preserve this settler colonial project. The way to reconcile these two claims to self-determination is to allow them both to live in one secular state that recognizes both peoples, all religions, and allows them to express their political visions within a pluralist, democratic model.
Hopefully with enough public pressure, this will change. But first of all, people need to begin seeing beyond the barrage of mainstream media bullshit/pro-Israeli propaganda that they're fed every day. $4Billion of your taxes are being used to drop bombs on women and children, and to maintain an illegal occupation and land-grab. If I was an American, I wouldn't be too happy about that.
As for the issues you raised -- I don't think the analogy to France in Algeria is apt. France was a true colonial power in Algeria. Israel is not a satellite of some foreign colonial power. Israelis understand themselves as an indigenous people who have returned to the homeland from which they were forcibly exiled. That isn't to deny that the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land as well. Really, I don't have a good answer to the issues you raise, but I don't think you do either. At a certain level Israeli and Palestinian claims are mutually exclusive. Your solution is to provide the most perfect justice for the Palestinians. I don't blame you for wanting that. But to achieve that result requires prioritizing the rights of Palestinians over the rights of Israelis. I'm sure you don't see it that way, but I suspect that's because you don't really think that Jews do, in fact, have a right to self-determination, which brings us back to the top.
History does repeat itself all the time, because people are to stubborn to learn from their mistakes, unfortunately, Apartheid may be the most resent example, which regiment was overpowered. But an other late 19th, early 20th century example of course is the second class citizenship of the Jews in Europe, starting 50 to 60 years before the outbreak of World War II. The only reason why the Jews "have" Israel is because of that war and the guild, Europe felt after this tragedy. The British "gave" Israel "back" to the Jews, afterward, as if it was an empty country, except it wasn't...
What I find truly sad about this conflict in particular is that the oppressed became the oppressors... In my opinion both, Jews and Palestinians, have a right of self-determination, and living on the land, which both call home, I don't have a solution for the conflict, I only observe the fear and anger to one another goes deep. It Looks like there is no room for anything else then blaming the guild on the opposite side, but for all the citizens of Israel/Palestine, I hope there may be one soon. Cause everybody gets hurt and grieved at the moment.
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee