On the night of the 9th at 8:00 pm, former Editor-in-Chief of Ha'aretz, David Landau, and former Minister for Congressional Affairs for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, Yoram Ettinger, came to our hotel to debate many of the issues we had been discussing during the past several days. It was the classic Dove vs. Hawk debate. Ettinger began in Landau's absence by claiming that in the past 1400 years, stretching back to a time when "states" as we know them today were nonexistent, there was never any inter-Arab peace between Muslim countries. Therefore, he questioned why Israel should make peace with the Palestinians at all, since a Palestinian state would surely violate the terms of the agreement and turn its guns to Israel. In his eyes, all Arabs were the same. Saudis are Iraqis are Libyans. Palestinians are swept under the same rug; grouped together with all past inter-Arab hostilities. I found it strange how someone could say, "Well, because Saddam invaded Kuwait....or 'Well, because Morocco and Algeria aren't on speaking terms that Palestinians can't be trusted with full autonomy." It's flawed logic, pure and simple. It's equivalent to saying that since Northern Ireland and Britain have engaged in past hostilities, Australians shouldn't have a state of their own. It's all very misplaced and designed to conceal the differences among the wide variety of Arabs in the this world.
When David arrived, he began with his jubilation regarding Obama's speech in Cairo. It was unprecedented in American politics. He described Obama as the first president with a true Third World perspective. His genuine care for the Palestinian people, and his public endorsement of their full rights, could very-well put him at odds with the American Jewish community. What am I saying? His stance has already lost him support from Jewish circles in the states. This is not to say that many Jews in the U.S. don't support a two-state solution, just that the Israeli Lobby is very powerful and in the past has pushed for unconditional support of Israel.
It has yet to be seen whether Americans as whole view this dramatic shift in American foreign policy as just cause for ousting Obama from office in 2012. No one is that prescient. What amazes me is that Obama is risking a severance in political longevity in going toe to toe with Netanyahu because he believes it is the right thing to do. That is what I extrapolated from Landau's shpeal on Obama's position vis-a-vis the conflict. Landau went on to discuss issues I've mentioned in past blogs, and Ettinger responded with the same tired rhetoric. What's interesting is that they both believed that they were right. I don't think either were intentionally deceptive. They were just looking at the same issues from two opposing vantage points and telling the story as they saw it to be true. If I had closed my eyes, I could have been forgiven for thinking that the debate was between a Palestinian and and Israeli, rather than between two Israelis. It highlighted the internal differences and schisms within any society. No group of people acts in a totally unified manner with the same aspirations and the same means to get there. Nuance and shades of gray are always present. Many, many Israelis believe in the rights of Palestinian statehood, but the current Israeli administration makes it hard for the outside world to see past the policies of settlement expansion and military occupation.
This may all seem very obvious, but I think many times people look to a country's leader and then apply their beliefs to the people. It's the easy way out. It's very easy to look at former President Bush's policies and view Americans as anti-Muslim and imperialistic. The "Death to America" chants speak for themselves. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, nuance must be sought out and brought to light. Palestinians should be distinguished from suicide bombers just as Israelis should distinguished from hard-line settlers. It's the only way forward. Peace can only come when the fringe is not equated with the norm. How would American politics look today if Republicans were all seen as KKK sympathizers and Liberals were constantly accused of joining ranks with the Earth Liberation Front? Fear would permeate both sides, risking political instability and deadlock to say the least. From a domestic perspective, this would seem completely unreasonable and counterintuitive to the American public, as it should. There is a wide gap between those who want peace and those who fight against it, even if they stand under the same flag. I think this was a point that Landau was hinting at, he just never drove it home.
Friday, July 3, 2009
A Staring Contest
On Sunday the 7th, we visited Yad Vashem in West Jerusalem. It's Israel's Holocaust Museum. On the way in, Yehuda (the director of the program who is somehow able to pull this whole trip off) pointed out to us various historical landmarks. One was a relatively large cemetary where British soldiers, who died in Palestine during World War I, are buried. We were also able to glance at the cemetery where Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, and Yitzhak Rabin are buried. There are a lot of famous cemeteries in Israel. Half of the amazing sites we saw were on the way to and from our destination. There was so much in between, just not enough time to do it all in the first ten or so days. It would take several weeks just to see all of Jerusalem alone, much less the rest of the country.
The museum was very well done. Inside were tall, gray walls that slanted upwards, which gave it an eerie feel. A guide walked us through the exhibits, explaining major events of the raise of Nazi Germany and the suffering of the Jewish people during the time. The museum began with early anti-semitic propoganda and moved through the rise of Hitler and his expansion of power. Everything in the musem was authentic, from the red Nazi flags to the bricks from the Warsaw Ghetto, which we all walked over. Boxes were filled with gold and silver goods the Nazis stole from Jewish families. There was even a train from Auschwitz. It was probably the closest to a re-creation of the era than probably anything can get. We were able to step back in time and at least come close to understanding the collective memory of Jewish persecution under Hitler. The musuem concluded with the liberation of Europe from Germany, and an incline which took us to a spectacular overlook onto Israel. It symbolized the Jewish will to live on and continue to prosper in the wake of such a tragedy.
I think by the end we were all in shock. We came close to understanding this part of history and the collective fear that still resides in the Jewish psyche. Israel was born out of the need to provide a safe homeland for the Jewish people, outside of the danger of another Hitler. I can only imagine the comfort in knowing that as a Jew, I could escape anti-semitism, which as we all know is alive and well today, and become a part of the Jewish state. The "Jewish Homeland." There really is nothing like it of its kind in the world. A place where any Jewish person in the world can come to Israel and reap the full benefits of Israeli citizenship. It's the global Jewish safety net; a safe haven for those who want to start a new life in a new land.
The Holocaust plays a major role in Israeli politics today. I have heard the term "Final Solution" used several times as a scenario that Israel could face should a Palestinian state be established. The idea goes like this: once Palestine becomes a state, one of Iran's proxies, like Hamas or Hizbollah, could gain a foothold in Palestine and take out Tel Aviv or Ben Gurion Airport with Qassam rockets. Then all hell would break loose as Israel would be forced into a war with heavily-harmed militias backed by enemy states. In addition to the casualties in Israel, it would risk getting bogged down in an Iraq-style, urban, counter-insurgency campaign in which it would risk countless Israeli lives. It's clear that the collective fear and paranoia from the Holocaust is alive and well, and sometimes vindicated when Iran pledges to "wipe Israel off the map" and its Revolutionary Guard marches through the middle of Tehran in the formation of a swastika embedded in the American Flag. Such provocations do nothing but solidify Israeli determination to block any future threat to its country, including granting Palestinian statehood.
So the long short of this is that powerful historial forces are at play, and Israel is taking every measure to make sure those aren't relived. The IDF is the most powerful military in the Middle East today, capable probably of defeating several Arab armies at once, as it did in 1967. Its occupation of the West Bank and its continued grip over Gaza ensures that no significant threat emerges from the Palestinian territories. The security fence (if you're Israeli)/separation barrier (if you're Palestinian) erected around the West Bank has stemmed terrorist attacks in Israel significantly. Its array of check-points gives it control of movement into and out of the country. Arabs often spend hours at such check-points, and are often not allowed through. Israel will not tolerate a third intifada (uprising).
Meanwhile, many Israelis and Palestinians live in hope that peace will be made within their lifetimes. Palestinins often point to the Holocaust and question if a Warsaw Ghetto has emerged in Gaza. They point to the separation wall, settler expansion, and internal check-points and recall the history of South Africa. The main question is why must Palestinians suffer so that Israel can survive? There are credible claims and grievances on both sides of this thing. Wounds run very deep and will most likely not be forgotten even as generations turnover. I can't imagine how hard it must be to put those aside, come to the table, and say, "I recognize you as a people with legitimate rights to live along side our people." But this is precisely what must be done. For the sake of futue generations, someone needs to blink first for the other to let their guard down.
The museum was very well done. Inside were tall, gray walls that slanted upwards, which gave it an eerie feel. A guide walked us through the exhibits, explaining major events of the raise of Nazi Germany and the suffering of the Jewish people during the time. The museum began with early anti-semitic propoganda and moved through the rise of Hitler and his expansion of power. Everything in the musem was authentic, from the red Nazi flags to the bricks from the Warsaw Ghetto, which we all walked over. Boxes were filled with gold and silver goods the Nazis stole from Jewish families. There was even a train from Auschwitz. It was probably the closest to a re-creation of the era than probably anything can get. We were able to step back in time and at least come close to understanding the collective memory of Jewish persecution under Hitler. The musuem concluded with the liberation of Europe from Germany, and an incline which took us to a spectacular overlook onto Israel. It symbolized the Jewish will to live on and continue to prosper in the wake of such a tragedy.
I think by the end we were all in shock. We came close to understanding this part of history and the collective fear that still resides in the Jewish psyche. Israel was born out of the need to provide a safe homeland for the Jewish people, outside of the danger of another Hitler. I can only imagine the comfort in knowing that as a Jew, I could escape anti-semitism, which as we all know is alive and well today, and become a part of the Jewish state. The "Jewish Homeland." There really is nothing like it of its kind in the world. A place where any Jewish person in the world can come to Israel and reap the full benefits of Israeli citizenship. It's the global Jewish safety net; a safe haven for those who want to start a new life in a new land.
The Holocaust plays a major role in Israeli politics today. I have heard the term "Final Solution" used several times as a scenario that Israel could face should a Palestinian state be established. The idea goes like this: once Palestine becomes a state, one of Iran's proxies, like Hamas or Hizbollah, could gain a foothold in Palestine and take out Tel Aviv or Ben Gurion Airport with Qassam rockets. Then all hell would break loose as Israel would be forced into a war with heavily-harmed militias backed by enemy states. In addition to the casualties in Israel, it would risk getting bogged down in an Iraq-style, urban, counter-insurgency campaign in which it would risk countless Israeli lives. It's clear that the collective fear and paranoia from the Holocaust is alive and well, and sometimes vindicated when Iran pledges to "wipe Israel off the map" and its Revolutionary Guard marches through the middle of Tehran in the formation of a swastika embedded in the American Flag. Such provocations do nothing but solidify Israeli determination to block any future threat to its country, including granting Palestinian statehood.
So the long short of this is that powerful historial forces are at play, and Israel is taking every measure to make sure those aren't relived. The IDF is the most powerful military in the Middle East today, capable probably of defeating several Arab armies at once, as it did in 1967. Its occupation of the West Bank and its continued grip over Gaza ensures that no significant threat emerges from the Palestinian territories. The security fence (if you're Israeli)/separation barrier (if you're Palestinian) erected around the West Bank has stemmed terrorist attacks in Israel significantly. Its array of check-points gives it control of movement into and out of the country. Arabs often spend hours at such check-points, and are often not allowed through. Israel will not tolerate a third intifada (uprising).
Meanwhile, many Israelis and Palestinians live in hope that peace will be made within their lifetimes. Palestinins often point to the Holocaust and question if a Warsaw Ghetto has emerged in Gaza. They point to the separation wall, settler expansion, and internal check-points and recall the history of South Africa. The main question is why must Palestinians suffer so that Israel can survive? There are credible claims and grievances on both sides of this thing. Wounds run very deep and will most likely not be forgotten even as generations turnover. I can't imagine how hard it must be to put those aside, come to the table, and say, "I recognize you as a people with legitimate rights to live along side our people." But this is precisely what must be done. For the sake of futue generations, someone needs to blink first for the other to let their guard down.
Little Protests
Somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean, on the way to Israel, I glanced at the complementary magazine included in my flight on Jordanian Airlines. It was interesting because the first half was in English and the second half was in Arabic. The articles in one language were translated into the other language. I actually learned a few new Arabic words while glancing at an article in English, and then in Arabic. I kept it to make flash cards later. I digress. A map of the Middle East was situated between the two sections. As I was reading through the names of various countries in Arabic, I noticed something. The name Israel was not on the map. Only Gaza City and Jerusalem marked the area of present-day Israel.
How amazing. Israel was not born yesterday; it’s now over sixty-years old. How can a modern map overlook the state of Israel, especially one that is endorsed by a country who made peace with Israel decades ago? It represents the underlying feeling about Israel in the Arab world. It’s a small denunciation of a state that many Arabs today believe to be obstructing a lasting peace. The intentional absence of Israel on a modern map underlies a psyche that condemns Israel. As an outsider looking in, this absence represents strong, passionate feelings in the Arab World regarding the Palestinian Issue. As long as check-points operate in Palestine, Israel can forget about total acceptance from its neighbors in the Middle East. From this perspective, too many homes are demolished and too many settlements are built for Israeli to have its rightful place on a map in Jordan, much less Saudi Arabia.
There isn’t really much else the Arabs can do than to mount these small protests that may often go overlooked. Israel’s position today leaves little negotiating power to any Arab state, save for maybe Egypt, but even Egypt can’t force Israel’s hand. Israel is largely immune from external pressure in the Middle East to reflect on its policies and possibly make mutually beneficial compromises. Only the United States has that kind of power.
Another example of these mini-political demonstrations is on a phone card I recently bought in Ramallah. On it is a picture of the Dome of the Rock, and underneath it reads Jerusalem, Palestine. However, as we know, this holiest of holies mosque is located within the borders of present-day Israel, even if it is annexed land from the West Bank. It’s seems to be a defense mechanism to a reality that is very hard to comprehend for many Arabs, even after sixty years. This is a way for many to still throw rocks at Israeli tanks, albeit metaphorically. Everyday items like maps and phone cards are imbued with subtle references to the conflict, illustrating its deep-seated presence in Palestinian society (Jordan is around 60% Palestinian). The politics surrounding the conflict are pervasive and ubiquitous. I believe these minor acts of resistance will continue until a Palestinian state is established. Until then, the absence of such a state will be attributed by the Arab World to Israel’s unwillingness to come to the negotiation table.
How amazing. Israel was not born yesterday; it’s now over sixty-years old. How can a modern map overlook the state of Israel, especially one that is endorsed by a country who made peace with Israel decades ago? It represents the underlying feeling about Israel in the Arab world. It’s a small denunciation of a state that many Arabs today believe to be obstructing a lasting peace. The intentional absence of Israel on a modern map underlies a psyche that condemns Israel. As an outsider looking in, this absence represents strong, passionate feelings in the Arab World regarding the Palestinian Issue. As long as check-points operate in Palestine, Israel can forget about total acceptance from its neighbors in the Middle East. From this perspective, too many homes are demolished and too many settlements are built for Israeli to have its rightful place on a map in Jordan, much less Saudi Arabia.
There isn’t really much else the Arabs can do than to mount these small protests that may often go overlooked. Israel’s position today leaves little negotiating power to any Arab state, save for maybe Egypt, but even Egypt can’t force Israel’s hand. Israel is largely immune from external pressure in the Middle East to reflect on its policies and possibly make mutually beneficial compromises. Only the United States has that kind of power.
Another example of these mini-political demonstrations is on a phone card I recently bought in Ramallah. On it is a picture of the Dome of the Rock, and underneath it reads Jerusalem, Palestine. However, as we know, this holiest of holies mosque is located within the borders of present-day Israel, even if it is annexed land from the West Bank. It’s seems to be a defense mechanism to a reality that is very hard to comprehend for many Arabs, even after sixty years. This is a way for many to still throw rocks at Israeli tanks, albeit metaphorically. Everyday items like maps and phone cards are imbued with subtle references to the conflict, illustrating its deep-seated presence in Palestinian society (Jordan is around 60% Palestinian). The politics surrounding the conflict are pervasive and ubiquitous. I believe these minor acts of resistance will continue until a Palestinian state is established. Until then, the absence of such a state will be attributed by the Arab World to Israel’s unwillingness to come to the negotiation table.
Gaza
Added to the list of esteemed speakers we have been privileged to host was Ethan Bronner, Jerusalem Bureau Chief for the New York Times. He came to speak about Gaza, where he recently visited. His remarks constituted essentially the only time during our seminar that we heard someone speak at length about life in Gaza today following the Israel-Hamas war in January. Our focus up to this point was mainly on Israel and the West Bank. Maybe this is because the situation in Gaza seems almost hopeless, while in the West Bank maybe something can actually be done to move towards a solution. Maybe it’s easier to withdraw Israeli settlements and ease the occupation than to rebuild a devastated infrastructure and rejuvenate a flat-lined economy under an often hostile Hamas government in Gaza. While the problems in Gaza aren’t as severe as say Sudan or Somalia, life there is relatively harsh. Even though Israel physically pulled out of Gaza several years ago, it remains in complete control of the territory. Israel controls all of its borders, including its border along the Mediterranean Sea, and Gazan airspace. Only items deemed by the Israeli government as meeting basic needs, such as food and water, are allowed into Gaza. Not much else.
This is reminiscent of the sanctions regime imposed against Saddam Hussein following the Gulf War in 1991. Anything that was deemed a “dual use” good was not legally allowed into the country. Dual use meant that the good could be used for both peaceful and military purposes. You can imagine how such a strict import sanctions regime affected the country. Saddam had a wide variety of resources, which he could utilize to keep himself in power during such a period. Not only that, Saddam actually got more powerful this time, while the Iraqi people suffered. Dinner was still ready and Saddam’s beds were still made in all of his palaces across the country in expectation that he would show up unannounced. He continued to wield unfettered power as he traded with allies under the UN radar. All the while the average Iraqi was sinking deeper into poverty. Paradoxically, the sanctions hurt no one but innocent Iraqis.
The situation in Gaza could turn out similarly as Hamas can rely on Syria and Iran for support while nothing really flows to the Palestinians. It’s equivalent to Israeli collective punishment against the Palestinians in Gaza for electing an Islamic party to power whose charter contains the dismantling of the Israeli state as a prime objective. However, is this really the fault of the Palestinians as a people? In 2005, Hamas ran a political campaign offering a new way forward in the wake of the corruption of Fatah and Arafat. It was the classic “change” campaign, which promotes a seemingly brand new style of politics for people frustrated with the status quo. In addition to the social services it provided, that’s a big reason why Hamas won, not necessarily because it sought to replace Israel with an Islamic, Palestinian state. Average Palestinians, who are highly educated and often secular, care more about putting food on the table than restoring the Islamic Caliphate. Hamas was the alternative to the corruption of Arafat and his political cronies who used the plight of the Palestinians to tuck away millions of aid dollars in Swiss bank accounts.
Palestinians are now paying a heavy price for electing that alternative. The economy in Gaza went from very bad to devastated after the Israeli bombardment. This is not to say that Israel was wrong in defending itself against constant Hamas rocket attacks into Israel, only that its response damaged much more than Hamas targets. Schools, homes, factories, and a United Nations building were taken out. Hamas provocation and Israeli retaliation have resulted in Gaza’s current quandry and normal Palestinians have been stuck in the middle. Now comes the impossible task of rebuilding without building materials and breathing life into an economy with no ability to import or export. Gaza faces the daunting necessity of providing adequate government services without widespread international recognition.
A big boost could come in the form of a Palestinian state, where Gaza and the West Bank could be connected via a road or a tunnel. Goods and people could move freely between the linked territories, and borders would be opened up to the global economy. Palestinians educated abroad could come back to their homeland and take part in development projects and capacity-building. The establishment of a true Palestine would flip the sign from “Sorry, We’re Closed” to “Yes, We’re Open.” Statehood means a lot, for both West Bankers and Gazans. Palestinian statehood would also help Israel, especially in terms of its image abroad and its security, at least in some respects. Hopefully, Israel will realize that a rising tide in Palestine will lift Israeli boats as well.
This is reminiscent of the sanctions regime imposed against Saddam Hussein following the Gulf War in 1991. Anything that was deemed a “dual use” good was not legally allowed into the country. Dual use meant that the good could be used for both peaceful and military purposes. You can imagine how such a strict import sanctions regime affected the country. Saddam had a wide variety of resources, which he could utilize to keep himself in power during such a period. Not only that, Saddam actually got more powerful this time, while the Iraqi people suffered. Dinner was still ready and Saddam’s beds were still made in all of his palaces across the country in expectation that he would show up unannounced. He continued to wield unfettered power as he traded with allies under the UN radar. All the while the average Iraqi was sinking deeper into poverty. Paradoxically, the sanctions hurt no one but innocent Iraqis.
The situation in Gaza could turn out similarly as Hamas can rely on Syria and Iran for support while nothing really flows to the Palestinians. It’s equivalent to Israeli collective punishment against the Palestinians in Gaza for electing an Islamic party to power whose charter contains the dismantling of the Israeli state as a prime objective. However, is this really the fault of the Palestinians as a people? In 2005, Hamas ran a political campaign offering a new way forward in the wake of the corruption of Fatah and Arafat. It was the classic “change” campaign, which promotes a seemingly brand new style of politics for people frustrated with the status quo. In addition to the social services it provided, that’s a big reason why Hamas won, not necessarily because it sought to replace Israel with an Islamic, Palestinian state. Average Palestinians, who are highly educated and often secular, care more about putting food on the table than restoring the Islamic Caliphate. Hamas was the alternative to the corruption of Arafat and his political cronies who used the plight of the Palestinians to tuck away millions of aid dollars in Swiss bank accounts.
Palestinians are now paying a heavy price for electing that alternative. The economy in Gaza went from very bad to devastated after the Israeli bombardment. This is not to say that Israel was wrong in defending itself against constant Hamas rocket attacks into Israel, only that its response damaged much more than Hamas targets. Schools, homes, factories, and a United Nations building were taken out. Hamas provocation and Israeli retaliation have resulted in Gaza’s current quandry and normal Palestinians have been stuck in the middle. Now comes the impossible task of rebuilding without building materials and breathing life into an economy with no ability to import or export. Gaza faces the daunting necessity of providing adequate government services without widespread international recognition.
A big boost could come in the form of a Palestinian state, where Gaza and the West Bank could be connected via a road or a tunnel. Goods and people could move freely between the linked territories, and borders would be opened up to the global economy. Palestinians educated abroad could come back to their homeland and take part in development projects and capacity-building. The establishment of a true Palestine would flip the sign from “Sorry, We’re Closed” to “Yes, We’re Open.” Statehood means a lot, for both West Bankers and Gazans. Palestinian statehood would also help Israel, especially in terms of its image abroad and its security, at least in some respects. Hopefully, Israel will realize that a rising tide in Palestine will lift Israeli boats as well.
Indonesia in Palestine
After a marathon day of touring the settlements on our own, it was certainly refreshing to have someone, an Israeli, provide an objective context to the problem of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In the early morning, we met up with an Israeli activist (mentioned above) whose aim is to end settlement building in the West Bank. One of the first things he said to the group was that a two-state solution, and consequently a lasting peace with the Palestinians, must involve the evacuation of all Israeli settlers from the West Bank. According to him, this was a must. And, as unimaginably difficult as such a pull-out will surely be, I have come to believe the same thing.
Several weeks ago I came across an article in the New York Times that included a map drawn by a French artist. The title was something to the effect of "The West Bank Archipelago" and the fictional map displayed groupings of islands, similar to Japan or Indonesia. Each island represented a different portion of land in the West Bank separated by channels of water, which represented Israeli checkpoints, roads, and settlement structures throughout this part of the Palestinian territories. These islands were all cut off from each other and carved up into smaller pieces of the whole. This was a perfect analogy because it demonstrated the daunting barrier that water imposes between the islands, in similar fashion to the manner in which Israeli presence in the West Bank has obstructed overall Palestinian freedom. It was a very effective visual display of the degree to which Israel has penetrated the West Bank, and in so doing, has cut off internal movement and connection between Palestinian cities and villages. The map told more to the viewer than the entire accompanying article.
Forget the analogy, the West Bank is an archipelago, just without the water. Although this archipelago is invisible from the maps we see of the world today, it's there. Just substitute the Israeli settlement project with the water and you have a territory carved up to the point that even if a two-state solution were to come to fruition, the West Bank economy would take years to recover as the newly created state would need to rehabilitate itself post-Israeli occupation. The many Palestinian islands would need ample time to float back into reunification with the whole. A two-state solution then means, especially in the beginning, that Israel would remain the strongest state in the region alongside a fledgling, weak country that would be forced to refocus its efforts on internal development and capactiy-building in the wake of decades of control from above. This is what came to mind during this round of settlement visits as our guide explained to us the underlying implications behind Israeli settlement-building. If enough time passes, and as enough outposts turn into settlements turn into cities, it's entirely possible that a two-state solution will no longer be viable. Israeli policy will have precluded such an option as Israel expands itself so deep into West Bank territory that any call for a reversal will be simply undoable.
This is the point of no return, but where the red line resides no one really knows. Going further into this scenario, the one-state solution becomes the only reasonable way to achieve peace. However, in maybe a decade, the Palestinian population in the region is expected to excced that of the Israeli population. In such a situation, a one-state solution that would bring both Palestinians and Israels under the same rule of government would give the majority Palestinian population the upper hand in a democracy. This would be unacceptable for Israel, whose establishment was predicated on the notion of a Jewish, democratic state. Under a single state with a Palestinian majority, at least one of those principles would have to be sacrificed. On one end, the state would shred its democratic principles and the minority of Jews would control the majority of Palestinian majority by force. On the other end, Israel would be forced to relinquish its Jewish idenity, and accept the fact, as painful as it would surely be, that a democracy ultimately means rule by the people. A Palestinian majority would almost mean rule by Palestinians in a country whose meaning for existence was built upon this notion of a Jewish state. Such a drastic change would be cataclysmic for Israelis.
One of the two above outcomes seems possible if settlement construction continues unabated in the West Bank. It is in this way that settlement growth is actually inimical to long-term Israeli interests. One day Israel will wake up and, under intense calls from the international community for peace after seven decades of confict, be faced with no other option but the one-state solution. For Israel's sake, I hope it is able to see the writing on the wall now before a decade passes and there are over 1 million Israelis living in the West Bank.
Several weeks ago I came across an article in the New York Times that included a map drawn by a French artist. The title was something to the effect of "The West Bank Archipelago" and the fictional map displayed groupings of islands, similar to Japan or Indonesia. Each island represented a different portion of land in the West Bank separated by channels of water, which represented Israeli checkpoints, roads, and settlement structures throughout this part of the Palestinian territories. These islands were all cut off from each other and carved up into smaller pieces of the whole. This was a perfect analogy because it demonstrated the daunting barrier that water imposes between the islands, in similar fashion to the manner in which Israeli presence in the West Bank has obstructed overall Palestinian freedom. It was a very effective visual display of the degree to which Israel has penetrated the West Bank, and in so doing, has cut off internal movement and connection between Palestinian cities and villages. The map told more to the viewer than the entire accompanying article.
Forget the analogy, the West Bank is an archipelago, just without the water. Although this archipelago is invisible from the maps we see of the world today, it's there. Just substitute the Israeli settlement project with the water and you have a territory carved up to the point that even if a two-state solution were to come to fruition, the West Bank economy would take years to recover as the newly created state would need to rehabilitate itself post-Israeli occupation. The many Palestinian islands would need ample time to float back into reunification with the whole. A two-state solution then means, especially in the beginning, that Israel would remain the strongest state in the region alongside a fledgling, weak country that would be forced to refocus its efforts on internal development and capactiy-building in the wake of decades of control from above. This is what came to mind during this round of settlement visits as our guide explained to us the underlying implications behind Israeli settlement-building. If enough time passes, and as enough outposts turn into settlements turn into cities, it's entirely possible that a two-state solution will no longer be viable. Israeli policy will have precluded such an option as Israel expands itself so deep into West Bank territory that any call for a reversal will be simply undoable.
This is the point of no return, but where the red line resides no one really knows. Going further into this scenario, the one-state solution becomes the only reasonable way to achieve peace. However, in maybe a decade, the Palestinian population in the region is expected to excced that of the Israeli population. In such a situation, a one-state solution that would bring both Palestinians and Israels under the same rule of government would give the majority Palestinian population the upper hand in a democracy. This would be unacceptable for Israel, whose establishment was predicated on the notion of a Jewish, democratic state. Under a single state with a Palestinian majority, at least one of those principles would have to be sacrificed. On one end, the state would shred its democratic principles and the minority of Jews would control the majority of Palestinian majority by force. On the other end, Israel would be forced to relinquish its Jewish idenity, and accept the fact, as painful as it would surely be, that a democracy ultimately means rule by the people. A Palestinian majority would almost mean rule by Palestinians in a country whose meaning for existence was built upon this notion of a Jewish state. Such a drastic change would be cataclysmic for Israelis.
One of the two above outcomes seems possible if settlement construction continues unabated in the West Bank. It is in this way that settlement growth is actually inimical to long-term Israeli interests. One day Israel will wake up and, under intense calls from the international community for peace after seven decades of confict, be faced with no other option but the one-state solution. For Israel's sake, I hope it is able to see the writing on the wall now before a decade passes and there are over 1 million Israelis living in the West Bank.
Settlers and Outposts
No one could have planned the fact that we visited Israeli settlements on the very day that the President of the United States would deliver a speech calling for the cessation of any new construction of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories. A sense of anger and betrayal on the part of Jewish settlers aimed at the United States was certainly felt, at least by me, as our day progressed. According to them, the President's call for a two-state solution revealed his ignorance regarding the history, both political and biblical, of the Jewish presence in the Levant.
"The Arabs don't want peace" was a phrase we heard continuously from settlers throughout the West Bank. "If you accept a car ride from an Arab, you risked death" came from a settler who used to live in the United States. The first settlement we toured was almost identical to a normal American suburb, but protected by a barbed wire fence and an armed guard. There, most of us got our first glimpse into the mind of an Israeli settler, a woman who emigrated to Israel from the United States. A self-proclaimed left-wing activist in American politics, she was involved in anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, environmental advocacy, and was part of the movement for women's equality several decades ago. On the surface, she was pleasant, open-minded, and progressive. All of that was out the window when she began to speak about the Palestinians and her decision to live in "Judea and Sumaria."
From her, we heard the two main arguments justifying Israeli occupation and Israeli settlement in the West Bank. Number one, because the Old Testament says so. Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years and they deserve a homeland supposedly guaranteed to them by God himself. This land includes all of Israel proper and the Palestinian territories. Number two, the Palestinians are violent savages and have no place in "Judea and Sumaria." It is important to note here that not once did I hear any Jewish settlers refer to the West Bank as the West Bank, as most of the world knows it today, but rather by the Bibical term "Judea and Sumaria."
Number three, the Palestinian territories are not really the Palestinian territories. There is no green line. International law is non-binding, and therefore not need be enforced by the Israeli government. There are many other Arab countries in the world, so the Palestinians should pick up and move to either Jordan or Egypt, both neighboring countries. This is all part of the same line of reasoning, if you can call it that. This is the anti-Arab narrative that justifies the illegal settlement of 300,000 Israelis in the West Bank. God gave this land to the Jews, not the Palestinians, so the Israelis are free to live wherever they please. Nevermind the historical realities of mass Palestinian displacement and Palestinian life under a suffocating occupation.
Unfortunately, the day didn't get much better from there in terms of discovering a moderate approach to the conflict. Next was a settlement that had grown into what was essentiall a city in the West Bank. Before I came to Israel, I pictured settlements as a few trailers scattered around a small school on some remote hill in the middle of nowhere. There's nothing quite like seeing something for yourself to make you understand what's really going on. The college we visited there had around 10,000 students. That's just students. Tens of thousands of more Israelis resided there. Inside we saw a presentation titled something to the effect of "The Benefits of Zionism," illustrating the school's achievements and its endorsement by current Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That in itself pointed to the Israeli government's support of West Bank settlements.
Next was a pre-military academy whose purpose is to train young Israeli men before their compulsory service in the Israeli Defense Force. This was not a military academy, but both instructors deemed it necassary to carry semi-automatic pistols. Why? In case they encountered a Palestinian. During a small lecture one of them gave to the group, his entire argument was centered around Biblical text. This is Jewish land because "It is written....It is written." To me, that sounds a lot like bin Laden saying that since Islamic text prohibits "no two religions in Arabia" it's permitted to knock down a few buildings. American presence in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War violated holy text, which justified 9/11 from his standpoint. When someone takes religious text as absolute, literal, and uncompromising, what room is left for debate? You can't counter the word of God. There is no space for negotiation if God gave Judea and Sumaria to the Jews. And that was that.
The rest of the day was more of the same, with religious fundamentalism trumping any concern for the plight of the Palestinians. At a small outpost consisting mainly of trailers and simple buildings, I heard one woman say, "We have nothing against the Arabs." Well, they have something against you. You are living on private Palestinian land that was never yours to take. However, Biblical interpretation wins out over the rights of the Palestinians who "...never developed the land in the first place." I thought about this and came up with an analogy. If I bought a house, but left the basement unfinished for whatever reason, should I be forced to let a stranger move into my basement and live for free? Should I be forced to eventually migrate up to the attic and give up my kitchen, bedroom, and living room to these new-comers who need space for their growing families? Unfortunately, none of that matters to Israeli settlers because God said so.
"The Arabs don't want peace" was a phrase we heard continuously from settlers throughout the West Bank. "If you accept a car ride from an Arab, you risked death" came from a settler who used to live in the United States. The first settlement we toured was almost identical to a normal American suburb, but protected by a barbed wire fence and an armed guard. There, most of us got our first glimpse into the mind of an Israeli settler, a woman who emigrated to Israel from the United States. A self-proclaimed left-wing activist in American politics, she was involved in anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, environmental advocacy, and was part of the movement for women's equality several decades ago. On the surface, she was pleasant, open-minded, and progressive. All of that was out the window when she began to speak about the Palestinians and her decision to live in "Judea and Sumaria."
From her, we heard the two main arguments justifying Israeli occupation and Israeli settlement in the West Bank. Number one, because the Old Testament says so. Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years and they deserve a homeland supposedly guaranteed to them by God himself. This land includes all of Israel proper and the Palestinian territories. Number two, the Palestinians are violent savages and have no place in "Judea and Sumaria." It is important to note here that not once did I hear any Jewish settlers refer to the West Bank as the West Bank, as most of the world knows it today, but rather by the Bibical term "Judea and Sumaria."
Number three, the Palestinian territories are not really the Palestinian territories. There is no green line. International law is non-binding, and therefore not need be enforced by the Israeli government. There are many other Arab countries in the world, so the Palestinians should pick up and move to either Jordan or Egypt, both neighboring countries. This is all part of the same line of reasoning, if you can call it that. This is the anti-Arab narrative that justifies the illegal settlement of 300,000 Israelis in the West Bank. God gave this land to the Jews, not the Palestinians, so the Israelis are free to live wherever they please. Nevermind the historical realities of mass Palestinian displacement and Palestinian life under a suffocating occupation.
Unfortunately, the day didn't get much better from there in terms of discovering a moderate approach to the conflict. Next was a settlement that had grown into what was essentiall a city in the West Bank. Before I came to Israel, I pictured settlements as a few trailers scattered around a small school on some remote hill in the middle of nowhere. There's nothing quite like seeing something for yourself to make you understand what's really going on. The college we visited there had around 10,000 students. That's just students. Tens of thousands of more Israelis resided there. Inside we saw a presentation titled something to the effect of "The Benefits of Zionism," illustrating the school's achievements and its endorsement by current Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That in itself pointed to the Israeli government's support of West Bank settlements.
Next was a pre-military academy whose purpose is to train young Israeli men before their compulsory service in the Israeli Defense Force. This was not a military academy, but both instructors deemed it necassary to carry semi-automatic pistols. Why? In case they encountered a Palestinian. During a small lecture one of them gave to the group, his entire argument was centered around Biblical text. This is Jewish land because "It is written....It is written." To me, that sounds a lot like bin Laden saying that since Islamic text prohibits "no two religions in Arabia" it's permitted to knock down a few buildings. American presence in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War violated holy text, which justified 9/11 from his standpoint. When someone takes religious text as absolute, literal, and uncompromising, what room is left for debate? You can't counter the word of God. There is no space for negotiation if God gave Judea and Sumaria to the Jews. And that was that.
The rest of the day was more of the same, with religious fundamentalism trumping any concern for the plight of the Palestinians. At a small outpost consisting mainly of trailers and simple buildings, I heard one woman say, "We have nothing against the Arabs." Well, they have something against you. You are living on private Palestinian land that was never yours to take. However, Biblical interpretation wins out over the rights of the Palestinians who "...never developed the land in the first place." I thought about this and came up with an analogy. If I bought a house, but left the basement unfinished for whatever reason, should I be forced to let a stranger move into my basement and live for free? Should I be forced to eventually migrate up to the attic and give up my kitchen, bedroom, and living room to these new-comers who need space for their growing families? Unfortunately, none of that matters to Israeli settlers because God said so.
Day 2 in the Holy Land
After touring East Jerusalem all day yesterday, today represented a pronounced shift to a greater focus on the present-day conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Visiting the Holy Basin yesterday was certainly amazing, with the cross-section of major holy sites for the world's three major monotheistic religions all in one square-mile. The supposed site of Jesus' crucifixion is essentially next door to where the Prophet Mohammad ascended into heaven. It's simply an unbelieveable part of the world.
Today we got a sense of the Palestinian perspective of the conflict from some very high officials in the Palestinian Authority, which would not have been possible in most other circumstances (outside of this group). First was a meeting with the Negotiation Support Unit in Ramallah. What amazes me is how Yasser Arafat is still glorified among the PLO and the PA. Granted he certainly played an instrumental role in the PLO's founding and governance in the Palestinian territories during his tenure as president, but his glaring flaws seem to be generally overlooked. His corruption and supposed sponsorship of terrorism, which weakened the Palestinian stance in past negotiations with Israel, only hurt the Palestinian cause. It isn't hard to imagine that the Palestinians as a whole are still feeling the negative effects of Arafat's legacy.
Aside from that, it seems clear that the PLO and the PA under Mahmoud Abbas have taken relatively moderate stances regarding negotiations with Israel. This was shown in their willingness to engage with Israel to map out a two-state solution, which Israel appears to have all but abandoned under newly-elected Prime Minister Netanyahu. The PA's willingness to accept a two-state solution based upon the 1967 borders contrasts sharply with Israel's apparent refusal to discuss such issues as Palestinian statehood and self-determination, two fundamental rights that in my opinion all deserve. A true, sustainable peace will never bear fruit as long as Israel denies Palestinian autonomy, which would serve as the basis for any lasting normalization of Israel with the Palestinians and the rest of the Middle East as a whole. However, even as the two-state solution is advocated by parties on both sides, the chance for such a solution is withering away by the day. The more settlements are built in the West Bank, and the more infrastructure is destroyed in the Gaza Strip, the less likely that a Palestinian state will be able to emerge even if a peace agreement is reached. Check-points and road-blocks throughout Palestine limit internal movement and Palestinian control over its territories, thus denying the ability to exercise any semblance of autonomy.
This was the theme that resounded thoughout our various visits today. In a world where Palestinians would be guaranteed basic rights and equal protection under the law as Israeli citizens, it seems that they would by and large accept a one state solution where Israelis and Palestinians would share a state. But this is something that Israel would never accept, especially with the growing size of the Palestinian population. Therefore, a two-state solution seems to be the only viable alternative, except for the fact that its capacity to function as a state is diminishing. So what is the answer? The Palestinian officials today seemed to harbor similiar feelings. How is a solution possible under current conditions? Israel would have to take extreme measures by reversing its normal course of action. What incentive does Israel have to do that? Maybe more answers will come as the trip progresses.
Today we got a sense of the Palestinian perspective of the conflict from some very high officials in the Palestinian Authority, which would not have been possible in most other circumstances (outside of this group). First was a meeting with the Negotiation Support Unit in Ramallah. What amazes me is how Yasser Arafat is still glorified among the PLO and the PA. Granted he certainly played an instrumental role in the PLO's founding and governance in the Palestinian territories during his tenure as president, but his glaring flaws seem to be generally overlooked. His corruption and supposed sponsorship of terrorism, which weakened the Palestinian stance in past negotiations with Israel, only hurt the Palestinian cause. It isn't hard to imagine that the Palestinians as a whole are still feeling the negative effects of Arafat's legacy.
Aside from that, it seems clear that the PLO and the PA under Mahmoud Abbas have taken relatively moderate stances regarding negotiations with Israel. This was shown in their willingness to engage with Israel to map out a two-state solution, which Israel appears to have all but abandoned under newly-elected Prime Minister Netanyahu. The PA's willingness to accept a two-state solution based upon the 1967 borders contrasts sharply with Israel's apparent refusal to discuss such issues as Palestinian statehood and self-determination, two fundamental rights that in my opinion all deserve. A true, sustainable peace will never bear fruit as long as Israel denies Palestinian autonomy, which would serve as the basis for any lasting normalization of Israel with the Palestinians and the rest of the Middle East as a whole. However, even as the two-state solution is advocated by parties on both sides, the chance for such a solution is withering away by the day. The more settlements are built in the West Bank, and the more infrastructure is destroyed in the Gaza Strip, the less likely that a Palestinian state will be able to emerge even if a peace agreement is reached. Check-points and road-blocks throughout Palestine limit internal movement and Palestinian control over its territories, thus denying the ability to exercise any semblance of autonomy.
This was the theme that resounded thoughout our various visits today. In a world where Palestinians would be guaranteed basic rights and equal protection under the law as Israeli citizens, it seems that they would by and large accept a one state solution where Israelis and Palestinians would share a state. But this is something that Israel would never accept, especially with the growing size of the Palestinian population. Therefore, a two-state solution seems to be the only viable alternative, except for the fact that its capacity to function as a state is diminishing. So what is the answer? The Palestinian officials today seemed to harbor similiar feelings. How is a solution possible under current conditions? Israel would have to take extreme measures by reversing its normal course of action. What incentive does Israel have to do that? Maybe more answers will come as the trip progresses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
