Comments on 'The Palestinian prisoners' plan...'
Place your comments on the JWN post on the Palestinian prisoners' plan in the comments board here.
posted by helena at 9:12 PM
This blog exists to allow readers of 'Just World News' by Helena Cobban to comment on and discuss the topics in JWN-- courteously, as always.
posted by helena at 9:12 PM
17 Comments:
As you may notice, i have been asking for you to post something about the prisoner's plan for a few days now. I am glad you have done so. One thing that strikes me as a particularly bad sign about the whole deal is that it seemed significantly harder then necessary to actually get a published copy of the plan. for that matter, i have not been able to find it published in Arabic. After all these years, and being Palestinian myself, i am sick and tired of the use of information as though it is only the privilege of a select group of individuals, rather then the right of all to know. Considering how important the prisoner's plan is, i would have liked to have seen many parties talk about it, or at least have seen it been published on various Palestinian political websites... As of yet, the AP translation is the only one i have seen (though, AlJazeera usually does a good job of covering these issues and i just have not checked it for more info). In this respect, I wonder what the real reason for Abu Mazin wanting a referendum is, if the points of the prisoner's plan is not even public information among Palestinians?
Anyway, that aside, i have a basic disagreement with your analysis of the document. In and of itself, i basically agree with you that there are some aspects that are positive for Hamas and some positive for Fatah, much of it is just positive for everyone. But aside from the specifics of the text of the document, the importance of it (to me) is that it could finally represent a comprehensive position for Palestinians to negotiate from. For too long the Palestinians have been reacting to Israeli proposals and "facts on the ground" and have been backed into a corner. I think that acceptance of this document by all factions could finally provide the Palestinians with a basis for their minimum demands of the Israelis, demands which no party could negotiate away. That, to me, is the beauty of the document..
On the other hand, I am for a one-state solution and see very little real or strategic value in calling for a two-state solution. As the Palestinians are not going to get their demands respected regardless of the proposal they make, i think the arguments for a one-state solution put the greatest moral and political pressure on the Jews. Even if it proves impossible to achieve as well, using the option of the one-state solution maximizes the bargaining position of the Palestinians and at the same time exposes the essential injustice of the Zionist project.
To go back to the prisoner's plan again, the other very important aspect to it is that a referendum on the plan will formally destory the possibility of a corrupt or idiotic Palestinian leader's ability to subvert the rights of the people. For the last 15 years of Arafat's life, my worst fear was that he would sign some garbage deal that solidified our losses and insignificance. Oslo was bad enough, but at least it was never formalized as "final" or anything. With the prisoner's paln, at least, the act of putting such an important document to a popular referendum shows me that it is now impossible for any individual Palestinian leader or faction to make a decision on our future without asking us first. Of course, i highly doubt that "us" includes the refugees outside the territories, but it is a start.
Lastly, I think it is only acceptable that such a referendum be held if there are other options on the table. I would like to see a popular referendum with three or four plans voted on. It is something like political blackmail for any party to propose one plan and ask that we vote for or against it. I think the idea of a vote is an excellent idea, but to act like this plan is the only option is idiotic. I support the will of the people. The Palestinians are probably the most politically aware people on earth. So if this is a serious attempt to gage political opinion and come to a national consensus on a political program, then there should at least be various options on the table and the people should be given the ability to decide what they really want, not be forced to decide whether they support or reject some random deal in 40 days as though it is the only conceivable choice for an national program (not giving us time or choices to think about the details, but asking us to decide, once and for all, on our future). I respect the signatories of the prisoner's deal, but they are not the only representative of the people and their ideas should compete with other ideas if they are to become the official positions of the Palestinian people.
This whole situation makes me all the more suspicious of the ability of Abu Mazin to lead. He is a disgrace and he knows it. That is why he is trying so hard to deal with Israel and the USA, while trying to blackmail the population into supporting his role as "leader".
Joe, thanks for the long and thoughtful comment. If you or anyone else finds the original Arabic version of the plan, I'd love to know where it is.
I agree with all of the points you make above about the need for a clear and transparent public deliberation among Palestinians on a number of different political "plans", and for a free and fair public choice among them that would include the exiled Palestinians. I am sort of in two minds on the one-state/two-state issue. Since I'm not Palestinian, it's not my business and I don't have to express a choice! Briefly, the two-state approach has the advantage of having a basis in existing international commitments (i.e. the Partition Plan's provision for an Arab state in palestine, the language of the preamble to Res 242, etc etc.) The one-state approach has the advantage of considerable moral clarity, and the great precedent of the South African transformation of 1994... There are lots more arguments to be made on the issue, of course.
I don't know if you've seen the 2004 Quaker book I worked on with a bunch of other Quakers. We expressed ourselves "agnostic" on the one-state/two-state issue but underlined that within either scenario various basic principles-- including crucially the principle of the equality of all human persons-- needed to be fully respected.
Anyway, let's see what happens with Abu Mazen's current bit of political blackmail...
(Another possible way of understanding the prisoners' document, of course, is that it was an intra-Fateh power play by Marwan B... )
Hi Helena,
With respect to your question about Abbas' legal authority, my impression is that he doesn't have it. The PNA Basic Law makes no provision for referenda and, to my knowledge, there has not been an enabling act passed by the PLC. As such, Abbas would either have to push a referendum law through the Hamas-controlled parliament, or hold a purely non-binding straw poll with his own resources.
I do think you're underestimating how much a referendum would favor Fatah. The prisoners' plan formalizes arrangements, such as the PLO's authority over peace negotiations, that were previously unwritten understandings. It also esatablishes a border, and by definition, everything that isn't inside a border is outside. A proposal to establish a Palestinian state on "all the land occupied in 1967" is an acknowledgment that, at least for the time being, the land not occupied in 1967 will not be part of that state.
More to the point, though, a successful referendum would put the political momentum on Abbas' side. Even if the plan was a joint enterprise, the referendum was his idea, and if he calls one and wins, then he rather than Hamas will be the winner of the latest vote. That's an intangible but, in the present context, quite an important one, and I suspect this is part of the reason why Hamas is opposing the referendum.
In any event, I agree with Joe M. that the Palestinian people should have a choice of plans. Instead of holding an up-or-down referendum on a single, relatively vague proposal, why not give every party two months to draft a plan and put them all on the ballot? Throw Geneva on the ballot too, use preference voting to ensure a clear winner, and let the Palestinian people define their national goals! That way, any negotiations that take place can at least begin with a clear premise.
(As you know, I disagree with almost everything Joe M. says about one-state versus two-state, but I don't want to hijack the thread. Accordingly, I won't digress further except to note that the two-state solution also has "considerable moral clarity" because it provides self-determination for both peoples. The question of which solution has more moral clarity depends, to a great extent, on the principles espoused.)
Jonathan Edelstein
I think it is pretty clear that the three of us agree on most points here. I just want to emphasize that I think it reflects very very poorly on Abbas that he only wants to propose a vote on a plan he backs. Again, if he was a real leader he would be interested in finding out the true desires of the people, rather then simply gain the large amount of political capital that Jonathan discusses.
That aside, and in an effort to hijack this thread, I just want to expand on my comments about the one-state solution. Since this issue is very often discussed, I want to make it clear that I do not think I am saying anything new, but trying to pick an argument with Jonathan.
That said, your short comments against the one-state solution reflect a basic misunderstanding about the legitimacy of Israel, being that you imply that the Jews have any right to the land they have stolen from the Palestinians. If it were a perfect world, I would make all the non-Arab Jews go back to Europe and give all the land back to the pre-Zionist owners. When you say that a two-state solution "provides self-determination for both peoples" you are not correct. The two-state solution gives the Jewish people self-determination over about 3/4ths of Palestine, and gives the indigenous people "self-determination" over less then 1/4 of their own land. Even in the most "generous" deals I have seen, the Palestinian people are still left without basic rights to travel or without control of their land (not to mention, are denied the ability to defend themselves), plus the refugees are more or less forced to stay refugees. The absolute worst part about the two-state solution is that is does not make the Jews to take responsibility for their crimes, but just ignores the problem as if 58 years of repression just go away when you officially demarcate borders.
On a basic level, I believe that the Jews should compensate the Palestinians by sharing their wealth, prosperity and institutions with us, and that is done most honestly by giving us full rights in the state they built on our heads and to our exclusion. Despite the ease of just splitting the Palestinian ghettos (mind you, they were made into ghettos) off from the Jewish lands and acting like it solves the problem, if anything, I think it simply formalizes and makes the problem absolutely permanent without addressing any of the real issues. I think it is totally unfair for the to think that Jews have a right to come in and destroy our society and act like nothing happened and just go their marry way once they have gotten rid of us. A one-state solution is more moral because under it, the Jews must come to terms with the reality of our existence and it shows that we all are equal and do indeed share our lives and future.
Furthermore, as much as I know that the Jewish people have suffered in history, and I do respect that, I do not respect their desire for an ethnically pure country. I believe that the claims that Jews are under threat existentially are complete bullsh**, and that the vast vast majority of hate in the Middle East against Jews is the direct result of their brutality against the Palestinians (and not the result of some wild and random racism). Plus, the Israel of today is clearly one of the most racist places on earth. I think the only true way to come to terms with this is to live with the Palestinians, rather then apart from them.
I think it goes without saying (or, with Helena saying above) that the biggest advantage (if you can even call it an "advantage") of a two-state solution is that it is more likely to happen. Other then that, it is a crime against the Palestinians and only nominally profitable to the Jews. I realize that Israel is a reality, so therefore I think that if the Jews want to stay, they should so us some humility and accept us as equal partners and not just people to be excluded from the world they have built for themselves. Also, since I know Israel is a reality, I know that the one-state is against the essence of Zionism and not something the Jews would agree to, but in a practical since think it is simply the reality anyway. You have two people and one land. The Palestinian(Arab) Israelis have shown that it does not automatically cause a problem or make for war…
Oh, and I will say that I purposely took a hard line in this post. I could easily make other, more gentle arguments.
Hi Joe,
Given that nobody but us is likely to be reading this thread any more, I'll accept the hijacking and argument-picking and answer your points. Unfortunately, things are busy now and my answer will be long, so it might take a couple of days. Until then -
Jonathan Edelstein
All right, it looks like comments are working again on Helena's main site; I doubt anyone's reading this any more and I'm not sure if this site will even stay up. If you e-mail me privately, though, I'd be glad to answer you.
Jonathan
i am still reading, and I would prefer that you post your response here. not that i think anyone is reading it, but at least it is public record in some way. if you don't mind.
joe
All right, sure. Another couple of days, probably - writing an answer has been a slow process and I've had to work it around other things.
As an earnest of my good faith, fhe following is the outline version. These are only the skeleton points and I've certainly left a great deal out, so don't take this as a complete answer:
1. Unitary states composed of mutually hostile peoples have a very poor historical track record. With very few exceptions, the end result of such states has been either (1) civil war and ethnic cleansing, (2) institutionalized subordination, or (3) stunted politics that consist of sublimated racial conflict. Moreover, the more such states have attempted to cure these problems, the more nearly they have come to resemble confederations of independent countries (again with a single notable exception which proves the rule, because there is no major Palestinian faction with the politics of the ANC). This is both a practical and an ethical argument against a single-state solution; practical because there's very little chance that a newly established state would work as advertised, and ethical because the present and future take moral precedence over the past.
2. The idea that states must be founded in a morally correct manner to be "legitimate" is risible in light of the recent history of a large part of the world. The legitimacy of states comes from the law, without which there is only the way of the jungle, and Israel is a state recognized in law. You can't have it both ways: if you (correctly) argue that international law requires an end to the occupation and settlements, then you must accept the legitimacy of Israel under the same legal framework.
3. Israelis are not, as you would argue, a people without moral rights in the land. Instead, the second generation of immigrants becomes indigenous, and given that there are now third, fourth and fifth generation Israelis, they have become an indigenous culture. To the extent that Palestinians are "more indigenous" than the Israelis, this is because they are descended from earlier conquerors; it does not confer an absolute moral claim.
4. If Palestinian national rights are not perishable - i.e., if a third-generation member of the Palestinian diaspora remains a Palestinian with rights in the homeland - then neither are Jewish national rights. Once national rights become heritable, they don't expire in 2000 years any more than they do in 60.
5. Israel is also a nation of refugees. To the extent that Jews are not under existential threat today (which is open to dispute), this is largely because Israel has absorbed the refugees from the places where they were under threat, both the Arab world in the 1940s-50s and the former Soviet Union in the 1980s-90s. (And no, Arab anti-Semitism didn't begin with Israel; there were pogroms in Algiers, restrictive laws in Yemen and blood libels in Damascus long before Zionism was a gleam in anyone's eye.) Likewise, many of the original founders of the state were refugees from Nazi genocide. You are, of course, not the perpetrators of the Nazi crimes, but in John Strawson's words, we jumped out of a burning building and landed on you. That means that you have moral claims against us (about which more later) but does not negate the essential need for ingathering and protection of refugees, and also does not negate the fact that Jews are a national group with the same entitlement to self-determination and self-defense as all others.
6. The ethnic cleansing of the 1948 war was mutual. We, of course, did more of it because we won. However, pre-1948 Jewish communities such as Kfar Darom, the Etzion bloc and the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem were cleansed during the war, and there is no reason to believe that the same wouldn't have happened in other places if we had lost. This was a war of survival for us as it was for you. Again, I do not belittle what your people has suffered, but a mythologized narrative of essential Arab innocence and essential Jewish rapacity doesn't describe what actually happened. We all played a part in destroying the possibility of a shared state.
7. This is not to say that, in your words, a two-state solution entitles us to "act like nothing happened and go our merry way." Far from it. We owe you amends. We owe you recognition of your losses, and we owe you freedom and compensation. We owe you the means to rebuild your land and establish prosperity - desalination plants, railroads, power stations, etc. We owe you the dignity of treating you as equals and sitting down at the table to share natural resources without regard to power differentials. But surely the way to end the conflict and to accomplish all this is to create a solution in which each of us is independent of the other. Any other solution will only institutionalize the conflict in a different form and stunt us both forever.
More in a few days - and just out of curiosity, what made you decide to pick this particular argument with me? There are lots of people out there with less ambiguous opinions.
Even though I disagree with your analysis of most of the issues you addressed, I think that the vast majority of your points prove that the one-state solution is the only way to actually solve the conflict between the Palestinians and Jews. If there is anything that comes out of what you have said, it is that many of the problems that infect the Palestinian people are also the problems that infect the Jewish people (at least, as they are understood by both people). Israel is a state that is already established to deal with these problems. The “law of return” is a perfect example. When it applies to only Jews, claiming that some random Russians are legally able to “return” to a kibbutz while not allowing my family to literally return to our homes, it is simply another racist institution of a racist state. But, if you were to open it up to include all people who can prove they have a historical legacy (whether religious or native) to the land, then it is a peaceful institution that is based on honesty and harmony.
I was actually surprised that you did not seem to defend the “Jewish” nature of the state of Israel as a reason for the two-state solution. In general, I am used to having to argue with Jews who believe that they have a right to an ethnically pure country. That you did not use this in your argument is not proof that you do not believe it though. But, if I assume that you are a plurialist in general and do not believe that Mexicans should get kicked out of the USA because they are not “white” enough, or that Turks should get kicked out of Germany, or Algerians out of France of ethnic grounds, then I think it is easier to deal with your arguments. Because, if your idea of what Israel should be is based on a religious/racist view of an ethnically pure Jewish “homeland” then there is no possible agreement between you and I. But, if you are just saying that you think that it is more “practical” for a two-state solution, then maybe you will understand reason. Because, in its more real sense, a two-state solution is only practical for the Jews. For the Palestinians, it is fulfillment of injustice. No matter what, you can’t buy us off or prove to us that 20% of our land is practical. As much as anyone may want to claim otherwise (not necessarily you), Jews are not the victims of this situation. There may be cases of Jewish victims, but the Palestinians as a people are the victims. Their national home has been stolen, their culture destroyed, and their population displaced. So, really, it is up to us to decide when something is just or practical, not you. You have no right, as an occupier, and a colonizer, to say when we have been given enough of our land back. You may do it because you are powerful, but you have no right. Only we can decide when there has been justice. And I am telling you, as a liberal western Palestinian, I personally will never forgive Israel and the Jewish people until they give us our land back. That does not mean you have to leave. You can stay. But you can’t keep us out. In all honesty, I will hate you as a group for my entire life if you continue to try to keep us out, or keep most of us in refugee camps, or claim that any Jew in the world can come to Israel as a “birthright” while those who were literally born there and kicked out and their families have no such right. This is why the one-state solution is the only possible option. Because we are millions, and you have no right to act like your claims are greater then ours. Even if I grant you your claims, they are no better then ours. Your claims could be equally made by the Greeks, the Romans, the British crusaders, the Turks, and countless other people who have come through this war torn part of the world to conquer us. But our claim is literal and physical. We were kicked out within the last few decades. And you have no right to say that you can live there, yet we can not. It is because of this passion and injustice you have caused that we both need to share the same land. Even if I grant you that you have suffered and deserve to land on our heads in your jump in the burning building, you don’t have a better claim to the land then we do. So, you must see, there really is no choice. Without a one-state solution, the war will never end. You will always be an occupier, and oppressor, a colonizer… And that is simply not acceptable.
The above aside, specifically, I think your first argument about the impossibility of having places with cultural differences is obviously wrong on its face. Actually, it is ironically comical. Because, the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are a perfect example of a community that has been shit on for years but have not created any conflict with the Jews. Actually, again, Jewish racism considers them (again, the indigenous people of the land) to be a “demographic threat” that is against their Zionist ideology. You can site all the examples of Yugoslavia or whatever country you want to try to show that “mutually hostile peoples have a very poor historical track record” of living together, but it flies in the face of the most important counter-example, which already exists in Israel. Anyway, I don’t call for Jews and Palestinians to live in each other’s homes or to share their kids and be best friends and lovers. Maybe that will happen in some cases, but overall, I just want them to share institutions and have equal rights and access to the land. Here is very good example for a solution that takes into consideration both people’s national aspirations as well as their shared lands and histories: http://www.ap-agenda.org/
Also, the other really important point I want to make is that I actually take offence to you conflagration of the ideas of something being practical and something being ethical in your point 1. Aside from that fact that I don’t consider a two-state solution to be a solution at all, the more philosophical problem is that you are implicitly defending the right of the Jews to kick the Palestinian people off their land and steal 75% of their country. No “solution” that doesn’t take into physical consideration the theft of Palestinian land is not ethical in any way. As I said above, what is considered an act of justice is determined by the oppressed people, not the oppressors. And you implicitly seem to accept that Israel has the right to decide the fates of the Palestinian people in that you do not seem to allow them to have their land and properties back. And even if this two-state solution has a militarily peaceful outcome, it does not make for a just situation. Even to give us money or to finally admit that you caused our suffering is not enough. You can’t buy away the injustice when the “Jewish State” itself is an injustice. The only true compensation you could offer us is to end the Zionist project once and for all. Otherwise it is not serious and not an effort to make things fair and provide justice, but just an attempt to buy us off and keep us quiet.
Lastly, I will add that I never affirmed the notions of international law in anything I said. Personally, my belief in justice has nothing to do with international law. This thing we call “international law”, in my view, is just the worst form of the law of the jungle unless it is uniform and honest, it is just another means of coercion that the powerful countries force the hands of the weak. If there were an actual system of “international law” that was applied fairly and uniformly, then maybe I would consider it to be important or to be a source of legitimacy. But until then, I would not make my views dependent on what “international law” says. The best example is the right of return. It is a right whether it is in international law or not. That it is currently part of international law is nice, but it does not make it any more or less of a right then if it were not. In a world like ours, where the weak and poor are excluded and unrepresented in law and government, I cannot take “international law” seriously. Just because Israel is in the United Nations does not make at legitimate in my view. So, I don’t see you point in bring that up. On the other side, the birth of Israel and the subsequent ethnic cleansing and commensurate non-stop war crimes do not really support your claims that “Israel is a state recognized in law”. I might agree with you IF the refugees were allowed to return to their homes. But just because Israel is “recognized” by most nations does not mean they are legitimate. If anything, Israel is the country that believes in the law of the jungle, that it is ok to kill and expel anyone and do anything to get your way. International law, while nice to have its support, is not a deciding factor in legitimacy or justice.
Anyway, moral of my story is that I know you are probably more on the liberal side of the coin, but I don’t think that Israel has the right to exist. The only way that I will accept it in my mind is if it is shared by both the Palestinians and the Jews. Otherwise, the situation is just a continuation of the status quo. I picked the fight with you because I like picking fights. Anyway, I am curious to see your response now. I thank you for being willing to engage.
You like to pick fights, and I have a nasty habit of knocking chips off shoulders, so it works out.
1. I didn't mention a "Jewish state" because, unless the term is defined, these are two words without meaning. The concept of a Jewish state means many things to many people. To Avigdor Lieberman, it means an ethnically pure state. To Emmanuel Levinas, it means a state that affirms Jewish values whether or not Jews are in political control. To Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, it is an Iran-like state controlled by the laws of the Torah. To Yossi Beilin, it is a state that provides sanctuary for oppressed Jews and preserves Jewish culture with equal rights for minorities. So if I say "Israel has a right to be a Jewish state," that only begs the question of what kind of Jewish state it should be.
In case you're wondering, my personal conception of a Jewish state is a combination of Beilin's and Levinas'. I certainly don't believe that Jews are entitled to an ethnically pure state. Jews have the right to self-determination on the same terms as other nations; other nations have no right to ethnic purity, so neither do we. A Jewish state, or at least my conception of it, has the same obligations toward national minorities as other states.
My bottom line is that Israel has the right to be a state. Whether it is a Jewish state, and if so what kind, is a matter for discussion between its Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, of which I am not one.
2. It's funny that you cite Israel proper as a place where mutually hostile peoples "have not created any conflict," for two reasons. First, there is a conflict between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. For the most part, it has not been a conflict fought with guns and bombs, but that doesn't make it any less a conflict. The way Israel has treated its Arab minority is a disgrace; there has been improvement over the past decade but not nearly enough. And most of the Arab political leadership, for its part, is openly hostile to the state and isn't particularly interested in working toward partnership. This isn't the whole picture, and there are both Jews and Arabs who are fighting for coexistence and equality, but overall, Israel is not what I'd call a model of interethnic relations.
A single state in which Jews and Arabs got along as they do in Israel now wouldn't be a healthy state. If you want to imagine what it would be like, look at Trinidad, Guyana and Fiji. All three countries have mutually hostile populations at rough parity in number, and all three exist in a constant state of simmering conflict. There isn't much open warfare, but politics are highly racialized, and the conflict occasionally manifests itself in the form of coup attempts, riots and police massacres. And this is actually a best-case scenario for Israteen (to use Qaddafi's term); given the level of hostility between Jews and Palestinians, I'd expect the conflict level to be much worse.
Which leads to my second point: that there's one other historical example of Jews and Arabs living together within a single Palestinian entity. That example is the Mandate. I'm sure I don't have to rehearse for you the various riots, rebellions, massacres and battles that took place during this period, as well as its conclusion in fire and blood. The Mandate was Yugoslavia. If you think we can do better a second time, I'd argue that the burden of proof is on you given the historical track record.
To be honest, I have a certain wistful sympathy for the single-state solution. If there were a realistic way to do it while protecting the national rights and self-determination of both peoples, I might have a different opinion. I've read the AP-Agenda plan before and I respect the effort they've put into squaring that particular circle, but I don't think it provides enough protection and I don't think any single-state plan can.
But in any event, this kind of plan with all the constitutional bells and whistles only works if the political will is there and if the people on both sides want it. In the Israeli-Palestinian case, the fact that must be dealt with is that there's no will for such a solution on either side of the Green Line. There's no politically meaningful Palestinian constituency for the AP-Agenda or even for an ANC-like unitary program. A single state will institutionalize the conflict and freeze it in amber rather than ending it.
As to the practicality of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, I'll defer to the Rand Corporation, which concluded that such a state would be viable. The Rand report entitled "The Arc" makes interesting reading.
(BTW, I never said that it's impossible to have a state with cultural differences. What I said is that single states with mutually hostile cultural groups don't work very well. The mutual hostility, not the cultural difference, is the deciding factor.)
3. I appreciate your consistency with respect to international law. Most of the times I get into arguments like this, my Palestinian interlocutors try to have it both ways, asserting their rights under various UN resolutions but denying Israel's. Your position is a principled one and I respect the lack of hypocrisy.
Nevertheless, if your appeal is to abstract justice, then what is the framework in which justice is defined? It's not enough to say that justice is defined by the oppressed. Surely there must be some limits - if an oppressed people decided that justice mandated the genocide of their oppressors, would genocide then be just? Are you also arguing that "oppressors," as individual human beings, have no entitlement to justice?
We were an oppressed people once. Our definition of justice was a state in which we could protect ourselves. Are you willing to accept that, according to your formulation, we had the right to define justice in those terms and to achieve it? If not, then how can "justice" be distinguished from the subjective In order to be a meaningful concept, justice must exist within some kind of defined and universally applicable terms. Rights must have a source.
And although you take offense, I stand by my argument that the future takes precedence over the past, and that "justice" must be a forward rather than a backward-looking concept. Making peace among the living is far more important than vindicating the rights of the dead or punishing the guilty. The term for giving precedence to the past is "revanchism," and it doesn't lead anywhere good.
And for the record, I apply the same principle to Jewish claims. I have no patience with appeals to the Hebron massacre of 1929, for instance. The dead are dead, and peace among the living demands that Israel give up the city, even though (in your words) "our claim is literal and physical." Correcting the past injustice of the 1929 massacre requires too much future injustice, and the future has the better claim.
4. You seem to have acknowledged, at least for the sake of argument, that our claim is as good as yours. I don't know if you actually accept it, but you are at least willing to entertain the notion. If this is the case, then there are two equitable ways to resolve the competing claims: to share the land or divide it. Given that, in my estimation, a shared state would be a recipe for permanent conflict, that leaves division and mutual independence as the best way forward.
5. Now it's my turn to take offense at your description of post-Soviet olim as "some random Russians." That's how you see them, but we obviously don't think of them that way. To us, they are an integral part of the Jewish people, and the fact that they are from Russia is the least important thing about them. Just as a Palestinian living in Germany is not a "random German," Russian Jews are not "random" from the standpoint of Jewish peoplehood.
One thing that's often struck me about the I-P conflict, although it's off-topic to our current argument, is the degree of mutual denial among the respective parties. I've seen few other conflicts in which there is so much mutual denial, not of the other side's right to exist, but of the fact of its existence. This can be seen both among the Israeli rightists who deny the existence of a Palestinian people and the Palestinians who argue that Jews are "just a religion" rather than a nation. And I think this is a problem, because recognition of any group's legitimate rights must begin with recognition that it exists.
Anyway, I've gone on far too long. Thanks for the reasoned response, although I suspect our basic premises are too different for us ever to agree.
One more thing: You speak of opening the right of return "to include all people who can prove they have a historical legacy (whether religious or native) to the land." Again, there is more than one way to accomplish this.
One way is a single state with a right of return for both Jews and Palestinians. To be honest, though, your post is the first time I've ever seen a Palestinian propose this. Every other single-state proposal I've seen has involved creating a Palestinian right of return but negating the Jewish one. The reason for this, in my estimation, is what I said in point 5 above - that most Palestinians, even those willing to propose a one-state solution in good faith, don't recognize Jews as a people. To you, a Jew fleeing anti-semitism in Ukraine is a "random Ukrainian" with no relationship to a Jewish national homeland. I'd argue that this is further proof that a single state would institutionalize the conflict rather than ending it.
The second way to achieve mutual right of return is two states, one that is open to all Palestinians (including the places where Jews lived before 1948) and one that is open to all jews (including where Arabs lived before 1948). This obviously does not do perfect justice to the past but would be workable for the future.
The final way is to have two states, each with a right of return for both Jews and Palestinians. I would accept this. Yes, you heard me right - I'd be willing to accept a right of return for Palestinian refugees, as long as (1) they accept Israeli nationality and pledge to be loyal citizens; and (2) the Palestinian state accepts pre-1948 Jewish inhabitants on the same terms. I'm not a believer in demographic threats, and if Khalil Shikaki's surveys are right, this solution would be very manageable.
Funny, though, that your bottom-line reason for opposing a two-state solution is that it would perpetuate the status quo, while my bottom-line objection to the one-state solution is exactly the same. I guess we can at least agree that the status quo sucks.
To define what “justice” is overall is impossible. There are too many factors. But as a personal matter, in a case of violence or oppression, I believe that the oppressed are the only ones who can decide when a situation is just. It is by the fact that they were oppressed and suffer the injustice, it therefore becomes their views that are what matters when deciding if something is just, not that of the oppressor. The Jewish people have suffered oppression in their history. And leaving Europe seems to have been an effort to end some aspects of that injustice. But that is altogether different then the situation with the Palestinians. In the situation with the Europeans, it is the responsibility of the Jews to decide how they want to recognize the injustice and gain justice. But in the situation with the Palestinians, the views of the Palestinians are what matter. Obviously, ideally, the Jews would be able to find justice in their situation with the Europeans without causing injustice for any one else. The measure to decide whether something is just or not is not a uniform system like paying $X for each case, but it is dependent on the views of those who have been hurt to decide when they feel they are no longer oppressed. Without such, there is no justice. Even if the oppressor or the strong party is truly being generous and trying to make things better. Anyway, point being, I do not think there is one omnipresent form of justice and I am not religious enough of a person to believe that there needs to be one. But no person can claim that they have done a good thing just because they feel good about themselves. That is true arrogance.
Personally, I have nothing against the Jewish people except for my contempt for the State of Israel. That is why I don't care generally whether they live in Palestine or not. In this respect, my problem with the Jews is that they stole our land and have forced us to live in ghettos or across the world. Because of that, I believe that they have no right to the land itself. They have a right to see themselves as their own nation, that makes no difference to me. But if they see themselves as a nation that has the right to destroy the lives of other people, they are an evil nation. Even if I concede that the idea from which Israel was formed was a noble idea, the fact of the State of Israel is a giant catastrophe and a crime. Because of this, I will not accept Israel unless it gives up the idea of the Jews ownership of the land they stole. As I said, I am not concerned with the individual Jews, but with the State of Israel. For me, the reason I support the one-state solution is because it is the only solution that will end the exclusionary nature of Israel. This is the biggest crime committed by Israel, not only did it kick us out, but then it formally excluded us from the institutions that they built from our losses.
There is no doubt that the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship experiences countless shameful acts at the hands of the Jews. But, I contend that the vast majority of the problems between the two communities are the result of two issues: 1) A general racism against Arabs 2) the way the Jews treat the rest of the Palestinians. Obviously, the situation is no where near perfect, but for the Palestinians, at least being part of Isratine (yes, I like Qaddafi too) and having the institutions to solve those differences in the State gives them a chance for redress. The Palestinians are otherwise left with the scraps of your decisions. But, in respect to my points 1 and 2 above, I think the only way to address them is through a one-state plan. Without such a solution, those problems above would just be put off or ignored. Through a single state plan, the people of both nations would be forced to deal with each other and would share the same institutions and rules. There is no doubt that there would be hostility, but there would also be a means to create solutions. There would be shared responsibility to maintain the institutions and shared need to resolve the problems. Without such shared responsibilities, they would be left to fester and left to continue. I don't trust that a two-state solution would solve any of the underlying problems that exist between the Jews and the Palestinians, and that is why I don't trust it overall. Of course there will be problems, but the one-state provides the most comprehensive opportunity to actually bring peace, rather then just end the war (in the short-term).
Going backwards for a second, one of the ironies of your explanation of the two-state “solution” is that you refer to it as practical. But as I mentioned at the beginning of this argument, even the most “generous” proposals I have seen for a two-state solution (like the Geneva proposal) ask that the Palestinians accept the theft of the majority of their land and be content without basic rights like self-defense or territorial contiguity. As I said before, calling these things a solution makes the solution only practical for the Jews. They have not had to give up any of their national aspirations, yet we have been made to give up all of ours except in name. And it proves that it is acceptable to conquer another people and steal their land and resources... If this is accepted now, then I will personally believe in the Hamas position of waiting 500 or so years until the Arabs are strong enough to kick the Jews into the sea... If you actually want to solve the conflict once and for all, the one-state solution is the only possibility. To some degree, it destroys the “Jewish” nature of the state and makes Jews a minority, but well, that is just simple reality. There simply are not very many Jews in the world and they will always be a minority. In 20 years or so, they will be a minority in their own Jewish State, even without any refugees or the people in the WB and Gaza. With a single state, we are both forced to make compromise, yet we both also gain the maximum of our aspirations. To me, the down side is only a philosophical one, that neither of us can see ourselves as exclusive. But since we are living in a vibrant world that is actually a benefit overall, if not emotionally in the immediate term.
As for my reference to the “random Russian”, this is because, as I have been expressing, our claim is in reference to the land. It is hypocritical when I hear that Jews have claims to lands they lost in Arab countries, while denying Palestinian rights to Palestine (just as it is hypocritical for the Arabs to do the opposite). I have no problem with accepting that Jews deserve restitution for things they have lost in Arab lands, but not if they deny Palestinian claims to all but 6% (the Jewish 6%) of historic Palestine. So, my reference to the “random Russian” is a reference to the land. I don't really care whether a Jew in Ethiopia considers themselves a Jew or not. But in relation to the Palestinians, they are “random”. You can define yourself as you wish, as far as I am concerned. But the reality of the conflict is one over land for the Palestinians and over identity for the Jews. And that is why you get this disconnect. To me, it is extremely hard to accept that someone's identity is based on a land that they are not from (as with the “random Russian”). When you define yourself to include our land, that is when you get conflict. That is how our nationalism was born, we were being told we were non-existent because you didn't have room for us in your ideas of yourselves.
Again though, back to the two-state solution, I don't understand how you justify Israel's right to exist on stolen land. And it is something you did not address in your last few posts. This is, being that I do not deny the idea of a Jewish nation overall, but do deny the physical manifestation of it. How do you square that?
As for the APA solution, I think they have done a good job of “squaring that particular circle” of protecting rights while allowing for a fair amount of independence. And this is what you seem to not to understand. When you ask that the Palestinians give up their rights and accept the two-state solution, you are asking for us to accept that we only have rights to 20% of our land. So, by definition, the two-state solution does not protect our rights at all. But by giving the Jews 80% of the land, it does protect Jewish gains, which are totally illegitimate and criminal. So your dismissal of the one-state solution is a dismissal because you are not protected enough, but at a cost to us. This has been my point the whole time. You are the oppressors, you have no right to any of the 95% or so of the land that you have stolen over the years. But you want us to accept this because it has happened. I will not. I might be forced to accept it physically, but I will not do it emotionally. And again, that is what the two-state solution does not address. But that is the most important thing for the Palestinians. I agree with you that we both dislike the status quo. But peace more then simply the absence of war. A two-state solution might create the absence of war, but equally that could be achieved by killing all the Palestinians or by kicking us all to Jordan or something thusly unjust. It would not be peace though. This seems to me to be an amazing arrogance by the Jews. Much like the French in Algeria, thinking that the problem is the Arab people because they don't understand that Algeria is part of France. Until the Jews realize that they are colonizing in the same way, and show some humility and accept that they do not have a right to do it, only then will there be a solution. A two-state solution is not humility, but acting as though the situation is a fait accompli. And that is an injustice in itself. Jews have the power to do a “convergence” plan and decide things on their own, but they don't have the right. If you want us to respect your national aspirations, you should do the same for ours. And again, the only way for us both to do that is with a plan like the APA's or Qaddafi's.
Look, I understand that you see yourself as trying to be fair and considering that you are offering a lot to the Palestinians, but my point is that you don't even have the right to offer anything. This 75% of the land that you sit on are still ours, even if not physically. And you have to accept that that will always be true. And so, the only act of justice will be for the Jews to see that they can no longer exclude us for our land. Not only is in an injustice, it is also not “practical” (except for you, because you have the power to make it so). But in reality, the health of your people is dependent on the justice experienced by ours. And Israel being exclusive in your favor and against ours will never be practical, even if it can be forced to exist for a few years here and there.
Is your lack of a response because you have no answer to the fact that Israel is on stolen land? or maybe you are just tired of the discussion...
Mostly, it's that I think we hit a point where all our fundamental disagreements have been discussed. We're arguing from completely different premises and there didn't seem to be much left to say.
As I implied in my initial answer to you, though, I don't think the question of stolen land really has to be answered in the "legitimacy" terms in which you phrase it. A good third of the world lives on land that was stolen in recent history - not only the New World countries and Australasia but much of Europe and Russia as well - and much of the rest lives within borders that have been "adjusted" within living memory by means of war, ethnic cleansing, massacre and outright genocide. Presumably, your notion of "legitimacy" would require all the inhabitants of these countries to move back where they came from, which in most cases was itself stolen land.
The idea that there is an original sin of nations, and that only states that are created in a morally correct manner are "legitimate," is risible in light of the recent history of the world. If that were so, then I doubt that more than five countries have the right to exist, certainly not more than ten. What do you propose the Australians, Brazilians and Russians do with themselves?
Again, this isn't to say that the crimes of the past can be ignored. Such crimes, in Israel and everywhere else, create a moral obligation to make amends. But they don't constitute an original sin, although I realize you see things differently.
Good luck, and I hope you have a life of health and peace.
One more thing. If, as you seem to be arguing, the crimes of a nation make it criminal forever and the suffering of a nation makes it a victim forever, then all of us are both victims and villains. All of us - even Palestinians - are the beneficiaries of our ancestors' crimes. All of our ancestors have suffered from the crimes of others. We have all had our fates determined by others at some point. That isn't generally understood to confer the right to dismantle the nations that have harmed us - ask any European, for instance, whether Jews have a natural right to take over Germany or Russia. In order for you to have such a right vis-a-vis Israel, then Palestinian suffering and Israeli villainy must be unique in history, neither of which is remotely the case.
I apologize if I'm being offensive here (or "hard-line" as you said in an earlier comment), but I'm trying to get across just how absurd the whole concept of "legitimacy" of nations appears to me. It's as absurd as arguing (as some do) that Palestinians are somehow "illegitimate" or "undeserving of statehood" because of terrorism. There are no guilty and innocent peoples, there is no original sin of nations, there are no saved and damned. The right to exist does not have to be earned: it simply is.
Again, I wish you peace and health. I do mean that, in spite of anything you or I may have said here.
you are misunderstanding my view on "legitimacy". Though I do believe that Israel is an illegitimate state, I would consider it legitimate if Palestinians were given citizenship in Israel (a mutual "law of return", for example). My problem is with the manner of the state, not the idea that the state itself exists, or with Jews living in Palestine. If my view was that Israel could never be legitimate, then I would not advocate a one-state solution, but would simply want to kick the Jews into the sea. nothing else would do.
The reason I think the one-state solution is acceptable, and indeed a just act, is because I do recognize the Jewish desire for a homeland and their consistent historical suffering. I do not claim that history is endless nor do i claim that it forms a strait line that can not be bent.
But, I am sickened by the irony of the Jews' national and religious aspirations being a reason for exclusion of the national (and religious) aspirations of the Palestinians. Israel is illegitimate in my view because it an ideology, not because it is a location. It is not simply a historical occurrence, it is a philosophical one. I can deal with the historical one, but not the philosophical one. And this is especially important because the historical occurrence has not yet been settled, while the philosophical one hardens. Israel is philosophically illegitimate because Zionism was/is an appeal for justice but was extremely unjust in its application, to deny the historical rights of one people in favor of the historical rights of another.
What you don't seem to recognize is that the Palestinian situation is not solved. You seem to see no connection between Jewish lives in Haifa and Palestinian lives in the Lebanese camps. To me, there are absolutely connected. Until the situation of the Palestinians is solved justly, the Jews have no right to claim that things are settled. The physical injustice of the stolen land, combined with the continued injustices of displacement and occupation make the philosophical issues all the more important. If the occupation and the displacement issues were solved (say, the USA gave all Palestinian refugees citizenship, Israel recognized its responsibility for the crimes, and Israel paid billions in compensation), I would be much less angry and potentially willing to “recognize” Israel. But those things have not happened.
Further, one thing that would really clear things up for me is that I wonder whether you even acknowledge that the vast majority of Jews in Israel live on stolen land.
And, the last point I will make now is that the vast majority of Jews who came to Israel were not directly under threat. Even today, for example, Sharon and Olmert call for Jews in France to come to Israel. Other examples abound. These cases are often (mostly, I think) the result of incongruant historical claims like the ones you are trying to deny me the right to hold. On a daily basis Russian Jews are moving to Israel by the thousands, yet Russia is not radically hostile to Jews today. In large part this migration is because of a historical view as Russia as a hostile place. This is just an example, and I am not trying to fight you on the details. But, this is a right you seek to deny Palestinians by arguing as you have about “whether Jews have a natural right to take over Germany or Russia.”. You deny the Palestinians the right to go to a place they feel to be their home. The Palestinians have the exact same philosophical claim to Israel as the Jews did for thousands of years. So, please realize that.
And again, those are my reasons for wanting a single state. Because it is the only way to actually solve the problems made by the creation of Israel. You seek to placate them with a two-state solution. I do not think that will fix anything in the long-run, even if it creates a temporary peace. I actually do not think that we are very far from each other on these issues. You even said you would agree to the right of return. I just feel that you expect more justice for Jews then you are willing to allow for Palestinians. I guess, you see your claims as a reason to empower Jews, while you see ours are a fait accompli. I thank you for your time discussing this important issue.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home