Holding Israel Accountable
May 24th, 2011 | 16 responses
And the volcanic lava flow that erupted in response to Pres. Obama’s outrageous assertion that Israel does not have the right to permanently annex the Palestinian land that it has illegally occupied since seizing it in the 1967 Six-Day War, continues, via the Wall Street Journal (emphasis is mine):
Mr. Obama got some applause Sunday by calling for a “non-militarized” Palestinian state. But how does that square with his comment, presumably applicable to a future Palestine, that “every state has a right to self-defense”? Mr. Obama was also cheered for his references to Israel as a “Jewish state.” But why then obfuscate on the question of Palestinian refugees, whose political purpose over 63 years has been to destroy Israel as a Jewish state?And then there was that line that “we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric.” Applause! But can Mr. Obama offer a single example of having done that as president, except perhaps at the level of a State Department press release?
What, then, would a pro-Israel president do? He would tell Palestinians that there is no right of return. He would make the reform of the Arab mindset toward Israel the centerpiece of his peace efforts. He would outline hard and specific consequences should Hamas join the government.
Such a vision could lay the groundwork for peace. What Mr. Obama offered is a formula for war, one that he will pursue in a second term. Assuming, of course, that he gets one.
Wow. What a steaming hunk of junk. Let me count some of the ways, with reference to those lines I have bolded.
- The WSJ objects to the concept of a future Palestinian state having the same right to self-defense that every and any other sovereign state has. But this is only a problem if Israel plans to aggressively invade a future Palestinian state, thus forcing such a state to defend itself. Is the WSJ suggesting that this is what Israel will do, or should do?
- The WSJ says that a pro-Israel president would take the same hard line toward Palestinian aspirations that every president since 1948 has taken. And this would “lay the groundwork for peace” — how? Has that approach led to peace in the past 60 years?
- I am truly fascinated by the WSJ‘s belief that the “Arab mindset toward Israel” can be “reformed” by telling Palestinians “there is no right of return” and ordering them to choose the leaders that Israel wants them to choose. How do they envision this outcome unfolding? Palestinians are going to meekly accept and agree to Israel’s demands because Israel is the boss and that is just fine? Why would they do that? Would Israel do that, in reverse?
Here is another point of view, from Maen Rashid Areikat, who “is the Palestine Liberation Organization ambassador and chief representative to the United States.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accepted House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday. The speaker says his invitation is a chance to promote freedom, security and peace in the Middle East.
We Palestinians cannot agree more, for it is Israel’s denial of our freedom that prevents us from exercising our right to live in peace and security with our neighbors.
But, unfortunately, Palestinian freedom is not likely to be on the Israeli leader’s mind when he addresses Congress. Instead, he will probably avoid dealing with the core issues of Palestinian statehood on the 1967 borders and the end of the Israeli military occupation.
He is far more likely to defend illegal settlements now being built on Palestinian lands in defiance of the U.S. and the international community. An articulate speaker, the prime minister may well distract his listeners by talking about threats — imaginary and real — that Israel is facing. He may well insist that the significant changes sweeping the Middle East are not related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and, therefore, do not warrant a push to end the conflict.
In addition, he will most likely use the recent Palestinian reconciliation agreement as a pretext for his refusal to engage with the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s speech is sure to be aimed at influencing U.S. domestic politics — not making peace with the Palestinians.
[...]
But the U.S. has principles that must be protected and preserved. These principles of justice, liberty and freedom, the foundation the United States was built on, must be Congress’s guiding light in helping President Barack Obama and his administration bring peace, stability and security for all people in the region.Congress has a moral responsibility to defend oppressed peoples in a collective, not selective, manner. The Palestinian people’s desire for freedom and independence does not contradict Israel’s quest for security. Actually, the former complements the latter. Israel’s security and prosperity are best guaranteed if peace is reached with the Palestinians.
Israeli actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and policies of changing the geography and demographics there show that Israel is in the business of prolonging the occupation, not ending it. Preserving the unsustainable status quo is disastrous for all parties. Subjugating more than 4 million Palestinians by force is a blatant violation of international law and human rights. Obama and other U.S. officials have clearly stated that ending the conflict and establishing a Palestinian state are in the interest of U.S. national security.
In 1988, the Palestinian leadership accepted the two-state solution and unequivocally recognized the state of Israel. The future Palestinian state will be in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem — approximately 22 percent of historic Palestine. In 2002, the PLO endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative, which calls for the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Arab lands in return for normal relations with Israel and a just resolution to the Palestinian refugee problem.
[...]
The recent Palestinian national reconciliation is an opportunity to advance peace in the region. Divided Palestinians cannot sign a peace agreement with Israel to end the conflict. Israel has, in the past, exploited Palestinian divisions as a pretext not to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians.Today, Israel is using Palestinian unity as a reason not to move forward. U.S. support of the Palestinians has both moral and strategic dimensions: It enables the Palestinians to build and improve their capacities and become independent. It also serves U.S. national interests in the region.
The Palestinians expect Congress to adopt an evenhanded approach to dealing with them. Listening to both Israelis and Palestinians is the key to a balanced position. Taking Israeli positions at face value — and disregarding Palestinian viewpoints — can seriously hurt U.S. credibility and its international role.
How can members of Congress formulate their positions if they refuse to meet with Palestinian representatives? How can Congress contribute to peace in the region if lawmakers do not have information from both sides?
Josh Marshall has an excellent editorial at Talking Points Memo on all of this (emphasis is mine):
Just as no man is an island, no country can be either. On its present course Israel is on its way to becoming a pariah state, a status in which it cannot indefinitely or even perhaps long survive. Neither the fact that Israel faces a profound cultural animosity among the region’s Arab populations nor the bad faith that often greets its actions nor even the anti-Semitism that is sometimes beneath the animus changes this essential fact. The make-up of the 21st century world is simply not compatible with a perpetual military occupation of another people, especially one that crosses a boundary of ethnicity and religion. Only the willfully oblivious can’t see that.
I’ve had so many conversations with American and Israeli hardliners who say essentially, why give up this land as long as the Palestinians won’t do this or that thing? Such folly. As though the settlements of the West Bank were a thing of great value as opposed to a lethal threat. …
Netanyahu believes that US power is forever and that the US political consensus to support Israel in almost any policy choice it makes will never change. So he can simply ignore the currents of history and international affairs and thumb his nose at every other country in the world. But neither is true
[...]
The occupation itself represents the true existential threat to Israel. Most who don’t have a profound and over-riding ideological commitment to maintaining a state in all of historic Palestine get this. That’s why even someone like Tzipi Livni, a former member of the Likud and someone from a Revisionist family, realized that partition is the only viable path forward.
16 Responses to “Holding Israel Accountable”
This is flip side of my response to Shaun Mullen. I think what Obama has done (wrt settlements and using 1967 borders as a starting point) is reasonable. However, in this case I have to disagree with the article. You aren’t going to promote a fair peace without addressing security.
The fact is that if Israel wants to hang on to the West Bank, they are far better off not withdrawing from them in the first place (it makes no sense to give them up only to retake them). On the other hand, the destruction of Israel is something that many in the Palestinian and Arab world have never given up. Add to this the fact that on area they withdrew from, Gaza, is now a base for groups that advocate Israels destruction and to use to launch attacks from.
So if you believe that the way to peace is for Israel to trade land for security, you have to accept that Israel is going to expect that they will actually get the security they are trading for. To dismiss their concerns about giving up the West Bank just so it can be used to work for Israel’s destruction has the same negative effect as dismissing the withdrawals they have already made as “almost nothing”. It sends a message to Israel that, in the end, even if they withdraw nothing will change.
David, the point is that it’s incorrect to say that peace will never come unless Israel’s security concerns are addressed, because Israel’s security is not in danger except by the occupation itself, and is not the reason Israel refuses to withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank.
As I have written here just recently, and as others have pointed out too, Israel has been engaged in a conscious, deliberate, planned strategy of annexing Gaza and the West Bank from the very begiinning, from 1967, by building “facts on the ground” (aka Jewish settlements), and by making everyday life so intolerable for Palestinians that they will leave in large enough numbers to enable Israel to just annex the Occupied Territories with no further muss or fuss.
It should not even be a choice for Israel to withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank or to use their military occupation as a bargaining chip. They have no legal right to be there. Israel has been violating international law for the past 40-plus years by maintaining that military occupation in violation of UN Resolution 242. THAT is the cause of Palestinian violence. THAT is the major reason why there is no peace and why Israel remains insecure.
Kathy
I make no claims to be highly intelligent as I am sure a lot of you feel you are but from observation it appears to me as though each time Israel makes concessions, they are thanked by having a bunch of missiles rained down on their heads. Perhaps that is just hearsay passed on by the liberal news media.
davidsummers – If Israel wants to hang on to the West Bank why don’t they annex it. Do what every other country does when it gains new territory – give citizenship to the residents of the annexed land. If their security is so important and the Palestinians so menacing -take it over lock stock and barrel.
You know the answer, Israel wants the land but not the people. Its doing everything it can to make their lives so miserable they will leave. The security angle is pure B.S. Israel is so dominant that no one, individually or collectively, in the Mideast is a military threat.
sararuss – Yes when Israel withdrew from Gaza they got missiles in return. There are a couple of reasons. When Hamas won the Palestinian election, Israel and the US did everything they could to undermine Hamas rather than let them govern. The US and Israel supplied Muhammad Dahlan with weapons to invade Gaza and overthrow Hamas – it failed miserably.
Hamas considered this an act of war and and has continued to fight. In addition, Hamas is still fighting the occupation, both in Gaza and the West Bank. A good analogy is if the Chinese occupied the West Coast of America and then they left Portland, Oregon would the Americans still fight the Chinese?
Don’t fall for the hasbara that Israel is always the good guys and Palestinians the bad guys. Just ask the British if they think Begin and Shamir were good guys. As I indicated on TMV before my grandfather was a terrorist. He killed numerous Brits as well as arabs. He was present with Begin at Deir Yassin when Jews lined up villagers, men women and children and killed every one of them. That was more than even my terrorist grandfather could stomach.
Both sides are going to need some accountability. If Israel gives back the land and returns to something approaching 1967 borders, Palestine is a nation again, what accountability will the Palestinians have that Israel not feel like they will be attacked again. After enduring 3 coalitions of its neighbors attacking it in the past I think that is a reasonable paranoia for Israel to be carrying around.
Israel should want peace, and I think they know they won’t get it until the Palestinians have a nation of their own again. But seriously, I really don’t think the Palestinians every really apologized for going to war in the first place.
Neither did Israel apologize for killing and/or dispossessing tens of thousands of Palestinians in 1948, or for keeping them subjugated under military occupation for 40 years and counting.
Why should they? They never went to war with anybody…
Well, I guess that is where we disagree. I think Israel is quite justified in believing that rockets and suicide bombers show that isn’t true and in believing that the breathing room you would give groups like Hamas will only make them more effective.
However, I doubt we will get much of anywhere on that so let me ask you, out of curiosity, what more “withdrawing” do you want Israel to do from Gaza? Hamas controls the territory and even if a blockade where the same as occupation, that is pretty much been ended by Egypt.
Well, seem to be so sure what I know. I happen to think the reason they don’t annex it is that they aren’t the evil conquerors that you would have me see them as.
Of course we can all repeat the same list of points that have been covered a million times before. I will just note that if I’m right, the addressing real concerns that Israel has will help promote peace. If you are right, then Israel won’t stop being evil until they are defeated militarily, in which case you haven’t lost anything by, for example, offers like the one that the article attacks.
“But seriously, I really don’t think the Palestinians every really apologized for going to war in the first place.”
slamfu – I thought I explained that the Palestinians did not go to war with Israel – it was Egypt, Syria and Jordan. They were caught in the middle. When Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel, they were not required to apologize.
Similarly, when Israel, France and Britain invaded Egypt in 1956 and killed many people because the Suez Canal was nationalized no one apologized. Eisenhower, just told the three aggressive parties to leave Egypt or there would be Hell to pay.
David – Here in a nutshell is Netanyahu’s offer – Israel will annex almost all of Area C which is 60% of the West Bank. This will leave Jenin as an isolated City/State. Similarly, the annexation produces isolated city/states for Nablus, Jericho, Bethlehem, and Hebron. Israel will control everything and everyone entering or exiting those city/states. Palestinians would need Israeli permission to do everything except going to their corner store.
Israelis call these Palestinian reservations. In their opinion if it was good enough for Native Americans it’s good enough for the Palestinians.
No the reason is that if Israel annexed the West Bank and Gaza, Jews would be a minority in Israel…
And in a Democratic country, the majority rules…
Now, if Americans really wanted peace in the Middle East, there is a simple solution:
Automatic Green Cards, one way Airplane tickets to the US and 150k per person (US Citizenship after five years and Automatic US Citizenship to their children) to all Palestinian living in Gaza, in the West Bank and in the various Refugee camps in the Middle East in exchange for giving up all claims to lands or a right of return to Greater Israel…
DQ – I know you were trying to be “tongue in cheek” with this proposal but just for starters whose is going to cough up the $2.3 trillion plus to make this happen.
On a more serious note most Palestinians would reject a compensated move. If you talk with Palestinians – this is HOME. Some of them have family presence on land tracking back 500 years. Some arab villages have existed for many thousands of years – think of Jericho which has been continuously inhabited for 9,000 years.
In the case of my own family I don’t know if we EVER originated in Israel. As far back as I can go is to Romania. Yet when I moved to Israel in 1980 I was immediately granted citizenship. My housekeeper/nanny that I shared with my sister Rachel had lived in Haifa but left during the War of Independence. She returned in 1953 as a non resident alien but her family home of 400 years was declared abandoned property and given to a Jewish man forcing her to pay rent.
Over 1,000,000 Russians came to Israel many with extremely tenuous roots in Judaism. They constitute about 20% of the Jewish population of Israel. The Palestinians ask themselves how are their rights to land more important than ours. The attachment to land is as critical to arabs as it is to Jews.
BTW all the crap raised about Obama saying the 67 borders with swaps was posturing by Netanyahu. Here is the text of a joint statement put out by Netanyahu and Clinton 6 months ago about what borders should be negotiated. Here is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Link.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Joint_statement_PM_Netanyahu_US_Sec_Clinton_11-Nov-2010.htm
jdledell ,
While I am being mildly “tongue in cheek” with this proposal, I think that it deserves serious consideration…
Personally I would rather pay the Jews to move to the US, but that would never fly (Too many evangelicals eagerly awaiting the second coming which you can’t have without an Israel), so I go for the next best thing, moving the Palestinian Population to the US and granting them citizenship and all the rights & privileges that go with it…
It would be cheaper in the long run to move 10 to 15 million Palestinians to the US for the small cost of a couple of trillions than to have one if not two full blown genocides on our hands in the Middle East (which IMHO is where we are headed)…
All this moving talk, sorta sounds like the “favors” we did for our own American Indians.
Make no mistake, they were screwed, blued and tatooed.