Israel, Gaza and the Left

I’m not quite sure what the author means when he says the “left.” Is there a distinct group out there that can be identified who share the same practice of using “hostile rhetorical assaults” to criticize Israel? Is he referring to select individuals who personify “left” leaning positions?

I find that in general the “left,” if we are to assume that the left consist of people who oppose Israel’s military occupation and settlement expansion, want to see a more just solution rather than a biased position favoring those in power, namely Israel and the U.S.

The question isn’t just whether or not the left has become desensitized to the history of Jewish suffering. The question is what has enabled Israel to become so desensitized to the suffering of Palestinians to inflict such intensive harm militarily, and economically, considering their own history of suffering?

If the latter question is posed with a tone of frustration then I would hesitate to say that these types of questions can be classified as “rhetorically hostile.”

Posted by Epistrophy on Feb 22, 2009 at 5:54 AM

Strange article…

Posted by sameasuid on Feb 22, 2009 at 10:40 PM

Ken Brociner takes it to be a “fact that the current Israeli government has demonstrated a clear desire to reach a two-state settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” He offers no argument in support of this alleged “fact”.

It is not a fact.  One Israeli government after another - Labor, Likud, or Kadima - has acted to stop a viable Palestinian state.  Israel’s policy used to be openly based on “The Three No’s: No to a Palestinian State, No to a return to the 1967 borders, and No to negotiations with the PLO”. Nowadays, they sometimes give verbal assent to a Palestinian state, while sabotaging it in practice.  It was the Labor Party that began the policy of building Jews-only settlements on the West Bank, whose purpose is to prevent the stolen land from ever being returned to the Palestinians. Many of the West Bank settlers are fanatics, they have a lot of clout within Israeli politics, and they have been encouraged (and subsidized) by one Israeli government after another.

The two-state solution has been endorsed by the Palestinians, by the Arab League, and by every important country on Earth, except two: Israel and the US. Israel has rejected a Palestinian state, and the US has supported Israel. That’s why, in the 16 years (!!) since the Oslo “Declaration of Principles”, no progress has been made towards a Palestinian state. While the “peace process” has produced nothing, the growing network of Jews-only West Bank settlements have rendered a viable Palestinian state more and more unlikely.

Why is the left hostile to Israeli policy? Because Israel is a racist regime that is ethnically cleansing the native Palestinians. In 1948, Israel destroyed Palestinian society and turned about 2/3 of the Palestinians into refugees. Israeli politicians including Livni and Avigdor Lieberman are threatening to expel the remaining Palestinians (who are second-class Israeli citizens) from Israel proper.
The left is quite critical of Israeli policy because the left is against racism and ethnic cleansing. Does Brociner disagree?

The situation is grim, but there are some grounds for optimism. The recent Israeli aggression against Gaza and massacre of over a thousand people has opened the eyes of many people who previously remained silent. A minority of Israeli Jews opposed the Gaza massacre, and their voices are increasingly heard on the American left:  Uri Avnery and Amira Haas, for example.

The Israel Lobby has started to lose control over the debate, at least outside the Beltway.  Earlier in February, over 1000 American Jews demonstrated in New York against Israel’s attack on Gaza.[1] More American Jews are speaking out in opposition to Israeli policy. For example Michael Ratner, head of the Center for Constitutional Rights, recently wrote “For too long, and I do not exempt myself, most of us have stood silently by or made only a marginal protests about the massive violations of Palestinian rights carried out by Israel.” [2] Jacques Hersh has spoken optimistically of a “Jewish Glasnost”. [3]

Not everybody is in favor of Glasnost, of course. Brociner’s article is an attempt to replace “shrill and hostile rhetorical assaults against the State of Israel” with a “balanced approach,” which is “balanced” between oppressor and oppressed. 
It’s a good thing that Brociner wasn’t in charge of ITT"s coverage of South Africa during the anti-apartheid struggle.

[1] http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/photo-essay-new-york-jews-take-to-the-streets-in-support-of-gaza/
[2] http://michaelratner.com/blog/?p=40
[3] Jacques Hersh: http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/hersh220209.html

Posted by Nevada_Ned on Feb 23, 2009 at 12:04 AM

I agree with Ken Brociner. Israeli governments can be fairly criticized for not doing enough to ensure a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. But this conflict is a two-way street.

None of us should ignore how Hamas and other terrorist attacks on Israeli civlians over the years—even after Israel withdrew from most West Bank population centers early in ‘96 and enirely from Gaza in 2005—have undermined Israeli good will and reversed political support among Israeli voters for further dovish moves. 

The point of a constructive left-wing position on this issue would be to examine how bad faith and extremism among both Israelis and Palestinians have undermined the best interests of both sides for peaceful coexistence, and how such pernicious trends can be reversed.

Posted by rseliger on Feb 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM

Personally, I think that Hamas, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the rest are fascists who want to turn back the clock to the Dark Ages—to a past that never was.  I don’t think of them as liberation movements in the progressive sense, no more than the fascists who took over Iran after the 1979 revolution.  Nor can I ever imagine them being sane and rational negotiating partners, or even able to understand the concepts of negotiation and compromise at all.

That said, I have always agreed that the Palestinian Arabs have a moral right to their own country, while recognizing that every attempt to partition this small area into a Jewish and Arab state since the 1920s has failed completely.  I’m not the person who is thoroughly sick of hearing about this whole issue.

I agree that the Jews have a right to a state of their own, as a refuge for their people from a world that has often been extremely hostile.  They tend to get blamed for everything that goes wrong in the world, and no matter how absurd the charges, there has never been any shortage of people who found it easy to blame the Jews for their misery.

That said, i attach no religious significance to Israel, Jerusalem or anything like that, no more than I believe that Moses really wrote the first five books of the Bible (after his death!) or that Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water and died for everyone’s sins.  those are just all ancient myths and legends, like all organized religion—or like calling the West Bank ancient Judea and Samaria, without even bother to consult the ancient maps which show that it is nothing of the kind.

Michael C. McHugh

Posted by mcmchugh99 on Feb 23, 2009 at 7:12 AM

PS I consider myself part of the social democratic left, broadly speaking, but have zero interest in following any party line or joining any particular clique or faction.  I do my own reading and thinking, and can only advise everyone else to do the same.  I’m also just not all that sociable by nature….

Posted by mcmchugh99 on Feb 23, 2009 at 7:16 AM

Ken Brociner has a point but he forgets two key facts:

1.  Israel has continually taken chunks of Palestine for its settlements, taking so much land over so long a time that it casts doubt on Israel’s good faith in negotiating.  Since the issue is land, the settlements are central

Put the case the other way:  what would Israel do if the Arabs continually and systematically took over chunks of Israel?  It would not be pretty.

2.  How many jet planes, tanks, troops, A-bombs do the Arabs have?  Again reverse the situation:  suppose the Arabs had troops and weapons and the Jews had only home made rockets.  How then would we all feel?

Posted by cleareyed on Feb 23, 2009 at 8:24 AM

It is not a fact.  One Israeli government after another - Labor, Likud, or Kadima - has acted to stop a viable Palestinian state

Riiight, I’ll try to reason

Posted by jaguars3 on Feb 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Jaguars3,

Your repeating of Faux News’ Israeli “talking points” rather than objective facts undermines your credibility.  The Israelis have claimed that the Palestinians rejected a “generous offer” put forward by Barak in 2000, with Israel keeping only 5 percent of the West Bank.  “The fact is that no such offers were ever made.”  See, Jimmy Carter, “Peace Not Apartheid,” p. 152.  What was offered was such a honeycombed tangle that “there was no possibility that any Palestinian leader could accept such terms and survive.” p. 152.

For example, there were 225,000 “settlers” in the West Bank and Gaza in the year 2000.  The best offer to the Palestinians, by Clinton, NOT Barak, had been to withdraw 20 percent of the settlers, leaving more than 180,000, in 209 settlements, covering about 10 percent of the occupied land (the other Israeli talking point about giving back “90 percent” of West Bank - the percentages keep changing).  But even this percentage figure is misleading, since it usually includes only the actual footprint of the settlement.  There is a zone with a radius of about 400 meters around each settlement within which Palestinians cannot enter. 

In addition, there are other large areas that would have been taken or earmarked to be used exlusively by Israel, roadways that connect the settlements to one another and to Jerusalem, and “life arteries” that provide the settlers with water, sewage, electricity and communications.  These range in width from 500 to 4000 meters and Palestinians cannot use or cross many of these connecting links.

In addition, about 100 military checkpoints completely surround Palestine and block routes going into or between Palestinian communities, combined with an unaccountable number of other roads that are permanently closed with large concrete cubes and other barriers.

In essence, this honeycomb of settlements and their interconnecting conduits effectively divided the West Bank into at least 2 noncontiguous areas with multiple fragments, often uninhabitable or even unreachable.  See Carter, Peace Not Apartheid, at 151. 

Palestinians don’t need an “excuse,” as you so ineloquently demand, for why they rejected this “grand bargain.”  These Israeli “talking points” are at best misleading, and at worst, outright lies designed to further the occupation, by providing a caricature of the “irrational” Palestinian- Arab as someone who simply cannot be negotiated with.

Posted by Imran on Feb 23, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Sure there Im,

From that ultra conservative bastion of thought wikipedia…‘Clinton, who promised Arafat that no one would be blamed if the talks failed, did, in fact, blame Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, “I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace.” [4] According to The Oslo Syndrome, “most of the European states followed Clinton in seeing the Israeli offers as very forthcoming and placing the onus for the summits’s failure on Arafat .... Nor did [Arafat’s] regime’s post-Camp David complaints regarding Israel’s not recognizing the Palestinian refugees’ ‘right of return’ win over the Europeans or Americans.”[11] The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[12][11][13] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.[5]

Now, I wasn’t there, nor were you and nor was Jimmy Carter.  And let’s be serious, I really don’t think Jimmy Carter can be counted out as someone who would give an objective analysis on Israeli-Palestinian relations.  But this, ” These Israeli

Posted by jaguars3 on Feb 23, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Jaguars3,

So let me see if I’ve got this right.  Let’s not look at the details of the deal actually offered and judge for ourselves.  Instead, let’s rely on others’ apportioning of blame, preferably only on those who found Arafat at fault (while ignoring those who blamed the Israelis and President Clinton—like Clayton Swisher’s rebuttal in YOUR OWN wikipedia citation above, which can be accurately summarized as “there was plenty of blame to go around,” and as well as the article by Norman Finkelstein that pointed out that all the concessions had come from the Palestinians and NONE from the Israelis).  Compromise, indeed.  Hmmm, I see now, it was all Arafat’s fault! 

It is recognized by nearly everyone that President Clinton desperately wanted a resolution to the Middle East crisis in his last days in office, and many believe that this desire and timetable outweighed any objective assessment of the actual realities of the deal for the Palestinians.  All that mattered to him, and to some others, was that a Palestinian entity would come into being, any entity, regardless of whether it would actually be viable one, or whether it would be a just solution to the problem.  It was this disappointment that was reflected in his quote, not that some “grand bargain” was being passed up by an irrational Palestinian actor.

As for your criticism of Jimmy Carter as someone who might not give “an objective anaylsis,” I encourage readers to go to your wikepedia citation, pasted below for everyone’s convenience, to see the people who are listed as blaming Arafat, people such as Alan Dershowitz, outspoken supporter of Israeli attrocities and a “hawk,”  and Dennis Ross, former AIPAC member.  While we could descend to looking at the biases of people who assessed blame, we could look instead at the deal itself and judge for ourselves, and the “deal” speaks for itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit#cite_note-15

Posted by Imran on Feb 23, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Ken, perhaps certain comments have been unbalanced. Israel, however, has been in control of the conflict for a long time and it hasn’t done well with it. Had Gaza not been blockaded, Hamas likely wouldn’t have launched the rockets and Israel just strengthened Hamas by its actions. Also, while I recognize, as a Jew, that a major impetus for founding Israel was the Holocaust, another major impetus was colonialism. Israel’s controlling founders never planned for the equal inclusion of indigenous Palestinians and we are seeing the consequences of that decision now. During a visit to the West Bank in 1984, I heard a fanatic vow to expand Israel to Damascus and throw out every Palestinian she found along the way. While I can see (perhaps) the need for a Jewish homeland, it should never have come about at the expense of another people. We can’t be free if others are in chains.

Posted by mimsky on Feb 23, 2009 at 6:45 PM

There are fanatics on all sides. I’ve never heard of any advocating Israel’s expansion to Damascus, but it proves nothing about Israeli policy that mimsky heard such a notion in 1984.

The blockade of Gaza has been overly harsh, but Hamas rocket attacks preceded its election in 2006 and the onset of the blockade. And I agree that the Jewish homeland “should never have come about at the expense of another people.” Yet the Palestinian leadership chose to reject the UN parition plan for two states in Palestine and to engage in a war against the Jewish community in late 1947 into early 1948. Sadly for the Palestinians, the Jews had more military experience and better organization and leadership. They started a war that they could not successfully finish.

Posted by rseliger on Feb 23, 2009 at 8:59 PM

The negative portrayal of the Palestinian rejection of the UN dictated partition “agreement” is an oft-repeated myth.  Like the earlier post about Arafat being at fault for rejecting a “grand bargain” in 2000, these Zionist myths, while necessary for peace of mind, are simply not true and conceal a horrible crime.

The Palestinian reality is that Israel was created by Europeans, guilty over the holocaust, on Palestinian land without their consent; that despite the “people without a land, a land without a people” slogan, hundreds of thousand real people who had lived there for generations were expelled to create this “Jewish utopia” in 1948.  The Palestinians suffered further losses by trusting neighboring Arab regimes to regain their land for them by force.  Their tactical military errors and/or shortcomings notwithstanding, the land remains stolen against the wishes of the indigenous population.

It amazes me when people talk about how “grateful” the Palestinians should have been to get what was “offered” by the UN in 1948.  It’s the equivalent of me taking half your land without your consent, and then when you fight me to try to get it back, I defeat you and take the rest, mocking that you should have been “grateful” for the half I had initially left for you.  What hogwash.

Today, if there is to be a solution, the question is not who gets what as a matter of right, but how much taken/occupied land Israel should get to keep, or be rewarded with, by virtue of its monopoly on overwhelming force.  Ken, I won’t kid myself about the reality of a nuclear armed Israel, even on stolen land, if you won’t delude yourself about the “righteousness” of what is in essense Israeli imperialism.

The solution lies in the hands of those who have stolen the land.  They want “security” after having stolen land, but don’t want to have to return any of it.  Some “liberal” Israelis might part with a portion of the land, but only if they get to keep the best parts, including all of Jerusalem.  In return, the Palestinians get ghettos in the West Bank and Gaza, and have to kill fellow Palestinian discontents who won’t accept such a “grand bargain.”

Ken, rather than asking the Palestinians why they obstruct such “peace,” or criticizing"the left” for calling a spade a spade, honestly ask yourself what you would do.

Posted by Imran on Feb 24, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Imran’s last comment makes perfect sense.  He is absolutely right.  If people on both sides could recognize these truths, we might get somewhere.  It amazes me how few people see clearly.

Posted by cleareyed on Feb 24, 2009 at 3:09 PM

I’ll try to reply to the various critical comments that have been made about what I wrote -  in the order in which they have been posted.

Epistrophy: I believe I was quite clear about who I was referring to when I said that “most sectors of the left” have taken very one-sided positions in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. When the overwhelming majority of the 49 writers who were published by Alternet during Israel’s offensive against Hamas issue dogmatic and oversimplified criticism of Israeli history and politics, I believe that this, by definition, includes most sectors of the left. Why? Because as I said in my column, the voices that appear on Alternet represent a fairly broad cross section of the American left. Fortunately, there are some sectors of the left that take more nuanced positions on the Middle East. For reasons that I am not entirely clear about - their voices are almost never heard on Alternet.

Nevada Ned: You have simply repeated one of Noam Chomsky favorite “truisms” - which is that “of course” anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the facts (to just slightly paraphrase Chomsky’s favorite way of pointing out that anyone who disagrees with him must be an idiot)...“of course” it is well established that Israel and the US are the only truly “rejectionist” parties in the dispute… because “of course” everyone knows that Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah have all made it quite clear that they are willing to accept a two state solution (almost Chomsky’s exact words).

The problem with this nonsense is that it completely contradicts what each of the above mentioned parties have said time and time again. Where have you been Ned?

Furthermore, Israel has actually been negotiating - with the support of the US - to achieve a two state solution. Though as I pointed out, I believe Israel hasn’t been as flexible as it should have been during this process -which may well come to a complete halt once Netanyahu becomes prime minister.

You have also stated “as a fact” that Israel was guilty of “ethnic cleansing” pure and simple - and that is how the State of Israel was founded. But the reality was so much more complicated. May I suggest you try to read some of the balanced, nuanced and sufficiently complex historical accounts of what actually occurred. You might come to realize that your understanding of the “facts” leaves a heck of a lot to be desired.

Clear eyed: Yes I agree that the settlements have been an important obstacle to achieving a resolution of the conflict. But you are overlooking the fact that Israel has offered to vacate over 95% of the West Bank and is willing to trade whatever small parts of the W Bank it wants to keep - for exactly the same acreage of territory on land that borders on the Gaza Strip.

Imram: Your claims that Israel’s negotiating position under Barak would have cut the W Bank in two are totally contradicted by Dennis Ross who was present at both Camp David and Taba. In his book he provides detailed outlines of the actual maps that were used in the negotiations. Your mythical claims are simply at odds with the facts - sorry. And by the way, the points that Ross makes about all this in his book have yet to be seriously challenged by any of the Palestinians who were present at these negotiations. Ross may have been a former member of Aipac (as you correctly point out), but he was seen by his counterparts on the Palestinian side of the negotiating table as a honest and fair partner in the effort to achieve a peace agreement.

Posted by kenbrociner on Feb 24, 2009 at 10:42 PM

You also insist on advancing a history of the Jewish immigration to Palestine as if it was some sort of classic case of western imperialism - which resulted in the evil Jews “stealing” the land of the totally innocent Palestinians. But the truth is that almost all of the land that the Jews settled on before the founding of the State of Israel was legally purchased from Arab land owners. And those evil imperialists were anything but…they were mostly poor refugees fleeing brutal persecution who, in many cases, arrived in Palestine with little more than the clothes on their backs.

If you want to demonize the Jews who came to Palestine, you certainly have the right to do so. But the historical facts simply do not support your beliefs - however passionately held they may be.

Posted by kenbrociner on Feb 24, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Ken,

You mistake criticism of the Zionist project with the demonizing of Jews.  This is what I think most people who wrote posts found strange about your article.  While the Right conflates the two regularly with the conscious intent to decieve, the Left mostly tries not to.  No one doubts that refugees were able to avail themselves of the fruits of the Zionist project to escape brutal persecution, but that in no way changes its imperialist character or excuses the evils perpetrated in furtherance of it. 

The Zionist project was the brain-child of the 19th and early 20th century Zionists who wanted to create a Jewish state in a land where the overwhelming majority of the people were not Jewish.  How does one do that without finding a way to “displace” or “transfer” the natives?  Are you truly not familiar with the verbal gymnastics some Zionists engaged in concerning the ethnic cleansing that would be necessary to bring about such a state?

Does that sound like one who is simply “legally buying a house” in your neighborhood?  Does that deprive the native, who sees and hears the goals of Zionism in his country and then fights back, of his “innocence?”

I understand that these Zionist myths are essential for peace of mind.  But they’re not true, and conceal a horrible crime.  Let’s take them one at a time.

Pre-1948 Land purchases.  There were three periods of land acquisition by Zionists and Jews. While Jews in 1922 owned 3 percent of the land of Palestine, the additional land purchased by 1947 raised the total owned by the immigrant Jews to 7 percent of the whole area of the country.  That’s a long way from buying up the whole country.

Pre-1948 population.  Palestine in 1882 had a small, native, and migrant religious Jewish community of roughly 24,000 among a Palestinian population of nearly 500,000. There were several waves of politically inspired immigration into the country.  By the end of 1947, Palestine Mandate government estimates indicate that of a total population of 1.9 million, Jews made up only 31 percent, a large percentage of whom were illegal immigrants encouraged and financed by the Zionists. Thus, only a year before the state of Israel was unilaterally declared, the Jewish population constituted less than one-third of its total inhabitants.

And we haven’t even addressed yet the “activities” of Israel’s noble “founding fathers” in the late 1940’s (the well-known terrorist activities of Begin, Shamir, et. al.), that created what many refer to as the Palestinian “fleeing” (700,000+) necessary to make up the difference. 

Myths aside, this Zionist “utopia” was created by the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and that crime continue to this day, aided and abeted by those who continue to justify it.  At least some Zionists are honest about it.  See:

http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm

While it is unquestionably true that Jews fleeing brutal persecution were able to avail themselves of the fruits of this project, that fact alone does not change the character of the Zionist Project, or render it’s discussion as an imperialist one off-limits to the “left.”

Posted by Imran on Feb 25, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Ken,

As for the details of the 2000 deal that I outlined in my post (from Jimmy Carter’s Book with maps included in his book as well), and your summary dismissal of them as false, which parts exactly were false?  The size, number or distribution of the settlements?  The security zones surrounding them?  The “life-arteries” or their size that connect them that cannot be crossed by Palestinians?  The 100 or so military checkpoints completely surrounding Palestine blocking routes going into or between Palestinian communities, combined with an unaccountable number of other roads that are permanently closed with large concrete cubes and other barriers?

Or are we doing what Jaguars3 does, and instead of addressing the details of the deal, we are instead going to talk about the people who apportioned blame.  And by the way, as for Dennis Ross, I will simply point to the collective groan let out by most progressives when President Obama recently appointed him to fill the Iran portfolio, as he is almost universally viewed as someone who is NOT an “honest broker” in the Middle East.  A brief perusal of progressive and anti-war websites will testify to this fact.

Regarding the lack of a Palestinian rebuttal to Dennis Ross, there were plenty of non-Palestinians who did so quite effectively like Clayton Swisher and Norman Finkelstein, mentioned in Jaguars3’s above wikipedia cite, as well as the excellent book by Jimmy Carter.

And I’m not sure who you are referring to when you say that there were Palestinians who felt Dennis Ross was an honest broker in the talks, but in light of the above disappointment concerning Dennis Ross’ recent appointment, all I can say is, there’s always a Clarence Thomas in every group.

I can only speak for myself, but the reason for my posts was to address factual errors that are repeated over and over again by Zionists, either trying to justify the occupation, or looking for cover in the form of apologetics.  I share the progressive passion to fight injustice, and find it impossible to sit in silence when I hear these misstatements.  I respectfully contend that pointing out these errors, albeit sometimes with passion, and advocating justice for the Palestinians does not constitute “shrill and hostile rhetorical remarks.” 

What I find amazing is the attempts at moral equivalence by Israeli apologists, who complain about a lack of “balance” in the “Left’s” coverage of the Middle East.  There is no moral equivalence between the violent taker of land and those from whom it is taken.  Nor is there any equivalence between the side that uses its overwhelming military superiority to inflict tens of thousands of civilian casualties and the suicide bomber who kills a few dozen.  It’s the moral equivalence of heavily armed thieves complaining that the lightly or unarmed victim is fighting back.  But, hey, “they’ve both used violence.” 

It simply won’t wash to say let’s let bygones be bygones while Israel continues its occupation of the land that is the basis of this conflict.  If it ever wants peace, Israel will have to part with the land that they have stolen with our assistance (our hands are not clean either).  Regarding U.S. machinations in the creation and recognition of Israel, see:

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105017.htm

This is one of the reasons we are hated throughout the Middle East and why we have an obligation to fix the mess we helped create.  Only when we recognize the true problem, the unlawful land grab, will we get anywhere towards achieving a just solution.

Posted by Imran on Feb 25, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Let me try to reason things out with Imran:

Palestine was a lightly-populated non-sovereign backwater of the Turkish Ottoman Empire when the Zionist movement began sponsoring Jewish immigration at the dawn of the 20th century. The Jewish National Fund bought land in an entirely legal way.

Naturally, the JNF did not buy up the whole country, nor would Imran think it any better if it had. Most such land purchases went into communal and cooperative farming, what came to be known as the kibbutz and moshav, respectively.

Most Jews who settled in Palestine were either members of these collectives or renters of flats and small houses in towns and cities. It seems peculiar that leftists would hang an anti-Zionist argument on the basis that the Jews actually owned only a small proportion of the land. Did most Arab peasants own their fields, or were not many of them tenant farmers on lands owned by absentee Arab landlords?

As Imran knows, Jews in the early decades of the 20th century suffered terrible discrimination, periodic violent persecution, and ultimately the Nazi Holocaust. Mass immigration to the US from Eastern Europe was cut off by the rigid quota system enshrined in law in 1924. The Jews of Europe were stuck in what became a death trap. If not for horrible racist antisemitism, they would have had no reason to move en masse to Palestine.

Obviously, the national interests of Jews and Arabs in Palestine conflicted. My family was involved in the Hashomer Hatzair (“Young Guard”) socialist movement that advocated a bi-national state for Jews and Arabs in Palestine. This was not the majority view among Zionists but there was no like-minded movement among the Arabs.

Arab nationalists incited waves of violent attacks on Jews in 1920, 1921, 1929, and 1936-39. The Arab nationalist movement became increasingly antisemitic and largely allied itself with Nazi Germany. 

Lacking a better solution, the UN partition plan of Nov. 1947 provided for both an Arab and a Jewish state, but the Arabs totally rejected that option and instead launched an all-out effort to destroy the Jewish community. Six thousand Jews, one percent of the entire Jewish population were killed in the ensuing war, 2.5 percent were wounded, and Jewish communities in East Jerusalem and the Etzion Bloc were overrun and destroyed. The Palestinian Arabs lost their homeland because they were on the losing side of a war that their leadership had started.

Both sides have committed a long list of mistakes and crimes ever since. I and my fellow progressive Zionists are not proud of this history and we don’t see Israel as a “utopia” that never does wrong. If Imran and others like him can understand where Arab nationalists went wrong and be able to engage in dialogue that is not diatribe, we might be able to get somewhere.

Posted by rseliger on Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 AM

If the “left” is more vocal about the crimes of Israel, it’s because they are there. It’s not some latent anti-semitism or any other anti-jewishness.
Accusing Mugabe of war crimes doesn’t make you a racist, does it?

The pattern for what is going on has been laid out long ago.  And it has been carried out ruthlessly over decades. Many great minds around 1948 have warned for this, people like Einstien, Lilienthal, Arendt.
In my view is more like latent or overt xenophobia in the western world that has let this happen.

“Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it
employment… Both the process of expropriation and the removal of
the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” [Theodore
Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the
Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.]

In 1899, Davis Triestsch wrote to Herzl: ” I would suggest to you to
come round in time to the “Greater Palestine” program before it is
too late… the Basle program must contain the words “Great
Palestine” or “Palestine and its neighboring lands” otherwise it’s
nonsense. You do not get ten million Jews into a land of 25,000
Km2”.

Posted by Engelbert on Feb 25, 2009 at 3:33 PM

rseliger,

You are correct that Ottoman Palestine was a multi-religious “backwater” where people of all faiths resided.  However, the Zionists changed all this by advocating the creation of a separate Jewish State and financing immigration, both legal and illegal, in furtherance of this goal.  This understandably created fear amongst the indigenous Muslim and Christian Palestinian population.  So let’s be clear, this Zionist inspired immigration to Palestine was quite different from regular immigration.  Implying that it was the same as Jewish immigration to the US or Europe, and that those who feared it and asked for restrictions were simply being xenophobic with no possible legitimate motivation, is misleading at best.

While I don’t deny that this put European Jewish refugees fleeing horrible persecution in an impossible Catch-22 situation (you correctly call it a “death trap”), I don’t understand why the onus of this should be placed exclusively on the Palestinians, to the exclusion of the very Europeans responsible for the persecution in the first place, the other European countries’ abominably restrictive immigration policies barring the entry of fleeing Jewish refugees into their own countries (including sadly the US as well), or the Zionists who were fanning the flames of fear in Palestine by openly advocating the forced creation of a Jewish State.

Further, Jewish land ownership/purchases has always been a red herring, often repeated by Zionists as justification for dispossessing the Palestinians.  I only listed the miniscule ownership percentage as a response to Ken’s claim that the land was “legally purchased,” implying that this was how Israel was created.

You make it sound as if the Palestinians had no reason to resist the Zionist project or the newly created Israel by “starting” hostilities, and having lost, must now live with the consequences.  If I try to steal your land, and you fight me to keep it, who really “started” it?  If you continue fighting me afterwards to try to recover it, did you “start” it?  Does your resistance, either before or afterwards, legalize my theft because you had the temerity to use violence? 

If we are to find a solution, we must accurately identify the problem: the land grab, done without the consent of the indigenous population.  If we start from here, we might actually get somewhere.  Pointing out that “both sides” have committed crimes does not change this basic fact, and is instead a feeble attempt at moral equivalence by Zionist apologists. 

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is no moral equivalence between the taker of land and those from whom it is taken.  Nor is there any equivalence between the side that uses its overwhelming military superiority to inflict tens of thousands of civilian casualties and the suicide bomber who kills a few dozen.  It’s the moral equivalence of heavily armed thieves complaining that the lightly or unarmed victim is fighting back.  But, hey, “they’ve both used violence.”

The “Left” instinctively understands and knows the difference between oppressors and the oppressed.  While this may be unsettling to some (or considered “shrill and hostile” to others), it is what it is.

Posted by Imran on Feb 25, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Talk to the hand.  It certainly is clear, based on the advertising that has been sold through Google to head this column, that Zionisist know what an anti-Palestine column Brociner has written.  If you wait for a while, you’ll see an add for the “Libi Fund,” which is dedicated to strengthening the IDF, per its own website.  The fund-raising plea features this quote from Yitzak Rabin:
“Our soldiers prevail not by the strength of their weapons but by their sense of mission; by their consciousness of the justness of their cause, by a deep love for their country, and by their understanding of the heavy task laid upon them: to ensure the existence of our people in their homeland and to affirm, even at the cost of their lives, the right of the Jewish people to live their lives in their own state, free, independent and in peace.”

So far I haven’t noticed any ads placed by Hamas.  Both sides know a stacked deck when they see it.

Posted by Alyssonwonderland on Feb 25, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Imran,

As I argued in my column, all too many people on the left have jumped aboard the

Posted by kenbrociner on Feb 25, 2009 at 6:55 PM

I had explained to Imran that the Zionist movement to which members of my family belonged, and whose contemporary successor groups I still feel an affinity for, did not believe in an exclusively Jewish state. Nor were they the only Zionists seeking an accommodation with the Arabs of Palestine.

I understand why the Arab population would view the Jews with fear and suspicion. But progressives do not normally sanction nativist hatred and violence against immigrants fleeing oppression and struggling for a livelihood in their new land.

True, the Palestinian Arabs were victims of Turkish and then British colonial policies not of their own making. They also were not the authors of European antisemitism—although much of their leadership later allied itself with the Nazis. But as even Imran acknowledges, the Jews were escaping a death trap.

Nobody was an angel in all this. But circumstances beyond the control of either side in this conflict rendered the clash inevitable.  I don’t excuse the excesses and wrongs of various Zionist forces in this sad history. Still, I can’t agree with Imran’s complete lack of criticism toward Arab forces, who placed the Jews in a particularly brutal vise of having to either fight or die. They created a self-fulfilling prophecy by setting in motion the very disaster of dispossession that they had feared.

Posted by rseliger on Feb 25, 2009 at 10:03 PM

This has been a toxic issue for decades.  I remember when I was in college 30 years ago, and the same arguments over the same toxic issues were going on—interminably.

If there is a better answer than the two-state solution, I haven’t heard it yet, and the partition proposals go back to the 1920s and 1930s.  None has ever succeeded.  Not one, and so this toxic issue never ends. 

As you might guess that I’m thoroughly sick of hearing about it, and I am by no means alone in this. 

My main problem if that I don’t believe that Hamas and the Islamic fascists really want a peace agreement of any kind.  I’ve never seen any evidence that they were serious about it, nor do I care for the type of police state they would set up in the area under their control.  and every day that goes by now without some type of agreement makes the two-state solution less likely. 

Actually, time is about to run out on this.

Posted by mcmchugh99 on Feb 26, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Wow.  It’s not every day that you see the author of a piece (here, the very concerned troll Brociner) so thoroughly smacked down by a commenter (here, Imran) that the author, unable to rebut the points made by the commenter, announces he’s taking his ball and going home.  When Brociner wrote “I see no reason to continue our exchange,” what I heard was “Uncle.”

Posted by dmak on Feb 26, 2009 at 10:09 AM

No dmak, not at all. Sorry to pour some cold water on your triumphal declaration of victory. The fact is that I am a free-lance writer trying to earn a living and I simply have far more important things to do than to waste any more of my time continuing an exchange with people whose dogmatic views lead them to demonize Israel’s past, present, and future, while apologizing (either explicitly or implicitly) for all of the cruelties committed by those who seek Israel’s destruction. Feel free to have the last word if that will make you feel any better.

Posted by kenbrociner on Feb 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

While I can see and understand the point made in Mr. Brociner’s article, ‘Israel, Gaza and the Left’, I believe the Alternet articles are more accurate than the US mainstream media based upon what is presented in the Israeli media.

Mr. Brociner seems more concerned with the tone of the Alternet articles than whether the Alternet articles are accurate.

When compared to the Israeli media presentations the Alternet articles do not seem overly shrill and hostile in their description of the behavior of the Israeli government, in my judgment.

I have also read reports, editorials and studies in the Israeli press that have not made it to Alternet or any of the other “Left ” leaning media.

Why would Alternet or anyone else have to express the Israeli position when the US mainstream media does such a good job of it?  Further, the mainstream line expressed here is not the same that is expressed in the Israeli media.

Perhaps one reason for the aggressive nature of the Alternet articles is that US tax dollars ($3 Billion/yr), weapons and advice are used in violation of agreements with our government to kill in ratios of a 100 or more to one and called self defense.

Posted by Paul Myers on Feb 26, 2009 at 11:31 AM

I have carefully re-read my posts to see if, in my passion to defend the Palestinians, I have insulted, demeaned or demonized Jews.  After reviewing my posts many times over, I do not believe that I have crossed that line.  While I have criticized the Zionist project with some fervor, I believe I have been quite clear that criticizing Zionism is NOT the same as the demonization of Jews.

The conclusion of my posts was that if people are truly interested in finding a just solution, they must address the real problem, the unlawful land grab, which was the culmination of the openly declared goals of 19th and 20th Century Zionists.  Last time I checked, taking someone’s land without their consent is unlawful.  Resistance to such theft (even during the attempt) does not render the taking lawful, despite the best efforts of Zionist apologists.  I think nearly everybody agrees that this was the “start” of it all.  But Ken calls this an “ideologically absurd perspective as a starting point.” 

I respectfully submit that Ken’s statement is the distilled essence of what has been the Israeli “negotiating” position in all of these so-called “peace talks.”  It accurately reflects the condescending arrogance with which the Israelis (or at least their governments) treat the Palestinians and their legitimate grievances.  Whether this is based on a lack of empathy, or whether it is a conscious attempt to derail a meaningful peace that would require them to give up any land, is a question I will leave to the readers of In These Times.

Posted by Imran on Feb 26, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Brociner wants us to think that criticism of Zionist tactics is confined to “progressive” websites such as Alternet.  However, news stories that state the facts about Zionist actions against the rightful residents of Palestinian lands do appear in publications that have no particular bias.  Here’s a link to a story by IPS (Inter Press News Services)  writer Mel Frykberg.  It’s a story stating merely the facts.  Try as you might, there is no way to twist these facts into a rationalization for IDF’s actions.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45896

Posted by Alyssonwonderland on Feb 26, 2009 at 4:46 PM

“You have two people: one a murderer, one a victim. You say: let’s investigate. What’s there to investigate? We didn’t touch them, we left Gaza, we supported them. We didn’t touch them. What do you want to investigate? It’s clear.”
Shimon Peres in an interview on Australian TV
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/02/24/shimon-peres-interview-how-do-you-sleep-at-night/

That’s the president of Israel speaking, not some obscure tribal chief. Where did we hear this kind of logic before? Especially the repeated “we didn’t touch them” is touching.

Posted by Engelbert on Feb 26, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Imran, it’s not a question of a simple “land grab.” There would have been no land grab if not for the Palestinians’ repeated resort to violence. This is something that Imran simply ignores or rationalizes away.

While I am sympathetic with many Palestinian claims and most of their concerns, the fact remains that they began the cycle of violence even before Israel was born—with their attacks in 1920, ‘21, ‘29, ‘36-‘39, and ‘47-‘48. And they ended a difficult but promising peace process with a renewal of violence in 2000. Tragically, each spasm of armed conflict leaves the Palestinians worse off than before.

Posted by rseliger on Feb 26, 2009 at 9:33 PM

I’ve heard all the arguments on here a million times.  All I’m interested in any more is: where is the end to this?  When does it end?

Where is the solution that will finally result in two states?

I’ve yet to see any answers to these questions.

Essentially, I think it ends with a Palestinian state, not controlled by Hamas, that is economically and politically viable.  It should be linked more to its Arab neighbors than to Israel, although I have long thought that the US should increase its aid to Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt. 

Since we are no longer strong enough to do all this on oour own, it will require considerable cooperation from our allies.  In any case, I think that the World Bank and IMF have to be reformed and exapnded so they are more user-friendly to devloping countries.

I´ve learned the hard way over teh years never to expect any answers from the irrationalists on either side of this question, or even to expect anything like civilized discussion and debate.  I only know that they have no answers.

Posted by mcmchugh99 on Feb 27, 2009 at 6:43 AM

rseliger,

You state that “there would have been no land grab if not for the Palestinians’ repeated resort to violence.”  Really?

Do you dispute that it was an openly stated Zionist goal to create a separate Jewish State on land of the indigenous population without their consent?  Do you dispute that the Zionists financed immigration, both legal and illegal, in furtherance of such goal during the periods you mention?

We must be honest that the Zionist inspired immigration of this period was quite different from normal immigration to other countries.  To imply that Zionist immigration to Palestine was the same as regular immigration to Europe or the US is misleading at best.  To further imply that the native Palestinians who feared such Zionist immigration were simply being xenophobic, with no possible legitimate motivation for opposing such ideological immigration, is also misleading.

While the resistance to the Zionist project from 1920-1948 took many forms (much of it, as you point out, was unpleasant to say the least), to say that this resistance is what actually caused the land grab kind of ignores Zionism’s openly stated goals and actions, doesn’t it?

You make it sound as if the Palestinians had no reason to resist the Zionist project during this period, and having lost, must now live with the consequences.  If I openly declare that I intend to steal your land, and you fight me to keep it, who is to blame for the land grab?  Can it really be said that it was your resistance that legalized my theft, because you had the temerity to use violence?

Posted by Imran on Mar 3, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Imran,
As I’ve explained, the Zionist movement was divided as to whether it wanted to pursue a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine or to rebuild the Biblical homeland as a safehaven. You are right that Zionist immigration was not “regular.” It was an effort to end centuries of persecution, discrimination and massacre. They were, in a real sense, refugees.

Obviously, you and your confreres are good at digging up quotes about how the land was going to be conquered. But these did not reflect the thinking of all Zionists nor did they even necessarily match statements and writings by some of the same individuals at other times that were far more humane and peaceful in intent.

Besides, should we accept without complaint or comment the blood-curdling genocidal statements of the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini and his closest associates?

If German and Austrian Jews had not found a way to get to Palestine—legally and illegally—at least 200-300,000 of them would have joined the six million who perished during the Holocaust. If the 600,000 Jews in Palestine in 1947-48 had not found the means to resist Arab military efforts to destroy their community, rather than to accept the UN partition plan, untold thousands more would have been killed (as it was, 6,000 of these Jews died in the fighting).

To explain this all as “theft” and a “land grab” is inaccurate and inhumane.

Posted by rseliger on Mar 4, 2009 at 3:34 PM

rseliger,

Refugees do not normally openly declare that they intend to create a separate state in their place of refuge, with or without the consent of the indigenous population.  This is what I meant when I said that “regular” Jewish refugee immigration to Europe or the US was not the same as its ideological immigration to Palestine.  Nor was Palestinian resistance to such immigration simply a xenophobic one, with no possible legitimate motivation.

You yourself admit that the admirable position of your family members was a minority position within the Zionist movement.  But it is misleading to ignore the intention of the vast majority of Zionists and their openly stated goals.  It is equally misleading to blame the resistance that followed for legitimizing the land grab that most Zionists had been openly advocating for since the 19th century.

And if I haven’t made it clear enough already, I am NOT minimizing or demeaning the plight of European Jewish refugees.  I do not deny that this placed them in a catch-22 situation.  But what I don’t understand is why the onus of this is being placed exclusively on the Palestinians, to the exclusion of the very Europeans responsible for the persecution in the first place, the other European countries’ abominably restrictive immigration policies barring the entry of fleeing Jewish refugees into their own countries (including sadly the US as well), or the vast majority of Zionists who were fanning the flames of fear in Palestine by openly advocating the forced creation of a Jewish State.  The answer is simple.  Of the all the entities involved in this catch-22, the Palestinians were the weakest and easiest upon which to impose, despite having the least to do with the European pogroms against Jews.

I am simply stating the obvious, that taking land without the consent of the indigenous population is theft, despite the best intentions or motivations of the taker.  It would have been the same if these same Zionists had forcibly created a Jewish state in Europe, the US or Uganda without their consent.  Past persecution does not create a blank check to steal other people’s land or to persecute others.

Posted by Imran on Mar 5, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Imran,
The Zionist movement didn’t decide upon going for a “Jewish commonwealth”  until the Biltmore conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biltmore_Conference in 1942. As you say, the Palestinians were victimized indirectly by the Nazi genocide against the Jews, but this doesn’t excuse their national movement from attempting to add to the enormous Jewish toll by opposing legal Jewish immigration before, during and after WW 2 .

Posted by rseliger on Mar 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM

rseliger,

Most people don’t buy that Zionists “didn’t decide” upon going for a separate state until the Biltmore Conference in 1942, especially given the very public statements made by Zionists about creating a “Jewish Homeland” since the early 1900’s.  And while the final declaration of a Jewish state may have proceeded in steps, there were quite practical reasons for doing so, not the least of which was that in the early 1900’s, only a tiny minority of population was Jewish.  Hence, we see the moral gymnastics engaged in by many Zionists at that time about the population “transfers” that would be necessary, as well as the funding of Jewish immigration, both legal and illegal, before such goal could be acheived.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s say there’s actually a difference between what the Zionists meant when they said a “Jewish Homeland” versus a separate Jewish state.  Exactly how many “natives” did these European Zionists deign to consult when dicussing these noble goals and terms?  It is this condescending treatment of the indigenous population by Europeans that give the Zionist project its aura of colonialism and imperialism, and why progressives who passionately condemn the taking of land without the natives’ consent seem so “shrill and hostile” to Zionist apologists.

Despite statements that everything changed in 1942 as a result of Palestinian resistance, most Zionists have always believed that the Jewish people had an inherent and inalienable right to Palestine. Religious Zionists have stated this in biblical terms, referring to the divine promise of the land to the tribes of Israel.  Secular Zionists, on the other hand, have relied more on the argument that Palestine alone could solve the problem of Jewish dispersion and virulent anti-Semitism. 

But, let’s be clear here, NEVER was the consent of the natives ever seriously taken into consideration by any of these Zionists or the Europeans.  Chaim Weizmann stated, in 1930, that the needs of 16 million Jews had to be balanced against those of 1 million Palestinian Arabs: “The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate have definitely lifted [Palestine] out of the context of the Middle East and linked it up with the world-wide Jewish problem….The rights which the Jewish people has been adjudged in Palestine do not depend on the consent, and cannot be subjected to the will, of the majority of its present inhabitants.”

Again, while I am sympathetic to the plight of European Jews fleeing persecution, it does not change the fact that the Zionist project was the brain-child of Europeans who wanted to create a “homeland” or “state,” or whatever you want to call it, on land that was not theirs without deigning to consult, or securing the consent of the indigenous population.  To blame the resistance to such unilateral foreign dictation for the land grab that followed is simply inaccurate.

Posted by Imran on Mar 9, 2009 at 2:13 PM

This matter is clearly a clash of rights. Left-wing Zionists have always understood this and always worked for a peaceful and negotiated resolution of the conflict.

But the right of Jews to escape persecution and genocide is not less than that of “natives.” It is a tragedy that these two peoples have not yet found a peaceful path toward coexistence.

I say this as a Zionist.  It’s a pity if Imran is too doctrinaire and rigid to do other than to condemn me and my kin for being Zionist.

Posted by rseliger on Mar 11, 2009 at 8:30 AM

First “shrill and hostile.”  Now “doctrinaire and rigid.”  I reply to oft-repeated Zionist myths and get this:

“...the right of Jews to escape persecution and genocide is not less than that of ‘natives.’” 

We took the land without your consent because we had no other choice?  Is that it?

Okay, but at least be intellectually honest enough to start with “we took the land without your consent,” rather than repeating these Zionist myths about how grateful the Palestinians should have been with the 1948 dictated partition agreement, or how the nasty resistance to the Zionist project was why the land was taken.

Whether these Zionist myths are repeated to soothe the consciences of the well-intentioned, or whether they are ploys to derail any meaningful settlement by obscuring the real issue, responding to these myths seems to me the first best step towards peace.

Posted by Imran on Mar 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Imran and I disagree on the historical facts. But however mistaken I regard some of his beliefs to be, I won’t insult him by calling them “myths.”

Posted by rseliger on Mar 20, 2009 at 5:59 PM

As I have repeatedly stated, the purpose of my posts was to respond to oft-repeated factual inaccuracies that harm the cause of peace by obscuring the real issue.  Such inaccuracies can be called many things depending upon the motive of the maker.  “Myth” seemed the most charitable.

Myth:  “A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.”

Imagine the paradigm-shift in the peace talks if just one Israeli government declared that they were sorry for imposing upon the Palestinians against their will during the Zionist project, but that they had no other choice, and that henceforth the discussions will focus on making things as right as possible for them.

Contrast this with the current posture of both the Israeli government and some writers that blames the Palestinians for both the land grab and the resistance to it.  Its no wonder that we’ve gotten nowhere in finding a just settlement.

Posted by Imran on Mar 23, 2009 at 9:20 AM

Actually, Yitzhak Rabin did make apologetic statements of the kind that Imran suggests, when he was prime minister in the early ‘90s. Ehud Barak even once suggested that if he were a Palestinian Arab, he would likely have turned toward violence against Israelis.

I certainly don’t blame Palestinians for the “land grab”—only for some critical episodes and instances of violence which helped the right win elections in Israel. Imran doesn’t seem to understand that violent extremism among Palestinians reinforces Israeli political movements and government measures that oppress and dispossess the Palestinians.

Posted by rseliger on Mar 24, 2009 at 8:29 AM

I should add that it would be great—a true “paradigm-shift” as Imran suggests—if both sides were willing to acknowledge the wrongs they’ve committed toward the other. But Imran only sees rignts on one side in this conflict.

Posted by rseliger on Mar 24, 2009 at 9:03 AM

While individual Zionists have occasionally demonstrated varying levels of remorse about the sins of their project, this has never translated into an offical Israeli posture at the “peace talks.”  These isolated statements hardly constitute a mea culpa, much less a paradigm-shift.  I think nearly everyone agrees that Israeli conduct at these “talks” has been, at best unbecoming, and particularly so for being the ones who started this mess in the first place.

As the excellent post by Nevada Ned above outlines, one Israeli government after another - Labor, Likud, or Kadima - has acted to stop a viable Palestinian state.  And as Cleareyed correctly pointed out, throughout its history, Israel has continually and systematically taken Palestinian land to such an extent that it casts doubt on Israel’s good faith in its “negotiations.”  To the Palestinians, the election of different parties, including the Israeli “left,” has meant little in this regard.

And rseliger is mistaken in thinking that I do not understand that the right wing parties are often more “oppressive.”  I do.  What he fails to understand is that the “dispossesion” has occurred, and continues to occur, regardless of the party in power.  The Israeli “left” has, so far, offered Palestinians ghettos in the West Bank and Gaza, and the obligation to kill fellow Palestinian discontents who won’t accept such a “grand bargain.”  Prior to this “bargain” in 2000, the above-mentioned Rabin (Labor) was ordering the breaking of the bones of Palestinian children to keep them from throwing stones at heavily armed Israeli soldiers.

But instead of criticizing this unacceptable reality with a view to changing it, we should instead recognize that “both sides” have committed “wrongs?”  While this may ease the conscience of some, it is hardly a substitute for addressing the main issue of the land grab.

Posted by Imran on Mar 24, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Excellent article about the Israeli “left” in today’s Guardian.  As well as reaffirming the facts listed in the posts of Nevada Ned, Cleareyed and others, it states the following:

The fact of the matter is that the Israeli Labour party has supported all the wars Israel has waged, and actually ran and instigated most of them.  The two latest gory interventions, in Lebanon in 2006 and in Gaza this year, were both orchestrated by Labour ministers of defence, Amir Peretz and Barak.  Paying lip service to the division of Palestine while planning and propagating territorial expansionism and land-grabbing has been the policy of the Labour party ever since the early days of the Zionist movement, sprinkled by sporadic attempts at giving up some of the territory in return for getting rid of as many Palestinian inhabitants as possible from under Israel’s control in the process. Labour might have invented this double-tongues policy, but it has now been adopted by all the main powers in Israeli politics, from Kadima to Likud and even the radical mark on the right - Lieberman’s Israel Beytenu.

For the full article, see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/26/israel-labour-binyamin-netanyahu-ehud-barak

While I admire the attempts of some Zionists to “accomodate” the Palestinians, a just and lasting solution is going to require addressing the “original sin” of Zionism: the intentional imposition upon an indigeneous population (the taking of their land) without their consent.  Everything that has followed was a directly forseeable consequence of this act.  As the above article points, I fear the well-intentioned among the Israeli left are being used as cover for further injustice.

Posted by Imran on Mar 26, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Sorry, I must have mistyped the link to the article (gotta get new glasses).  Correct link is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/26/israel-labour-binyamin-netanyahu-ehud-barak

While I do not deny that it is going to be difficult, it’s time for Zionists to rethink Zionism.  See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/16/israelandthepalestinians-israeli-elections-2009

Hmmm.  It appears that an extra space and letter are added to the link no matter how I type it.  I’ve tried to fix it to no avail.  Disregard or delete extra space and letter in “ne etanyahu” and the same with extra space and the “-” following israelandthe palestinians.

Posted by Imran on Mar 26, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Criticisms of Israel’s Labor party are well taken.  And even from within its own ranks, it can no longer be regarded as a standard bearer for Israel’s left.  Since I’m not a supporter of the Labor party and never have been, these criticisms do not relate to my politics.

Our hope is that the US and the international community will help both sides finally settle upon a resolution to the conflict that insures both Israelis and Palestinians the blessings of peace, security and co-existence.

Posted by rseliger on Mar 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM

While it has been some time since this article was posted and commented upon, the piece below by Slavoj Zizek simply begged notice.  It is entitled:

“Quiet Slicing of the West Bank Makes Abstract Prayers for Peace Obscene-Condemnation of ‘illegal’ settlements and violence only blurs the reality of what the Israeli state is sanctioning, day by day.”

The entire piece is a good read, but the quote that stands out is:

“...When peace-loving Israeli liberals present their conflict with Palestinians in neutral, symmetrical terms - admitting that there are extremists on both sides who reject peace - one should ask a simple question: what goes on in the Middle East when nothing is happening there at the direct politico-military level (i.e., when there are no tensions, attacks or negotiations)?  What goes on is the slow work of taking the land from the Palestinians on the West Bank: the gradual strangling of the Palestinian economy, the parcelling up of their land, the building of new settlements, the pressure on Palestinian farmers to make them abandon their land (which goes from crop-burning and religious desecration to targeted killings) - all this supported by a Kafkaesque network of legal regulations.” 

For the full article see:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/18-0

The cry for balance rings hollow indeed.

Posted by Imran on Aug 18, 2009 at 10:18 AM