Our Friday call will be with Rula Jubreal, the talented Palestinian-Italian-American journalist who wrote the film, “Miral.” Rula is one of the most prominent critics of the incoming, neo-fascist government in Italy and will talk about that country’s authoritarian turn.
In addition to M.L. King and N. Mandela, Gandhi also sanctioned violence wherein it is one's duty to defend your country through violent means, if you cannot do it non-violently. By assigning more responsibility to the Israelis for the (cycle of) violence, I do not believe Peter has become part of the problem. Rather, I feel Peter is stating the obvious wherein the moral obligation to break the cycle of violence falls on the stronger/superior power of the two sides engaged in conflict. As D. Tutu wrote: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor"
I usually agree with you, but not this time. As a lifelong pacifist and activist, I do not believe that violence is ever justified except in the immediate defense of life. The equation of injustice and violence is rhetoric in defense of resort to violence, but it is not a reasonable statement in terms of any ethic I could accept. Ukraine's is a war of defense and I agree that they have the moral right to fight that war, but the arguments about MLK and Mandela, not so much. MLK was convinced of the power of nonviolence by Bayard Rustin, a man who has never been justly credited for his role in the Civil Rights movement (in which I was active). Here is a more accurate portrayal of Mandela than his one-time endorsement of violence (and then only against police and soldiers carrying out Apartheid). https://www.ashgrove.cheshire.sch.uk/_site/data/files/year%206/week%2011/9EE2E2604144166BC109F181D49BBD07.pdf I have a very long history of working with Palestinian peace activists (Jewish Peace Fellowship as Chair and since). Indulging in violence has not ever brought Palestinians any justice or any relief from oppression. It becomes the justification of violence and more oppression towards them. For a good model of why nonviolence is called (by us who value it) "a force more powerful," I recommend you look to the history of Leymah Gbowee, perhaps in the film about her "Pray The Devil Back to Hell."
Mr. Beinert, we know a lot of people in common and you may not know who I am, but I am very disappointed in this statement.
Rabbi Bentley, My argument wasn't a defense of Palestinian violence. It was an argument that Palestinian violence against civilians--like Ukrainian violence against civilians--doesn't discredit their right to freedom and must be seen within the context of the structural violence they endure as people lacking basic rights. Best, Peter
Thank you for such a quick response. Of course that some in a group resort to violence does not end their right to, well, human rights - each under vine and fig tree, etc. Your statement struck me as justifying violence and I am glad to be wrong about that. Activists have to deal with the reality of violence committed by those whose rights they defend. Part of that is fighting (nonviolently) despite the violence committed by some. Personally I have talked with Palestinians about this.
You write: "You’re not going to end Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians unless you deal with the problem of the massive violence that Palestinians experience." I'd say: "You’re not going to end the massive violence that Palestinians experience unless you deal with the problem of Palestinian organizations targeting civilians and claiming it's okay to kill Israeli civilians." As long as that is happening, liberals will never support Palestinians in substantive ways. These victims are Jews; and since WW2 it's the mantra of liberals is to protect Jews. You're not helping the Palestinians by making excuses for organizational attacks on civilians.
The violence by Palestinians is nothing compared to the violence of the Israeli army & police.
The lawless behaviour of the Israeli forces towards unarmed Palestinian civilians, the expropriations, censorship, administrative detention, expulsions, torture, home demolitions, the unending killings.
You said: "You’re not going to end the massive violence that Palestinians experience unless you deal with the problem of Palestinian organizations targeting civilians and claiming it's okay to kill Israeli civilians."
My point is that Israel commits the greater atrocities against Palestinians including against women and children. Gaza is an open prison, the West Bank is full of Israeli military checkpoints. Reading reports in Israeli newspapers of Palestinians being shot and killed for doing very little or nothing at all and when wounded been left without medical help until they die. This is state terrorism, which has been happening for decades. The Palestinians are reacting to years of abuse by Israel with no end in sight.
So if the so called only democracy in the Middle East murders Palestinian civilians, why is it wrong for the Palestinians to do the same?
I don’t believe myself that it is right to target civilians, Israeli or Palestinian.
You (and Peter) are making a moral argument: Israel does worse things than the Palestinians. And I agree. But we don't need "agreement," we need the liberal West to intervene. I'm making a practical, strategic statement: as long as there are fanatic terrorist organizations among "the Jewish state's" enemies, the liberal West will not force Israel to do anything. (And who do you expect to be convinced by your moral arguments? Russia?) Simply put, liberal Christians know your argument and have made their decision: they care more about "the victims of the Holocaust" than about Palestinians. And every time Hamas and its friends fire rockets or blow up a bus, Israel's expansionists give a prayer of thanks.
The single-democratic and the two-state solutions are utopian fantasies, Cohen says, but, according to him, it is perfectly practical to raise enough money to bribe a large majority of Jewish Israelis to go "home." If $1 million each could convince 3 million Jewish Israelis to leave, that would take only 60 percent of the US annual budget. (Maybe we could solve the problems of colonialism in the Americas and Australia in the same way.) I think Cohen's solution is a dystopian fantasy -- but he doesn't have to convince me. He has to convince an acknowledged Palestinian leadership.
The sheer lack of knowledge here is breathtaking and it extends from the Professor Beinart down to his minions on this site. So let’s deal with the simple facts should you want to investigate them.
Here are some books to read:
Alexander Scholch – Palestine in Transition 1856-1882
Gershom Shafir- Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestine Conflict 1882-1914
Neville j Mandel—The Arabs and Zionism Before WWI
David Grossman—Rural Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Palestine
There are others by Ruth Kark for example who paint a more balanced picture of what happened.
To be sure some people who today call themselves Palestinians lived in the land throughout the last 2,000 years; these were Jews who became Christians and who later became Moslems but they were not and are not the dominant Moslem population that survived into the 19th and 20th century.
The facts are that the people who lived there starting in the 19th century are not the people who lived there throughout history. In the main their roots were from Arabia and they came into the land in phases starting in the 11th century and more came in the 17th century.
In the 19th century as a result of the slow rollback of the Ottoman Turks many people from as far away as Crimea, Algeria and Bosnia including some 2 million Circassians were settled in Syria (of which Palestine was a part). Also in the 1830s an Egyptian Army rolled through Palestine and on the way back somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 of the conscripts decided not to return to Egypt and settled in Palestine.
In fact, while the Jews in 19th century managed maybe 20 settlements Moslems managed more than twice as many in the same period. The point I am making here is that at the same time that Jews decided to return to Palestine so did many Moslems from other parts of the Middle East and Ottoman holdings. It was a race that continued until 1948. It is clearly documented if you want to see it. Or you can believe in the false narrative that the Jews disrupted and dislocated the “indigenous” Moslem population—this narrative fails on the demographic facts.
Finally, the notion that you can pay Israelis to leave their country speaks to your own lack of loyalty to your country which of course was stolen from the First Nations. Maybe you would take a million to go back to Eastern Europe (for example) but please don’t confuse your situation with Israel’s.
If you accept Abraham was "a wandering Aramean" I find it hard to believe any argument that any other 'immigrant' has no rights to, or in, the real estate that has been labelled Israel since 1948. Throughout its history many nations with many different gods have been overlords who ruled and or shared that territory. Intermarriage and cultural blending took place during each of those periods in history. Any DNA survey would confirm that fact. To assign any territory solely to the ancestors of one of those 'immigrants' denies the truth of its varied and ongoing history. Perhaps the books you suggest address that conundrum. The battle between nationalism (ie a purity of race) and cultural assimilation (ie the fear of the loss of identity) is grounded in the idea that one's way of living in the world should be given precedence over everyone else's. We're looking directly at where that absurdity has, and is, taking us.
Hi Jack, many on this site have bought into a narrative that states that the Palestinians were in Palestine forever and that the Jews came and threw them off their land. I brought up these books as a sample of well-respected academic research into the 19th century that clearly do not support this narrative. And yes, your comment on DNA is correct as well. If you pay attention to what’s written on this site, you will note that many believe the Jews should simply leave and go back from where they came from (some even suggest paying the Jews to leave). My point in adding these books is to show that the research is at odds with their commonly held beliefs. Thus, to suggest the Jews leave is both anti-Semitic statement and additionally a statement made in the absence of knowledge of the facts on the ground. As for who can live in any country that is in the hands of the government that controls the territory in question. This is true for Israel and every country on this planet. And if you live in America, you must be aware of the constant debate on the subject here.
Hi Ran, Thanks for your response. I disagree with those who believe the "Jews should simply leave". My point - in conjuction with Peter's re-interpretation of the Hagar narrative - would be that a land that has often been shared equitably by various peoples over thousands of years, albeit not without conflict, must find new ways to share that land peaceably. Fewer and fewer nation's escape the displacement and/ or return of their population to a land that was once theirs. The dynamics of the Israeli/Palestine dilemma is only one 'canary' in the coal mine (ie,. Ireland/Bosnia/Ethiopia have their own) that fact should alert us we can no longer assert tribal hegemony over territory. To survive on this planet we have to learn to share; unfortunately, in many contexts inside and outside Israel, although that appears to be self evident it remains sorely lacking in practice. Fear of loss and fear of the other drives it away leaving the reigning narrative of nationalism to overtake our collective imagination. Learning what the other wants, exactly the things we want, safety and security, and how we can go about facilitating that, seems to me a worthy endeavour.
Dugin was the target, and he is part of the war effort. The Russians made Crimea into a war zone. Anyone crossing into a war zone risks collateral damage. Nice try trying to find radical leftist relativism here.
By the way, this article written by Shlaim displays the worst excesses of what Itamar Rabinovich called the "revisionist" understanding of the collapse of the peace process. At Camp David, the summit ended not because Arafat refused Barak’s final offer but rather because he refused to make a counteroffer. As for the Second Intifada, there is no way of knowing whether or not Arafat started it (his entourage is split, just like Israel’s security establishment), but one thing is sure: he refused to stop it, despite the fact that he knew that the US was about to unveil a peace plan offering the Palestinians close to 100% of the West Bank.
As for Olmert, his "lame-duck" status doesn’t change anything. Abbas too was a lame-duck, as he had no majority in Parliament and he lost control over Gaza in 2007. Anyhow, Olmert wanted to sign an agreement in principle with Abbas and call an election both in Israel and the Palestinian territories, so both peoples could endorse it. This was another missed opportunity.
Finally, Amir Tibon revealed in 2017 that Abbas refused to answer to Obama’s offer in March 2014 (it was confirmed by Kerry in his memoirs). This is what convinced me that the Palestinians were not ready to accept a deal based on the Clinton parameters. I’m pretty sure that if Abbas rejects another peace plan based on the Clinton Parameters, revisionist will find a way to deny it or make excuses to justify it. As I said earlier, religious thinking is not rational…
Aside from the fact that Shlaim has now become a Hamas advocate, he also has become very erratic. No wonder even Tom Segev parted ways with him.
He also rehashes the myth whereby Israel’s response to the Clinton parameters was no more positive than the Palestinian one. Perhaps, he should listen to his friend, Shlomo Ben Ami, who wrote in his latest book that 1) Israel accepted the Clinton parameters with reservations, but these were not categorical rebuttals. In fact, Ben Ami phoned Arafat to reassure him and guarantee that Israel accepted the Clinton parameters without any changes. In addition, during the Taba Summit, Israel went beyond Clinton’s framework demands to strike a deal with the Palestinians (Ben Ami offered 100% of the West Bank to the Palestinians as well as exclusive sovereignty over the Noble Sanctuary/Temple Mount, provided that this area would also be recognized as a Jewish holy site). The Palestinians were not willing to swap more than 2% of the West Bank (which means that close to 50% of the settlers would have to be uprooted) and insisted on having exclusive sovereignty over the Noble Sanctuary without recognizing the Jewish people’s connection to this site.
The main problem was the refugee issue. Clinton called on Israel to accept part of the blame for the creation of the refugee problem. He also offered the Palestinians a symbolic right of return to "historic Palestine" (which encompasses the whole British Mandate). However, he made it clear that they could only use this right in the future Palestinian state, not in Israel proper.
The Palestinians insisted on full Israeli responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem (this is enough to prevent both parties from reaching an agreement, even if they don’t insist on the implementation of the right of return), as well as a right of return for the refugees to Israel proper. They merely stressed that they would be "flexible" and "creative" in the implementation of the right of return. While they informally mentioned that they only wanted refugees living in Lebanon to be repatriated to Israel, they were not willing to put this down on paper. (The US too promised the USSR that there would be no NATO expansion eastward, but they didn’t sign anything, and ultimately nothing prevented NATO from expanding to Eastern Europe.)
The open-ended terms of the Palestinian Authority’s demands opened a Pandora’s box that would allow them to make further claims in the future. Israel cannot accept to renegotiate the return of new caps of refugees every decade or so (the latest official offer made by the PA in 2008 is the return of 80,000-150,000 refugees over a 10-year period, renewable). In other words, if after this 10-year period, Israel and the Palestinians do not agree on the number of refugees being allowed to return to Israel, the conflict resumes.
I’m not blaming the Palestinians for having rejected the Clinton parameters. However both sides refuse a two-state solution along the 1967 borders. Israelis refuse to go back to the Green Line, while Palestinians want two-states within 1967 borders, but they also want to keep the door open for further claims in the future.
What I’m saying is not controversial anymore. Most Palestinian negotiators have said time and again that Clinton’s framework won’t suffice to achieve a final-status agreement. That’s just fine.
I have no problem with going beyond the Clinton parameters by finding creative ways to implement the right of return without dissolving Israel. A confederal framework can also give both peoples indirect control over the whole land (as decisions takes by joint institutions would apply on both sides of the border).
I part ways with the North American Zionist left and anti-Zionists for two reasons:
1) North American liberal Zionists place the whole blame on Israel for the absence of peace.
2) Anti-Zionism may not be antisemitic but it is totally anachronistic. A Jewish state was a necessity in the late 1940s, as Jews were still persecuted and it was impossible to predict that their fate would improve so much in the second part of the 20th Century. Those who claim that a Jewish state should have been established in Germany fail to understand that the pre-state Israeli society already existed before WW2. No wonder most people on the left supported Israel’s creation in 1947…
There is no doubt that the creation of Israel caused great harm to the Palestinians, but denying that Jews needed a state more than any other people is pointless. Not all conflicts oppose the good guys on one side and the bad guys on the other.
Richard Crossman and Reinhold Niebuhr used to say that when it comes to the Arab-Zionist conflict, there was no absolute justice. They saw partition as the "lesser evil" and "relative justice". One can disagree with this claim (I don’t deny the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative), but the one-dimensional depiction of this conflict made by the left-wing intelligentsia is detrimental to mutual understanding and reconciliation.
With hindsight, it is now clear that Camus’ rejection of extremism was more sensible than Sartre’s knee jerk support for the excesses of Algerian nationalists. Camus too was isolated in the 1950-60s, but history proved him right. Let’s see in 50 years from now who turned out to be right: Amos Oz and Carlo Strenger or Tony Judt and Peter Beinart?!
By the way, I forgot to add that despite the fact that I staunchly disagree with Peter Beinart about the Israel-Palestine conflict, I still praise his contribution to the discussion as well as his commitment to the well-being of both Israelis and Palestinians. Peter Beinart is a mensch. We just don’t agree about the means to end this conflict. Moreover, The Icarus Syndrome remains my favorite book on US foreign policy. I read it as an undergrad, and it remains one of my top 15 books ever. I highly recommend it. I’m fond of this guy!
”Palestinian acts of violence must be contextualized” is sheer nonsense. And no there is no BUT… And incidentally it does not help your cause period end of story. Professor Beinart there is no justification for going after civilian life whether you are oppressed or not. Historically long before Israel had power over the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, attacks were carried out against Jewish civilians. In fact, these acts happened throughout the 20th century.
Palestinians have chosen not to accept a state from the 1920s on if the Jews get one too. And have continued to demand the whole loaf of bread and have proven time and again that sharing is not what they are interested in. Its tiresome to hear how oppressed they are—its their choice to oppress themselves.
Again let’s keep in mind who the leaders are on that side. Gaza is run by an organization whose goal is a theocratic state where Jews are not permitted (they want all Jews dead) and of course women have no rights in such a state. I would argue their existence is oppressive to the people under their thumb.
Let’s talk about the larger context. There is one thing missing in your piece: the Palestinians have rejected three peace plans that would have allowed them to recover virtually all the occupied territories in 2001, 2008, and 2014. Revisionist have tried hard to deny this reality in 2001 and 2008 (I was among those who found mitigating circumstances to explain their rejection of Clinton and Olmert’s offers), but they are running out of arguments to justify Abbas’ rejection of Kerry and Obama’s offer in 2014. On top of that, top PA negotiators, Ahmed Qurei, Akram Haniyeh, Hussein Agha, Diana Buttu, among others, acknowledge now that the Palestinians will never sign a final-status agreement based on the Clinton parameters, as it doesn’t address the refugee issue well enough.
I am all in favor of imposing a peace plan on Israel, but doing so would meaningless if the Palestinians refuse to sign.
I’m not blaming the Palestinians for having rejected these peace plans. Obviously, neither Israelis nor Palestinians are emotionally capable of dividing the country. Their identity is too woven into this land. That’s fine. There are creative ways of solving the conflict, like a confederation for example. (A confederation can also have its own army and it’s own foreign policy, which means all the trappings of a federal state but without depriving the member states of their independence.)
What annoys me is when people accuse Israel of violating international law (with good reason) but also call for the dismantling of this state in the same breathe (which also happens to be a violation of international law).
Obviously, Western elites transpose their postcolonial guilt to Israel, which nurtures this anti-Israel hysteria. Radical anti-Zionism (which is the latest far-left fetich) won’t age well (just like Maoism or Trotskyism in the 1970s).
I’m sad to see the the author of the Icarus Syndrome (a beautiful book) is falling for it. But to paraphrase Raymond Aron, political ideologies are modern-day religions. Religious thinking is not rational.
One thing is sure: this conflict will end when both sides understand that they are not 100% right and the other side is not 100% evil. Obviously, Beinart has become part of the problem, not the solution.
"There is one thing missing in your piece: the Palestinians have rejected three peace plans that would have allowed them to recover virtually all the occupied territories in 2001, 2008, and 2014." - Peter, how could you in good conscience allow this "hasbara" in your site? Sickening.
I disagree with Bernard's interpretation of the historical record but I welcome him expressing views I disagree with. I want people who disagree with me to listen and respond.
"Everybody supports everyone that they agree with. That's a no-brainer. What the problem is: you have to allow people you disagree with to also speak."
Hasbara? So are you suggesting that Ahmed Qurei, Ahmad Khalidi, Diana Buttu, Akram Haniyeh, and Hussein Agha (all top PA negotiators) are Israeli propagandists? For BDS, "Hasbarah" has become a catchword, pretty much like the "Bourgeoisie" for the Maos and the Trots in the 1970s!
I agree with everything you said…and also about not delving into the all of the rejections of all of the Peace Plans with all of the conflicting details about those….However I also agree with Peter and his basic view that violence outside of a military conflict zone between military combatants….can NEVER be justified…either by the Israelis, nor by the Palestinians. And not even the Ukrainians ( although the Russian soldiers, if you can refer to thousands of sadistic thugs as soldiers, are perpetrating unspeakable violence on the civilian populations of Ukraine everywhere they go).
Thank you Peter. It is such an important discussion. I truly believe the Palestinians would have disappeared without the early actions of the PLO. But then what happens afterward
In addition to M.L. King and N. Mandela, Gandhi also sanctioned violence wherein it is one's duty to defend your country through violent means, if you cannot do it non-violently. By assigning more responsibility to the Israelis for the (cycle of) violence, I do not believe Peter has become part of the problem. Rather, I feel Peter is stating the obvious wherein the moral obligation to break the cycle of violence falls on the stronger/superior power of the two sides engaged in conflict. As D. Tutu wrote: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor"
Hi Peter,
You made a very good case. And, by the way, no need to change anything in your style. You are doing great work! Thank you. David
thank you!
I usually agree with you, but not this time. As a lifelong pacifist and activist, I do not believe that violence is ever justified except in the immediate defense of life. The equation of injustice and violence is rhetoric in defense of resort to violence, but it is not a reasonable statement in terms of any ethic I could accept. Ukraine's is a war of defense and I agree that they have the moral right to fight that war, but the arguments about MLK and Mandela, not so much. MLK was convinced of the power of nonviolence by Bayard Rustin, a man who has never been justly credited for his role in the Civil Rights movement (in which I was active). Here is a more accurate portrayal of Mandela than his one-time endorsement of violence (and then only against police and soldiers carrying out Apartheid). https://www.ashgrove.cheshire.sch.uk/_site/data/files/year%206/week%2011/9EE2E2604144166BC109F181D49BBD07.pdf I have a very long history of working with Palestinian peace activists (Jewish Peace Fellowship as Chair and since). Indulging in violence has not ever brought Palestinians any justice or any relief from oppression. It becomes the justification of violence and more oppression towards them. For a good model of why nonviolence is called (by us who value it) "a force more powerful," I recommend you look to the history of Leymah Gbowee, perhaps in the film about her "Pray The Devil Back to Hell."
Mr. Beinert, we know a lot of people in common and you may not know who I am, but I am very disappointed in this statement.
Rabbi Bentley, My argument wasn't a defense of Palestinian violence. It was an argument that Palestinian violence against civilians--like Ukrainian violence against civilians--doesn't discredit their right to freedom and must be seen within the context of the structural violence they endure as people lacking basic rights. Best, Peter
Thank you for such a quick response. Of course that some in a group resort to violence does not end their right to, well, human rights - each under vine and fig tree, etc. Your statement struck me as justifying violence and I am glad to be wrong about that. Activists have to deal with the reality of violence committed by those whose rights they defend. Part of that is fighting (nonviolently) despite the violence committed by some. Personally I have talked with Palestinians about this.
Perfectly put. Self-determination is a human right, not a reward for good conduct.
Thanks, Tzvi. Chag Sameach.
Yeah, but political change is a reward for vision and appropriate strategy, i.e., smart conduct.
You write: "You’re not going to end Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians unless you deal with the problem of the massive violence that Palestinians experience." I'd say: "You’re not going to end the massive violence that Palestinians experience unless you deal with the problem of Palestinian organizations targeting civilians and claiming it's okay to kill Israeli civilians." As long as that is happening, liberals will never support Palestinians in substantive ways. These victims are Jews; and since WW2 it's the mantra of liberals is to protect Jews. You're not helping the Palestinians by making excuses for organizational attacks on civilians.
The violence by Palestinians is nothing compared to the violence of the Israeli army & police.
The lawless behaviour of the Israeli forces towards unarmed Palestinian civilians, the expropriations, censorship, administrative detention, expulsions, torture, home demolitions, the unending killings.
I agree, but I'm not sure how your comment relates to mine.
You said: "You’re not going to end the massive violence that Palestinians experience unless you deal with the problem of Palestinian organizations targeting civilians and claiming it's okay to kill Israeli civilians."
My point is that Israel commits the greater atrocities against Palestinians including against women and children. Gaza is an open prison, the West Bank is full of Israeli military checkpoints. Reading reports in Israeli newspapers of Palestinians being shot and killed for doing very little or nothing at all and when wounded been left without medical help until they die. This is state terrorism, which has been happening for decades. The Palestinians are reacting to years of abuse by Israel with no end in sight.
So if the so called only democracy in the Middle East murders Palestinian civilians, why is it wrong for the Palestinians to do the same?
I don’t believe myself that it is right to target civilians, Israeli or Palestinian.
You (and Peter) are making a moral argument: Israel does worse things than the Palestinians. And I agree. But we don't need "agreement," we need the liberal West to intervene. I'm making a practical, strategic statement: as long as there are fanatic terrorist organizations among "the Jewish state's" enemies, the liberal West will not force Israel to do anything. (And who do you expect to be convinced by your moral arguments? Russia?) Simply put, liberal Christians know your argument and have made their decision: they care more about "the victims of the Holocaust" than about Palestinians. And every time Hamas and its friends fire rockets or blow up a bus, Israel's expansionists give a prayer of thanks.
What do you think of Peter Cohen’s solution?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-cohen/root-causes-in-palestine_b_5499127.html
The single-democratic and the two-state solutions are utopian fantasies, Cohen says, but, according to him, it is perfectly practical to raise enough money to bribe a large majority of Jewish Israelis to go "home." If $1 million each could convince 3 million Jewish Israelis to leave, that would take only 60 percent of the US annual budget. (Maybe we could solve the problems of colonialism in the Americas and Australia in the same way.) I think Cohen's solution is a dystopian fantasy -- but he doesn't have to convince me. He has to convince an acknowledged Palestinian leadership.
The sheer lack of knowledge here is breathtaking and it extends from the Professor Beinart down to his minions on this site. So let’s deal with the simple facts should you want to investigate them.
Here are some books to read:
Alexander Scholch – Palestine in Transition 1856-1882
Gershom Shafir- Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestine Conflict 1882-1914
Neville j Mandel—The Arabs and Zionism Before WWI
David Grossman—Rural Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Palestine
There are others by Ruth Kark for example who paint a more balanced picture of what happened.
To be sure some people who today call themselves Palestinians lived in the land throughout the last 2,000 years; these were Jews who became Christians and who later became Moslems but they were not and are not the dominant Moslem population that survived into the 19th and 20th century.
The facts are that the people who lived there starting in the 19th century are not the people who lived there throughout history. In the main their roots were from Arabia and they came into the land in phases starting in the 11th century and more came in the 17th century.
In the 19th century as a result of the slow rollback of the Ottoman Turks many people from as far away as Crimea, Algeria and Bosnia including some 2 million Circassians were settled in Syria (of which Palestine was a part). Also in the 1830s an Egyptian Army rolled through Palestine and on the way back somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 of the conscripts decided not to return to Egypt and settled in Palestine.
In fact, while the Jews in 19th century managed maybe 20 settlements Moslems managed more than twice as many in the same period. The point I am making here is that at the same time that Jews decided to return to Palestine so did many Moslems from other parts of the Middle East and Ottoman holdings. It was a race that continued until 1948. It is clearly documented if you want to see it. Or you can believe in the false narrative that the Jews disrupted and dislocated the “indigenous” Moslem population—this narrative fails on the demographic facts.
Finally, the notion that you can pay Israelis to leave their country speaks to your own lack of loyalty to your country which of course was stolen from the First Nations. Maybe you would take a million to go back to Eastern Europe (for example) but please don’t confuse your situation with Israel’s.
If you accept Abraham was "a wandering Aramean" I find it hard to believe any argument that any other 'immigrant' has no rights to, or in, the real estate that has been labelled Israel since 1948. Throughout its history many nations with many different gods have been overlords who ruled and or shared that territory. Intermarriage and cultural blending took place during each of those periods in history. Any DNA survey would confirm that fact. To assign any territory solely to the ancestors of one of those 'immigrants' denies the truth of its varied and ongoing history. Perhaps the books you suggest address that conundrum. The battle between nationalism (ie a purity of race) and cultural assimilation (ie the fear of the loss of identity) is grounded in the idea that one's way of living in the world should be given precedence over everyone else's. We're looking directly at where that absurdity has, and is, taking us.
Hi Jack, many on this site have bought into a narrative that states that the Palestinians were in Palestine forever and that the Jews came and threw them off their land. I brought up these books as a sample of well-respected academic research into the 19th century that clearly do not support this narrative. And yes, your comment on DNA is correct as well. If you pay attention to what’s written on this site, you will note that many believe the Jews should simply leave and go back from where they came from (some even suggest paying the Jews to leave). My point in adding these books is to show that the research is at odds with their commonly held beliefs. Thus, to suggest the Jews leave is both anti-Semitic statement and additionally a statement made in the absence of knowledge of the facts on the ground. As for who can live in any country that is in the hands of the government that controls the territory in question. This is true for Israel and every country on this planet. And if you live in America, you must be aware of the constant debate on the subject here.
Hi Ran, Thanks for your response. I disagree with those who believe the "Jews should simply leave". My point - in conjuction with Peter's re-interpretation of the Hagar narrative - would be that a land that has often been shared equitably by various peoples over thousands of years, albeit not without conflict, must find new ways to share that land peaceably. Fewer and fewer nation's escape the displacement and/ or return of their population to a land that was once theirs. The dynamics of the Israeli/Palestine dilemma is only one 'canary' in the coal mine (ie,. Ireland/Bosnia/Ethiopia have their own) that fact should alert us we can no longer assert tribal hegemony over territory. To survive on this planet we have to learn to share; unfortunately, in many contexts inside and outside Israel, although that appears to be self evident it remains sorely lacking in practice. Fear of loss and fear of the other drives it away leaving the reigning narrative of nationalism to overtake our collective imagination. Learning what the other wants, exactly the things we want, safety and security, and how we can go about facilitating that, seems to me a worthy endeavour.
Dugin was the target, and he is part of the war effort. The Russians made Crimea into a war zone. Anyone crossing into a war zone risks collateral damage. Nice try trying to find radical leftist relativism here.
i'd analogize him to Itamar Ben-Gvir. He's an extreme, racist, hyper-nationalist but a civilian. Dugan was in Moscow, not Crimea.
By the way, this article written by Shlaim displays the worst excesses of what Itamar Rabinovich called the "revisionist" understanding of the collapse of the peace process. At Camp David, the summit ended not because Arafat refused Barak’s final offer but rather because he refused to make a counteroffer. As for the Second Intifada, there is no way of knowing whether or not Arafat started it (his entourage is split, just like Israel’s security establishment), but one thing is sure: he refused to stop it, despite the fact that he knew that the US was about to unveil a peace plan offering the Palestinians close to 100% of the West Bank.
As for Olmert, his "lame-duck" status doesn’t change anything. Abbas too was a lame-duck, as he had no majority in Parliament and he lost control over Gaza in 2007. Anyhow, Olmert wanted to sign an agreement in principle with Abbas and call an election both in Israel and the Palestinian territories, so both peoples could endorse it. This was another missed opportunity.
Finally, Amir Tibon revealed in 2017 that Abbas refused to answer to Obama’s offer in March 2014 (it was confirmed by Kerry in his memoirs). This is what convinced me that the Palestinians were not ready to accept a deal based on the Clinton parameters. I’m pretty sure that if Abbas rejects another peace plan based on the Clinton Parameters, revisionist will find a way to deny it or make excuses to justify it. As I said earlier, religious thinking is not rational…
Aside from the fact that Shlaim has now become a Hamas advocate, he also has become very erratic. No wonder even Tom Segev parted ways with him.
He also rehashes the myth whereby Israel’s response to the Clinton parameters was no more positive than the Palestinian one. Perhaps, he should listen to his friend, Shlomo Ben Ami, who wrote in his latest book that 1) Israel accepted the Clinton parameters with reservations, but these were not categorical rebuttals. In fact, Ben Ami phoned Arafat to reassure him and guarantee that Israel accepted the Clinton parameters without any changes. In addition, during the Taba Summit, Israel went beyond Clinton’s framework demands to strike a deal with the Palestinians (Ben Ami offered 100% of the West Bank to the Palestinians as well as exclusive sovereignty over the Noble Sanctuary/Temple Mount, provided that this area would also be recognized as a Jewish holy site). The Palestinians were not willing to swap more than 2% of the West Bank (which means that close to 50% of the settlers would have to be uprooted) and insisted on having exclusive sovereignty over the Noble Sanctuary without recognizing the Jewish people’s connection to this site.
The main problem was the refugee issue. Clinton called on Israel to accept part of the blame for the creation of the refugee problem. He also offered the Palestinians a symbolic right of return to "historic Palestine" (which encompasses the whole British Mandate). However, he made it clear that they could only use this right in the future Palestinian state, not in Israel proper.
The Palestinians insisted on full Israeli responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem (this is enough to prevent both parties from reaching an agreement, even if they don’t insist on the implementation of the right of return), as well as a right of return for the refugees to Israel proper. They merely stressed that they would be "flexible" and "creative" in the implementation of the right of return. While they informally mentioned that they only wanted refugees living in Lebanon to be repatriated to Israel, they were not willing to put this down on paper. (The US too promised the USSR that there would be no NATO expansion eastward, but they didn’t sign anything, and ultimately nothing prevented NATO from expanding to Eastern Europe.)
The open-ended terms of the Palestinian Authority’s demands opened a Pandora’s box that would allow them to make further claims in the future. Israel cannot accept to renegotiate the return of new caps of refugees every decade or so (the latest official offer made by the PA in 2008 is the return of 80,000-150,000 refugees over a 10-year period, renewable). In other words, if after this 10-year period, Israel and the Palestinians do not agree on the number of refugees being allowed to return to Israel, the conflict resumes.
I’m not blaming the Palestinians for having rejected the Clinton parameters. However both sides refuse a two-state solution along the 1967 borders. Israelis refuse to go back to the Green Line, while Palestinians want two-states within 1967 borders, but they also want to keep the door open for further claims in the future.
What I’m saying is not controversial anymore. Most Palestinian negotiators have said time and again that Clinton’s framework won’t suffice to achieve a final-status agreement. That’s just fine.
I have no problem with going beyond the Clinton parameters by finding creative ways to implement the right of return without dissolving Israel. A confederal framework can also give both peoples indirect control over the whole land (as decisions takes by joint institutions would apply on both sides of the border).
I part ways with the North American Zionist left and anti-Zionists for two reasons:
1) North American liberal Zionists place the whole blame on Israel for the absence of peace.
2) Anti-Zionism may not be antisemitic but it is totally anachronistic. A Jewish state was a necessity in the late 1940s, as Jews were still persecuted and it was impossible to predict that their fate would improve so much in the second part of the 20th Century. Those who claim that a Jewish state should have been established in Germany fail to understand that the pre-state Israeli society already existed before WW2. No wonder most people on the left supported Israel’s creation in 1947…
There is no doubt that the creation of Israel caused great harm to the Palestinians, but denying that Jews needed a state more than any other people is pointless. Not all conflicts oppose the good guys on one side and the bad guys on the other.
Richard Crossman and Reinhold Niebuhr used to say that when it comes to the Arab-Zionist conflict, there was no absolute justice. They saw partition as the "lesser evil" and "relative justice". One can disagree with this claim (I don’t deny the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative), but the one-dimensional depiction of this conflict made by the left-wing intelligentsia is detrimental to mutual understanding and reconciliation.
With hindsight, it is now clear that Camus’ rejection of extremism was more sensible than Sartre’s knee jerk support for the excesses of Algerian nationalists. Camus too was isolated in the 1950-60s, but history proved him right. Let’s see in 50 years from now who turned out to be right: Amos Oz and Carlo Strenger or Tony Judt and Peter Beinart?!
https://www.timesofisrael.com/amos-oz-slams-netanyahu-but-chides-lefts-naivete/
https://www.haaretz.com/2009-08-14/ty-article/why-israels-left-has-disappeared/0000017f-db05-df62-a9ff-dfd7b26f0000
By the way, I forgot to add that despite the fact that I staunchly disagree with Peter Beinart about the Israel-Palestine conflict, I still praise his contribution to the discussion as well as his commitment to the well-being of both Israelis and Palestinians. Peter Beinart is a mensch. We just don’t agree about the means to end this conflict. Moreover, The Icarus Syndrome remains my favorite book on US foreign policy. I read it as an undergrad, and it remains one of my top 15 books ever. I highly recommend it. I’m fond of this guy!
”Palestinian acts of violence must be contextualized” is sheer nonsense. And no there is no BUT… And incidentally it does not help your cause period end of story. Professor Beinart there is no justification for going after civilian life whether you are oppressed or not. Historically long before Israel had power over the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, attacks were carried out against Jewish civilians. In fact, these acts happened throughout the 20th century.
Palestinians have chosen not to accept a state from the 1920s on if the Jews get one too. And have continued to demand the whole loaf of bread and have proven time and again that sharing is not what they are interested in. Its tiresome to hear how oppressed they are—its their choice to oppress themselves.
Again let’s keep in mind who the leaders are on that side. Gaza is run by an organization whose goal is a theocratic state where Jews are not permitted (they want all Jews dead) and of course women have no rights in such a state. I would argue their existence is oppressive to the people under their thumb.
"Palestinians have chosen not to accept a state from the 1920s on"
The Middle East 'peace process' was a myth. Donald Trump ended it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/18/the-middle-east-peace-process-myth-donald-trump-ended-it
Let’s talk about the larger context. There is one thing missing in your piece: the Palestinians have rejected three peace plans that would have allowed them to recover virtually all the occupied territories in 2001, 2008, and 2014. Revisionist have tried hard to deny this reality in 2001 and 2008 (I was among those who found mitigating circumstances to explain their rejection of Clinton and Olmert’s offers), but they are running out of arguments to justify Abbas’ rejection of Kerry and Obama’s offer in 2014. On top of that, top PA negotiators, Ahmed Qurei, Akram Haniyeh, Hussein Agha, Diana Buttu, among others, acknowledge now that the Palestinians will never sign a final-status agreement based on the Clinton parameters, as it doesn’t address the refugee issue well enough.
I am all in favor of imposing a peace plan on Israel, but doing so would meaningless if the Palestinians refuse to sign.
I’m not blaming the Palestinians for having rejected these peace plans. Obviously, neither Israelis nor Palestinians are emotionally capable of dividing the country. Their identity is too woven into this land. That’s fine. There are creative ways of solving the conflict, like a confederation for example. (A confederation can also have its own army and it’s own foreign policy, which means all the trappings of a federal state but without depriving the member states of their independence.)
What annoys me is when people accuse Israel of violating international law (with good reason) but also call for the dismantling of this state in the same breathe (which also happens to be a violation of international law).
Obviously, Western elites transpose their postcolonial guilt to Israel, which nurtures this anti-Israel hysteria. Radical anti-Zionism (which is the latest far-left fetich) won’t age well (just like Maoism or Trotskyism in the 1970s).
I’m sad to see the the author of the Icarus Syndrome (a beautiful book) is falling for it. But to paraphrase Raymond Aron, political ideologies are modern-day religions. Religious thinking is not rational.
One thing is sure: this conflict will end when both sides understand that they are not 100% right and the other side is not 100% evil. Obviously, Beinart has become part of the problem, not the solution.
The Two-State Solution – Illusion and Reality
By Avi Shlaim
https://www.pij.org/articles/2144/the-twostate-solution--illusion-and-reality
"There is one thing missing in your piece: the Palestinians have rejected three peace plans that would have allowed them to recover virtually all the occupied territories in 2001, 2008, and 2014." - Peter, how could you in good conscience allow this "hasbara" in your site? Sickening.
I disagree with Bernard's interpretation of the historical record but I welcome him expressing views I disagree with. I want people who disagree with me to listen and respond.
Lame and anti-intellectual. "I disagree that that lynching was moral justice but I want to hear from the other side too"
I just read this from somewhere else.
"Everybody supports everyone that they agree with. That's a no-brainer. What the problem is: you have to allow people you disagree with to also speak."
Hasbara? So are you suggesting that Ahmed Qurei, Ahmad Khalidi, Diana Buttu, Akram Haniyeh, and Hussein Agha (all top PA negotiators) are Israeli propagandists? For BDS, "Hasbarah" has become a catchword, pretty much like the "Bourgeoisie" for the Maos and the Trots in the 1970s!
No need to go back and forth with insidious/rote aspersions. Best to dwell on facts (from an ostracized Jew, because he spoke the truth):
https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-palestine-peace-process-unlearned-lessons-of-history
The PA was/is a tool of Israeli occupation and no serious scholar or observer of the apartheid state will oppose that view. Shalom.
I agree with everything you said…and also about not delving into the all of the rejections of all of the Peace Plans with all of the conflicting details about those….However I also agree with Peter and his basic view that violence outside of a military conflict zone between military combatants….can NEVER be justified…either by the Israelis, nor by the Palestinians. And not even the Ukrainians ( although the Russian soldiers, if you can refer to thousands of sadistic thugs as soldiers, are perpetrating unspeakable violence on the civilian populations of Ukraine everywhere they go).
Thank you Peter. It is such an important discussion. I truly believe the Palestinians would have disappeared without the early actions of the PLO. But then what happens afterward
.
Well said.
Thank you for a thought provoking video, Peter. I'll do better.