But anyway, back to Taub, who, if Ben Ari represents Israel's worst, represents Israel's best. And the best of the best excerpt:
MW: One of the more interesting points you make in your settlements book is that settlers seem to be echoing the sentiments of the anti-Zionist left in calling for a binational state. You quote Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook and Shlomo Aviner and others who make it plain that they’d rather see Greater Israel with an Arab majority than any division of land. That the intelligentsia of the Yesha Council more and more resembles the collective wisdom of the London Review of Books might be taken for a sign of how just marginalised and discredited the settlement project is.
GT: I think that’s very true. Which is why recently some on the right have been arguing for annexation which will include full citizenship to all residents of the territories.
I have very little respect for that solution when it comes from them, just as I have little respect for it when it comes from anti-Zionists.
A look at Gaza, where the differences between Hamas and Fatah were settled by the use of arms, should help us all wake up from imaginary schemes of peaceful bi-nationalism. I don’t see how Gaza would have turned into a liberal democracy if only there was a Jewish faction added to the mix. What the one-statists are promoting is going to be a chronic Lebanon style civil war. And the odd thing is, how little the London Review has drifted from old colonial habits of mind. The natives – we Jews and Arabs – aspire to national self-determination. But the good ol’ Brits, never tired of carrying the White Man’s Burden, know that the natives are too barbaric to understand what the right form of self-determination should be for them. So until they grow up, we, Western intellectuals, will serve as their political parents, and impose on them the state we know they should want. Because it is Western and enlightened, of course.
Anyone who can, in such short space, make the accurate conflation of "left" and "right", "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestine" one-staters, defend two-states, and nail British pseudo-anti-colonialists for so unabashedly taking back up "the White Man's Burden" is an automatic winner in my book. And the whole interview is excellent. He makes no apologies for anti-Semitism or denying Israel's right to exist, but notes the fundamental fact that Israel -- as a matter of basic national self-preservation -- has to extract itself from the occupation. It may not be fair that this burden falls upon Israel, even though the conditions of occupation and the lack of peaceful two-state solution are not entirely (primarily, whatever -- I'm not interested in hashing over degrees of fault) Israel's fault. Life isn't fair. Get over it, and do what needs to be done. Everything else (including, frankly, a comprehensive peace treaty -- even in a state of formal war like that which exists between Israel and Syria, I think the IDF is strong enough to keep Israel safe from any military threat from a Palestinian state with or without the occupation. Cast Lead, more or less, proves that) can come later.
Meanwhile, with respect to Taub's point about externally-imposed solutions, it's worth noting that, while I haven't seen immediately-recent polling out of Palestine, the most recent numbers I recall reading, from about two years ago, had a two-states for two-peoples solution as the clear consensus choice amongst Palestinians, taking 53% of those polled (32% want solely a Palestinian state on all the land, while only 15% preferred what is forwarded as the classic "one-state", binational solution).
8 comments:
As if the baggage of White Man's Burden was somehow confined to some small set of leftists with no mentions of, oh, I don't know, everyone who supported the Iraq War. (But I forgot, the American political establishment are Serious People, so different rules apply.)
Speaking of middle-school metaphors, you let the SOTU pass with a "I'm ignoring you because I'm into something more sophisticated nowadays" (and it has wheels!) AS IF YOU NEVER HELPLESSLY LIVEBLOGGED IT BEFORE.
David,
You write: "He makes no apologies for anti-Semitism or denying Israel's right to exist, but notes the fundamental fact that Israel -- as a matter of basic national self-preservation -- has to extract itself from the occupation."
I agree with you in principle here. However, there is no apparent way from Israel's current situation to a two state solution. That, in a nutshell, is the problem.
You claim that Palestinian Arabs, in their last polling, want two states. However, that is not (a) an accurate interpretation of the poll and (b) more recent polling has shown - with further questioning on what Palestinian Arabs mean by two states, which is something quite different from what you mean. I shall attempt to find the polling. However, the polling asked specifically if Palestinians who support two states take that to mean a settlement of the dispute or an interim solution (i.e. hudna). By overwhelming numbers, Palestinians favored a hudna and very few favored two states as a settlement.
Hence, I think you are deeply confused. And, the seeming willingness of PA officials to accept less - if that actually occurred not being important to my point - has led to riots. That is consistent with the polling I have read.
So, I think you are way off base. Would you like me to find the poll, which is quite recent?
I found it. The poll was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and the results can be found on The Israel Project website, November 19, 2010. The poll was also reported in The Jerusalem Post on November 23, 2010, which is where I read about it.
You should read the poll and also how it has been interpreted. In brief:
While Palestinians express support for the peace process and a two-state solution, a majority declines to renounce armed struggle and reveal the view that a two-state solution is more a two-stage solution – a path toward one Palestinian state.
Moreover,
Although 23 percent accept the statement that “Israel has a permanent right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people,” two-thirds opt for the alternative statement that, “over time Palestinian must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state.”
I should note that, in fact, one can figure this out from the polling you have examined, by looking at the less direct follow up questions, such as, (paraphrased) "after reaching a two state settlement, should incitement cease?", a question which always finds overwhelming support among Palestinian Arabs.
Returning to the current poll:
Additionally, when presented with the proposition that “the best goal is for a two-state solution that keep two states living side by side,” 30 percent agree with 60 percent opting for the alternative statement that “the real goal should be to start with two states but then move it to all being one Palestinian state.”
I should add that the poll notes that, depending on the details of a particular settlement, the percentage willing to accept Israel rises, at least in the WB. On the other hand, it rises, in the best case, to %50, in this poll, which is, frankly, no where near sufficient for a settlement to hold. In that circumstance, Benny Morris is correct that those willing to fight a final resolution would have sufficient support to prevent one. Hence, you are talking pie in the sky, in my opinion.
Correction:
Strike: "I should note that, in fact, one can figure this out from the polling you have examined, by looking at the less direct follow up questions, such as, (paraphrased) "after reaching a two state settlement, should incitement cease?", a question which always finds overwhelming support among Palestinian Arabs."
Substitute:
I should note that, in fact, one can figure this out from the polling you have examined, by looking at the less direct follow up questions, such as, (paraphrased) "after reaching a two state settlement, should incitement cease?", a question which always finds overwhelming opposition among Palestinian Arabs.
This elides the key observation I made -- to wit, "Everything else (including, frankly, a comprehensive peace treaty -- even in a state of formal war like that which exists between Israel and Syria, I think the IDF is strong enough to keep Israel safe from any military threat from a Palestinian state with or without the occupation. Cast Lead, more or less, proves that) can come later."
I'm not hinging the need for an immediate end to the occupation on it leading to a comprehensive peace settlement. I think that'd be nice, and I'm cautiously optimistic that the in reality establishment of an independent Palestinian state will push the needle in the direction of a permanent comprehensive settlement, but I ultimately don't think that is a necessary component to saying that Israel should end the occupation immediately.
Simply put, an Israel extracted from the occupation and living next a Palestine which does not accept its right to exist is still pareto superior to an Israel still ingrained in occupying a Palestine which does not accept its right to exist. The lack of recognition exists on both scenarios, the security risks rise somewhat but not, IMO, by that much, whereas the security, diplomatic, and financial benefits of not prolonging the occupation all inhere, and of course, the democratic rights of the Palestinian people are vindicated.
Basically, I'm willing to say that the danger prolonging the occupation poses to Israel's mid- and long-term security interests in sufficiently grave that it is better for it to end the occupation even in absence of any comprehensive, permanent settlement.
David,
I think your comment is so wrongheaded and counter-factual that it is difficult to know where to begin. One basic error in your thinking is that disengagement from Gaza led inevitably to Cast Iron, just as A leads to B. Why do you think that Israel disengaging from the WB would lead to a better result? And, why do you think that Israel would be able to respond forcefully and effectively thereafter? And, if rockets start falling near the airport and Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, what happens when Israel's response has no political support in the world? Which is to say, I think you are in dreamland, confusing the perfect with the good.
The reason that Israel's withdraw from Gaza led where it is led is that Hamas was able to convince Palestinian Arabs that they had forced Israel out. That, in fact, was what occurred, for what it is worth. Which is to say, Hamas was quite correct in its argument.
Moreover, as reported in the UK rag - excuse me, newspaper -, The Guardian, Israel's unilateral withdraw from Lebanon was the decisive factor in instigating the second Intifadah. Why? Because it was seen that Israel could be forced to give up territory due to terror.
As I see it, your opinion cannot - unless past is not in any way prelude - possibly result in anything but more bloodshed, as it did after the Lebanon withdraw and the Gaza withdraw. Why support something which will, in the hope of making an improvement, get a lot of people killed?
Now, I understand the Amos Oz view - which you are more or less expressing. At least Israel will be fighting for its future, if it cedes land, from land over which it has an unambiguous moral claim. However, if you actually follow things carefully, you will find that, in fact, there is a large swath of European opinion, most especially among the elite, which is opposed to Israel in any form. That, e.g., appears to be the view of The Guardian's comment editor and many of its Middle East writers. That view has substantial support in Britain's Foreign Office. No doubt that you will find the same viewpoint, to a greater or lesser extent, throughout Europe and much of the world. It even has support in the US's State Department - just as it did before Truman ignored such views (coming from the likes of George Marshall, George Kennan, etc., etc.). The reason for that is that, by and large, Israel is not perceived as likely to be a permanent presence in the Muslim/Arab Middle East so it is not in the long term interest of governments to stake too much on Israel. Not to understand that is to be ignorant.
Hence, the most likely scenario here - since Palestinian Arabs can also do the math - is that Israel's ceding of more land will lead to more terror and to shooting rockets towards the airport and Tel Aviv - which would be nearby. Israel, of course, will have to act forcefully in response, since its main population centers will be under not only threat but actual attack. World opinion will, as before, be hostile to Israel's response because world opinion cares more to placate Arabs than it cares about Israel's population not being killed. The likes of another Goldstone Reports will be written and, to all involved, the lesson will be that with time and terror, Israel will be told it has to cede more land. And, the cycle will continue.
End of Part I.
Now, you also claim that terror exists either way. In fact, though, that is not so and it does not have to be that way. In any event, right now, the terror is under control. It is the Palestinian side which is in disarray. And, they have no easy exit from their circumstance. Most likely, the current PA leadership is toast and Fatah may be toast as well. However, Palestinian Arabs are so divided that, if Israel does not simply vindicate the terror strategy, there is a reasonable chance of abating the frequency of terror for years to come.
I might also note, since you have been pushing the view that Palestinian Arabs actually want peace, that we have on the streets in the PA riots. That, not because the PA did not find a path to an honorable or any other type of peace. Instead, it is because the PA seemed, if the documents are correct, was willing to compromise, the very thing which is necessary if there is to be peace.
So the PA is miles ahead of its people. And, it has done nothing to prepare ordinary Palestinians for the notion that peace means reaching a compromise. In short, the PA is now under attack - in this case, existential attack - from ordinary Palestinians for negotiating in bad faith - i.e., pushing views which the Palestinian Arabs, as shown by my noted polling and, if you dig into your polls more thoroughly than you did, by yours as well, are not what Palestinian Arabs actually favor. So, there is no current scenario for peace because, were the PA and Israel to reach terms, there would be riotous opposition to it from ordinary Palestinian Arabs.
Your view is, so what? My view is that, the peace thing was tried. I supported it for years. I favored Oslo. I was thrilled at Clinton's involvement in the process. I teared up when Rabin was assassinated. I supported Barak's efforts. But, I also noted - and I now see I was wrong not to have paid attention to the evidence at the time - that, from day one, Arafat made clear that he opposed anything other than an interim settlement. He even put his opposition in religious terms, saying that what he was negotiating was akin to what Mohammad had done when he made the treaty of Hudaibiya.
Something akin to that treaty - which is the theological basis for the hudna - is the most that will ever be both on the table and acceptable for the majority of Palestinian Arabs, at least so long as treaties have to be explained in the language of religion, as Arafat chose, with good reason, to do. Hence, any land Israel cedes will be used to make war, in the end, against Israel. It is a religious imperative, one stronger - since we are dealing with religion - as Kant's categorical imperative.
Post a Comment