In all the long years I have taken an interest in politics, I have never come across any debate remotely as characterised by wilful distortion, obfuscation, over-emotionalism, deliberate bad faith, polarisation, ill-tempered malicious mudslinging and widespread playing of the man rather than the ball than the Israel/Palestine issue.
Sometimes it seems that enough straw men have been erected in this connection to populate a medium-sized city of the damn things, complete with commuter suburbs.
Trade union activists find themselves circulating hyperlinks to articles on the website of a well-known Ku Klux Klan boss, while the leader of one far left group feels constrained to defend every action of Israel’s rapacious and corrupt ruling class, even to the point of offering carte blanche in advance of planned aggression.
If the purpose of argumentation is actually to achieve political clarity – and it is sometimes hard to believe that other motives are not also in play – than it would probably be helpful to establish some basis of agreed facts as basic parameters for further discussion.
In that spirit, let me offer the following hard-headed, call a spade a spade, generally leftist take, which I hope avoids the pitfalls of automatic identification with the nationalism of either the state of Israel or its enemies.
Naturally, I think all of my assessments happen to correct. But unlike some people, I am willing to listen to other viewpoints, and even willing to be persuaded I am wrong if I hear a superior argument. Why else have a comments box?
(1) Yes, Israel does brutally oppress the Palestinians. Some of those sympathetic to Israel remain in denial on this score. Others adduce reasons why this should be the case, including of course Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. But this is the basic issue of right and wrong on which all else rests, and socialists can have no other starting point. Palestinians deserve human and democratic rights.
(2) Yes, other countries oppress national and ethnic minorities too. Turkey seeks mercilessly to crush the Kurds, China occupies Tibet. Insert your own list here. Consistency demands that Israel is not – as the often-repeated phrase has it – uniquely demonised. But it should not be uniquely soft-soaped, either. Socialists should not play favourites among ruling classes. We are against national oppression. End of chat.
(3) Israel exists. It has been there for over 60 years, and had a population of 7,282,000 as of May 2008. Whatever the sins of their forebears, these people have human and democratic rights too. Let’s leave counterfactual stuff as an agreeable parlour game for history buffs, eh?
(4) Yes, Israel does have extensive influence and support in Washington. There. Said it. So does that make me a closet believer in the Zionist Occupation Government theory? Hardly. The matter is well documented, not least by messrs Walt and Mearsheimer, two serious scholars patently not motivated by conspiracy theory. What’s more, other influential groups – neoconservatives and Christian Zionists – use their clout in ways that suit Israeli purposes.
(5) Zionism is no more inherently racist than any other stripe of nationalism. Yes, I have read Herzl’s The Jewish State, and have to say I found it a work of no special profundity. But racist it wasn’t. Now, if you were to engage me in late evening philosophical discussion – over a bottle of decent single malt, to generate maximum loquacity on my part - on the Marxist understanding of the nature of nationalism in general, then I would say that it is a reactionary phenomenon and that hopefully humanity will one day be able to leave such childish nonsense behind. But that is not going to happen in our lifetimes. In the meantime, drop the stickers that place an equal sign between the Star of David and the swastika, please; they are simply gratuitously offensive.
(6) Any solution has to be hacked out round a negotiating table. As I observed above, 7.2m people now live in Israel. They will resist any attempt at conquest, and if push comes to shove, they’ve got nukes. The only circumstance in which they will agree to be driven to the sea is when they happen to fancy a daytrip to the beach and go by taxi.
(7) That means talking to Fatah. Oh, and Hamas. Just as there could have been no solution to the conflicts in Ireland and South Africa without the IRA and the ANC being brought onside, it will be necessary to sit down with groups currently branded terrorists by the West. It is for the Palestinians to choose who will be their representatives. It is regretable that they should select paid-up believers in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion rather than the Palestinian section of the Fourth International, but that is who they have chosen.
(8) Only a democratic secular state is going to work. Palestine is not a particularly prepossessing piece of real estate. All proposals for a two state solution essentially amount to calls for the establishment of one or more bantustans. There is only room for one viable state, and it is essential that it not be confessionally-based. Obviously, an elaborate system of safeguards, checks and balances will need to be built into the constitutional arrangements. But hey, if we can keep Belgium unified, anything’s possible.
There. Now, am I right or am I right?
Mostly right, but Walt and Mearsheimer are patently conspiracy theorists (so wrong about that, although I agree that the AIPAC, like many lobbies in the US, is far too influential and often pernicious, to suggest that it is able to make US foreign policy against the inetersts of the US is absurd and relies on the old calumnous idea of the sinister, mesmeric demon Jew) and a one-state solution is unachievable in the terms you describe, so what is the point in pursuing it?
Of course you are right Dave - on points 1 - 7 at least. Personally, I think that a two state solution is the only viable one and the right of return for Palestinian refugees will need to be exercised within Palestine and accompanied by financial compensation.
The problem I have with the debate is not actually about the middle east, but the way in which so many partisans on the “Israeli side” use the same tactics when arguing about a whole range of other subjects from Darfur to Iraq and Afghanistan and to the whole subject of humanitarian interventions and international law (subjects which they often seem to not understand very well).
If you do start writing more on international issues Dave then you can count the days until someone calls you an antisemite.
That’s pretty good for a socialist!
My addition to point 8 would be to identify the peculiar geographic history of the Temple Mount (and potentially old Jerusalem too) and that this precludes attempts to secularise this particular area of land, therefore some form of territorial division is inevitable.
If division is inevitable then it potentially can be made part of the solution if we have enough imagination to do it in a way which defends all interests.
The European example shows that a seemingly endless state of conflict can be resolved, but that it requires particular creativity and a degree of exceptionalism. Europe may now be a sea of secular nations, but the Holy See is an island in the midst of it all.
My feeling is that the Lateran Treaty provides an excellent precedent for how to resolve the incoherence within the current opposition at the heart of the Israel/Palestine question.
Wow, 5 comments of agreement. I’m gobsmacked.
Very good article!
Agree with Thomas that perhaps the holy sites could be administered like the Vatican, by the representatives of the religious groups.
The idea of a “Belgian” solution is the best one I have heard, a two state solution would not deliver justice for the Palestians or security for the Israelis.
Gerald Kaufman (not a natural political bedfellow of mine) wrote a while a go that if Israel didn’t talk to Fatah, it would have to talk to Hamas, I think his point has been proven.
Just to play devil’s advocate: do we need a debate on this at all? I mean, why does it concern us?
You have a fairly standard incredibly complex interethnic conflict over land and history and stuff, of which there are dozens in the world, and a few thousand people have died over the last couple of decades, which is sad for them and their families. But a lot more people have died in other similar conflicts in the last few weeks alone (mostly in Africa), not to mention the numbers of people dying of preventible diseases every single day.
I just don’t see why Israel and Palestine should get people who have no interest or connection to the conflict so emotional. (This is rherorical - I think I understand why people get emotional about it, but I’m saying that they have no right to do so over and above a thousand other injustices in the world.)
The caveat to point seven is that Hamas call for the death of every Jew and want to destroy Israel. No constructive negotiations can take place until they drop this doctrine. And they know that. The ball is in their court. Holding talks with an organisation that has shown absolutely no sign of recognising the rights of Israelis is at best a waste of time and money.
Dear Mr. Osler,
How dare you write a sensible and well-reasoned piece about this conflict?! Don’t you know it contravenes article 32b) of the internationally-agreed Blogs And Legislative Legal Semantics code (B.A.L.L.S.) for conducting arguments mentioning any or all of parties involved (however tangentially)? :-)
Of course, how you get either/both side(s) to even begin to approach the issue leaving their entrenched prejudices / supernaturalisms / etc is the biggest question of the lot - good luck with that bit!
:-)
Good article which makes some very worthy points. However, I dont agree that the ‘only’ solution is a democratic secular state. Two-states is a necessary building bloc in moving the two peoples forward to some kind of lasting peace and while it may well be far from ideal it does at least start from how things are on the ground.
What about the settlements?
Two points that I would add…
1) Israel does appear to be at least attempting to make concessions, c.f. prisoner exchanges, etc. It might help things if, for instance, when Israel do things like (sort of) restore the Gaza Strip, that Palestinian organisations don’t then start launching rockets into Israel from said territory.
2) Re: Jerusalem. I quite liked the idea that was advanced by the Geordie window-washer (”But then, what do I know?”) in the Armstong and Miller show: make the three holy cities — Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina — into self-governing city states, allowing access to those of all religions but possession by none.
DK
All very good but you gloss over the main point that I see prevents any conflict resolution: division on the Palestinian side. There’s a civil war bubbling under between Fatah and Hamas. Neither of these two groups has ever come close to suggesting they offer mature, responsible leadership. Many Palestinian people and Arabs living in Israel are having their hopes and aspirations crushed by their own representatives, many of whom are in it for the loot. Israel is only partly responsible for this situation.
Why did you gloss over this?
- direct link -
Letters From A Tory