Update [2005-6-19 20:26:26 by deano]: This diary was meant to act as a bridge between various perspectives. I don’t necessarily fully endorse each perspective but felt it was appropriate to approach the issue in an encompassing manner.
This diary was originally posted at the Daily Kos but has been edited since.
Since I have been writing on the Daily Kos I have noticed that there are certain issues that just are bound to divide people more than any others. Whenever Israel or Palestine comes up this certainly seems to be the case. While many times I hesitate to even get involved, I think it is important to point out the ambiguity of issue and at least attempt to complicate the issue from black and white perspectives that assign moral responsibility to only one side and hopefully provide a progressive prospective that strives to be free from cognitive dissonance.
In establishing a progressive prospective on how to frame the Palestinian-Israeli conflict we must address a) what are the values of progressives and b) how should we apply these to this unfortunate conflict. I believe progressives need to have coherent message to tell our leadership and the rest of the country and why not do it here, internally, on the Booman Tribune.
(much more..)
Establishing values amongst thinking individuals is not an easy task. I have come up with a laundry list of values that I think are commonly shared which would apply to this issue and then addressed their relevance to the topic.
Democracy & Self-Determination: Despite our leaders constant rhetoric about liberty and democracy, I believe these principles are essential to our perspective. Colombia historian, Richard Hofstadter wrote in The Age of Reform about the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century:
A key component to any democracy is the idea of civil rights or more broadly the rights of the individual. When we look at Israel and Palestine we notice that there are many elements of democracy as well as deficits in this arena.
In Alan Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel he comments:
While I tend to be critical of Israel’s democratic deficit, I think it is important to remember to look at the forest, there are many applaudable aspects of the society, and not only the trees, however many there are. For further reading on this, there is the CIA fact book on Israel which discusses Israel’s parliament, the Knesset and other related topics.
There are other voices on the subject of Israel and democracy. Michel Warschawski, an anti-Zionist professor, has dissenting views on Israeli
Democracy:
Gideon Levy, of Haaretz, is also critical of the concept of Israeli Democracy :
No democracy exists only as far as a particular territorial line within the country, and no democracy is reserved exclusively for a particular religion or nationality. In a truly democratic regime, everyone enjoys his freedoms and rights in equal measure. That is not the case in Israel.”
Democracy under the Palestinian Authority is clearly underdeveloped. In a recent letter to President Bush, Human Rights watch wrote :
While Israel has many democratic aspects that neighboring countries lack, I believe it is a progressive position to extend rights and promote equality within Israel proper and evacuate settlers from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; as well as obviously supporting Palestinian national self-determination. Furthermore, I agree that the Palestinian Authority needs to be concerned with the comments expressed by the Human Rights Watch.
International Law and Human Rights: I don’t even know if I need to say anymore. Most progressives seem to advocate that countries should all respect international law. There have been many articles about the outrage over the use of torture, etc. However, it is true that people are going to disagree about specifics of international law, such as UN Resolution 242, and what this means. Historically many countries have tried to shape law around their policies, as we see America doing by sending suspected terrorists to other countries to be tortured. This is inevitable, but I still think in many cases, such as Palestinian suicide bombers or Israeli tank and helicopter attacks on demonstrators, a reasonable person can be critical of both practices.
It seems fair to say that we are mostly all aware of Palestinian cases of violence against innocent Israeli citizens. The BBC has a summary of these atrocities. Furthermore, the Human Rights Watch has a well documented page outlining some myths about the legality of terrorism and the nature of the groups that perpetrate these crimes.
The General Assembly’s Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories which have been blocked by the Israeli government but has nonetheless written reports based on interviews and visits to neighboring countries has documented Israeli violations.
According to the UN reports:
Furthermore, on the United Nation’s website The Question of Palestine , the Security Council has affirmed its position :
A peaceful solution to this conflict is ultimately going to embody dealing with issues that have a legal nature such as water in The West Bank or Israeli settlers on potential Palestinian land (as seen on these maps), as well as of course Palestinian suicide bombers and the use of mortar rockets.
Cosmopolitanism: Ok this may come across as a bit of a stretch, but I think one fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives, perhaps unacknowledged, is that the progressives have a more cosmopolitan perspective. What I mean by this is that progressives espouse to see themselves as human beings first before other identities and to identify others in the same fashion. I think it is this basis which would draw us to respecting the United Nations Charter, The Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other forms of international law. This may just be speculation or perhaps it is an ideal to strive for.
Judicious use of the Military: This topic is probably going to be one of great disagreement, and it is a tough one. When I think of this topic I am reminded of David Ben-Gurion’s quote:
However, having been in touch with the news in the region in recent times I have noticed many sources complain of disproportionate use of force used by Israelis in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The BBC reported that Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing warcrimes in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as Palestinian militants targeting civilians.
It seems that the issue of how much force is acceptable or necessary is a subject of much dispute. I understand Israel’s unique survival situation, but think it makes sense to be critical of excessive force and inhumane practices.
The Solution! Now, this is the hard part. Well for starters there are some reference points to investigate. There was the Oslo Peace Process that started in 1993 and went until 2000. A major document, that kicked off the process which was conducted between Ehud Barak and the Yassir Arafat, was the Declaration of Principles. The BBC has a timeline of this process and updates it until 2003. It seems fair to say that the Oslo process has fallen apart, although there are varying criticisms of the process which range from Amos Oz to Robert Fisk (he addresses it in the body of his column) to Noam Chomsky.
After this attempt there was a less known, less publicized process conducted by, former Israeli Minister of Justice Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo, former(?) Minister of Information and Culture for the Palestinian Authority known as the Geneva Accord. The BBC points out its framework. The strength of this process is that it deals with all the details and would cause both parties to make compromises. The compromises include the Palestinian’s Right of Return for sharing Jerusalem as the capital for both states. For a good reference concerning the Geneva Accords look here and for a discussion between Rabbo and Beilin, you may want to check out this link at the Brookings Institute.
And alas, we have the Road Map which is a step by step process towards peace. It declares:
The Road Map has received criticism of being vague, the same BBC link mentioned above notes:
The accord goes considerably further than the roadmap.
While the roadmap seeks to create secure conditions under which a settlement could take place, the Geneva accord reverses that, by agreeing on a settlement first. This should then lead to peace.
The roadmap provides for a ceasefire and a settlement freeze, then the creation of a Palestinian state with “provisional borders”. After this is what appears to be a vague process for negotiation on final agreements.
The Geneva accord, however, settles outstanding issues and is much more specific in its detail.”
Final Thoughts What I aimed to do was to frame this issue from a progressive point of view. When I think of different people’s relationship with the conflict I often find that many concerned people have their hearts in the right place but need to be engaged in other perspectives in order to adopt constructive views. In other words, I think, it is important for the reader who has not studied Israel but who has read about injustices done to Palestinians to lend an ear to Jewish history and the struggles of Israel, just as it is important for pro-Israeli folks to acknowledge these violations of human rights and the Palestinian perspective. These are my thoughts and I write this more as a research topic than I do as any sort of expert on the subject.
Some Criticism I received when posted at the Daily Kos:
seesdifferent wrote (amongst other comments):
So I’ll include this link which states the unfortunate death toll since the beginning of the intifada:
Palestinians killed by Israelis: 3,135 killed by security forces in the West Bank and Gaza, 54 killed by security forces in Israel, 34 killed by Israeli citizens in the West Bank and Gaza.
Israelis killed by Palestinians: 431 civilians killed in Israel, 218 civilians killed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, 218 Israeli security forces killed in West Bank and Gaza, 83 Israeli security forces killed in Israel.
one of the people wrote (amongst other comments):
Cosmopolitanism, as you’ve described it, would call for a dissolution of group identities that most Israelis and Palestinians neither want nor are ready for. Pluralism, in contrast, calls for a recognition of each people’s right to live (side-by-side) within its own state.
I don’t disagree with this sentiment, but by cosmopolitan I did not mean a dissolution of group identities. What I meant was that I would hope in having our own identities we don’t lose sight of the universal qualities of humanity. I may be wrong though, it is speculation and one of the people does make some excellent points.
There was some good discussion about the issue at the Daily Kos post. I think it’s very a very important issue. It shapes the way America is viewed in the region and subsequently affects the Occupation of Iraq.
I’ve never visited Israel so it’s difficult for me to speak about what it’s like there, but one of your quotes stands out:
The first question that springs to my head is: does Israel’s commitment to equality also extend to equality based on religion? Is that not a fair question for a state that has residents who are not all of the same religion?
And that question must also be asked of every single “Arab state”, many of which fail the very basic test of commitment to democracy, let alone any of these other commitments.
The other part of that quote mentions Israel’s dedication to the rule of law. But international law is very specific about, for example, not relocating settlers to occupied territories (as far as I am aware).
That quote, if it were true of all the nations in the region, and you could add the part about equality based on religion, would be the basis of lasting peace.
arg just wrote a long response to this but then the page died!
Basically I don’t agree with much of what Alan Dershowitz has to say on the topic, but I wanted to include his quote to broaden the discussion as well as point out that Israel does have some progressive qualities.
I did include a lot of info on Israel’s violations of international.
Many of Israel’s neighbors have a long way to go towards Democracy, I agree with you. However, sometimes its too easy to clump them all together. Lebanon has some interesting ways of dealing with balancing stability with democracy. Although it is not ideal to have a system which each person does not share the political power equally, in Lebanon many posts are divided amongst religious factions, this may end up being a good solution for other countries such as Iraq.
Wait a second… isn’t this the torture advocating Dershowitz??
And really? Equality towards ethnicity in Israel? I don’t think you’ll find many Sephardic Jews who will agree with that..
If Israel is democratic then so is Iran.
There are lots of issues to tackle for the members of this site but I don’t touch I/P and I highly recommend you don’t either.. it’s a live wire that burns anyone who tries.
Pax
I wasn’t quoting Dershowitz because I agreed with him. What I tried to do was bridge a gap between various perspectives and frame the issue in a way that makes sense for progressives. By quoting say Gideon Levy, it would be impossible to agree with both people, I just wanted to show both views. The purpose was not to say Israel is a democracy nor was it to say Israel has no democratic qualities but to start a discussion about what should be considered positive aspects of Israeli political culture and what should be legitimately criticized.
If you would like me to not write more diaries on this website, that’s fine. Just having been to the Middle East as well as having talked to soldiers who have returned to the war in Iraq, I can’t stress enough that our relationship with Israel, who is viewed as an occupier in the region, shapes the perception of America as well. I know it is a tough subject, but I fear ignoring it is too dangerous.
No no… please write about anything you like! My word.. don’t not write about something because of me!
All I can say is I lived in Israel.. and to me it was like living in a lunatic asylum full of patients whose meds have run out. I can’t think of a simpler or more accurate way to say it.
The U.S.’ policies towards and w/r/t Israel are hugely important and need to be discussed. My observation however is that, for a variety of reasons, this can never be done without tempers flaring and people getting quite angry. And I’ve seen it happen again and again, including right here on BMT earlier this year..
Pax
The temper filled arguments are what inspired me to write this diary. I tried to include a variety of facts and opinions (some of which contradict each other) in order to look at the issue from a view that can’t really be called pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, but tries to shape the issue in a constructive way.
I do appreciate your concerns.
I do not agree with everything you write, but it is a good, thoughtful diary. Too many American Jews I know seem to feel Israel is always justified and Muslims are all terrorists. Many non-Jewish progressives I know feel Israel can do no right and Palestinians, even when they kill civilians, can do no wrong. I get in trouble with both sides because I feel both sides have done major wrong and both sides are right.
I also believe that there is no way to be pro-ISrael without being pro-Palestinian and visa versa. The two nations were created by the same act of the UN and neither nation existed as an independent entity since the time of Pompeius Magnus (with a brief period of an “independent” Judea client state of Rome). Both Jews and Palestinians have lived there since before recorded history focused much on the area and both groups seem to have grown out of the same Canaanite tribes (one on the coast, influenced by Greek immigrants/mercenaries, the other inland possibly influenced by more Eastern or SOuthern cousins).
So both nations have an equal right to exist. Both nations commit terrible acts to the people of the other nation. That sums it up for me. People critcize America’s role. Fine. But if that is so, people have to also equally criticize the Arab nations who have not only fueled the fire by supporting extremists, but who also have mistreated the Palestinians even worse than the Israelis have and who actually were the ones who invaded Palestine and prevented it from becoming a nation. They invaded BOTH Palestine and ISrael, but Israel defended itself successfully. Palestine was destroyed by the neighboring Arab nations.
That does not excuse Israel, but one cannot criticize America for being too partisan without criticizing the Arabs for their very negative role in the whole conflict. I am proud to call myself Zionist. But I also pity the Palestinians who have been victimized by ALL participants in the conflict–Israeli, American, Araba and, for that matter, Palestinian. The Palestinians have been hurt the most and helped the least, even by their supposed friends. Next to the Palestinians, it is the Israelis who have been hurt the most. And through it all, the two tiny nations have been the pawns first of the Cold War adversaries, and now of America and it’s Muslim adversaries.
Those are the bottom lines for me. Israel has to recognize Palestine and visa versa. Both sides have to rein in their extremist factions. And America and the Arabs have to stop making matters worse and start working for peace rather than war. Oddly this view gets me attacked from both sides. Once I even had a virulently anti-Muslim guy and a virulently anti-Israel guy gang up on me online because I took this moderate view.
Thanks for that thoughtful post mole. Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, I just tend to respond with knee-jerk answers if I don’t take a little time!
When you wrote that you do not agree with all I wrote, I am not sure if you are commenting on my actual writing or some of the quotes; some of the quotes I included to articulate a position and do not fully embrace their content.
I agree with much of what you said. About the polarization of the issue, I have definitely run into both crowds you characterized.
I guess I could say that yes, I am pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli. I think I mentioned above that I am neither, but what I meant was that I agree its not about taking sides but supporting a policy that is best for both people.
I commend you on your ability to disagree with people on “both sides” of the issue. I can really identify with that.
You are right. I probably was taking some of your quotes as your opinion. I also was responding to the general tone of Israel/Palestine opinion I have seen so far on this blog, so I may have been lumping you in with others.
One thing I like about Daily Kos and Booman is that even when I get into a discussion with those I disagree with on this issue, the discussion remains respectful. On other sites that is generally not the case. I was driven off a site when the anti-Israel and anti-Muslim guys ganged up on me. It was surreal!!!
It is so easy for me to get sucked into the pro-Israel side because I have been studying Jewish history and the one lesson to be learned is that Jews have always run into trouble anywhere they called home. The existence of one single little place in the entire world where we know we belong is a huge comfort. Not just a comfort, but it gives an increased sense of safety in a world where anti-Semitism (as well as other forms of racial, ethnic and religious violence) is skyrocketing. I feel almost as if the existence of Israel is a matter of the survival of myself and my family.
But that doesn’t mean I can ignore or want to ignore the rights of the Palestinians. It would be easy to say, “Oh there are plenty of Muslim nations they could go to,” but that ignores the fact that most Muslim nations hate the Palestinians and treat them as slaves at best, or use poison gas on them at worst. For Israel it is a matter of ethnic survival. But it is the same with the Palestinians. They too need their one little place where they belong.
I have a good friend who is Shi’ite and fairly religious. I have had many discussions with him on this issue. It is made more intersting by the fact we now also have an Israli coworker. Interestingly we all are largely on the same page. The Shi’ite is by default on the side of the Palestinians while the ISraeli and I are by default on the side of Israel. But we all think everyone in the area behaves miserably and that peaceful coexistence is absolutely necessary. I do remember that my Shi’ite friend was impressed with my pointing out that without Israel there is no safe place in the world for a Jew to go in times of anti-Semitism. He then compared being Jewish with being Shi’ite during some periods of history when they were a persecuted minority with no nation to go to. I had never thought of Shi’a in that way until then.
So dialogue can be important for understanding.