Saturday, April 25, 2009
...is different. Lefty Joanathan Chait on an Interesting Israel/Palestine Poll:
...Josh's read is pretty conventional. Both sides have their crazies, both sides need to make more compromises for peace, and so on. There's certainly some truth to it. But the most important dynamic at work is fundamentally not parallel. 71% of Palestinians say that it's "essential" that their state consist of "Historic Palestine," defined "from the Jordanian River to the sea" -- i.e., all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The same poll showed that only 17% of Israelis thought a "Greater Israel" -- that is a Jewish state encompassing the same territory -- was essential.
That's the nub of the problem right there. The vast majority of Israelis are willing to live alongside the Palestinians in one form or another, and the vast majority of Palestinians are not willing to do the equivalent.
This is where the whole parallel-ist view of the conflict starts to lose touch with reality. It's true that both sides have elements that deny each other's historical legitimacy, that both sides have taken provocative acts, but the heart of the problem is that Palestinians are not willing to live alongside Israel...
...I think the point is crucial because it gets to the heart of my disagreement with many liberals over this question. The mistaken equation between Israeli rejectionism and Palestinian rejectionism produces the frequent mistaken conclusion that Palestinian rejectionism results from various Israeli misdeeds. If Palestinians are hijacking planes or embracing suicide attacks or launching rockets in the random direction of Israeli towns, it must be a response to this or that Israeli action. The reality is that Palestinian rejectionism is a authentic expression of Palestinian belief with a long history that has manifested itself in numerous ways, starting from the Palestinian rejection of the 1947 U.N. partition of Palestine into two states, running through the establishment of the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964 (before Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza), and continuing through various tactics of killing Israeli civilians as an end in and of itself.
So, for instance, you frequently see it stated that Palestinians turned to Hamas in response to Israel's blockade of the occupied territories. Isn't it more likely that Palestinians turned to Hamas because Fatah ceased to be a credible vehicle for total rejectionism of Israel? Likewise, the energies of many liberals are devoted to the problem of getting to a two-state agreement -- a task I wholeheartedly endorse -- but they assume that such an agreement will stop or come close to stopping Palestinian attacks on Israel, something I hope for but sadly doubt...
Exactly. Stated another way, terrorism is an act of hope, not desperation. Arabs teach their children to sacrifice themselves not because there are no other options -- no peaceful end game possible -- but because doing so is envisioned as an effective means to an end.
[h/t: Sophia]
Gosh, who could have have possibly suspected that Jonathan Chait could make so much sense?
Absolutely mind-boggling.
I'm not arguing that Palestinian rejectionism ought to give Israel a carte blanche to defend its security,
Proportional representation in my rocket for your rocket?
That Israel sat with its hands under its backside for some years as rockets and mortars rained down on it towns and farms until its carte was rouge with the children, apart from the adults, who survived suffering from post traumatic stress disorder I suppose was an abuse of its right to defend its security.
The commenters at NR seem to all accept the analogy of the I/P conflict with the US experience of Europeans displacing Native Americans - as in, yes it was terrible what we (our ancestors did) but we must now be reasonable about remedies. One commenter compares the settlement of Israel by Jews to Russians coming over here and deciding that New Jersey really belongs to them.
This is an absurd analogy. The American settlers and government of the day waged a certifiable genocide against a non-unified people (who were often at war with each other) and who possessed a decidedly inferior military.
The Jews and Pals/Arabs were pretty evenly matched. The 1948 War of Independence was anything but predetermined. Only in the last two months did the outcome in favor of the Jews start to take shape.
The worst lie though is this: The Partition Plan required no Arab in the new Israel state to leave his home or land. There were no reservations planned for the Arabs in Israel. There would have been no "Trail of Tears". In fact the opposite occurred. The Pal Arabs were entreated to become part of the New State of Israel as equal citizens. The only thing that was being decided by the Plan was the government - Jewish for Israel, Arab / Muslim for Palestine. Each would supposedly harbor minorities of the other. Minorities from each side would be free to voluntarily relocate to the other side if they wished for some period.
Comparing the forced relocation of millions and the lost property and lives that occurred throughout Eastern Europe and the Balkans post-WWII, or the US genocide and ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, with the Partition Plan - that was actually a proposal for a two-way change of administration - is the worst kind of soft-headed sophistry.
Note to Barry #1: TNR makes a lot of sense, as do the rational writers on the Right (oy:)
The problems arises with the fringe groups. We can plainly see elements on the one hand supporting oppressive theocratic parties, states and militias that want to destroy Israel and/or Jews; on the other hand there are people who are aligning themselves with neoNazis, who also want to destroy Israel, Jews and of course Muslims and/or secede from the US, become isolationists, etc.
We see anti-science fear-mongering on both edges - one group wants to oppress research, teach creationism and proposes man consorted with dinosaurs. The other, now presented in HuffPo, wants us to stop using vaccines to prevent diseases that have killed and injured millions.
I propose a truce between rational, moderate, open-minded members of both major parties and political wings, because the extremists on both (or all) sides are a real pain in the kazoo.
And, they exaggerate the differences between us - the great majority of us share basic values though we may argue about certain issues such as the economy or the ways and means of dealing with business and government.
Nevertheless we respect our core values, we respect human rights and we believe in education. Some of these folks on the edges seem to have taken leave of their senses and they seem to have divisiveness as a goal. Weirdest of all they themselves are starting to sound like each other - "progressives" and the far right all sound uncomfortably like the KKK.
So - let's argue with them and not with each other:)
Note to Margaret above: there are commenters on TNR who are shills and who don't reflect the attitudes of the paper or the majority of its readers. They show up repeatedly and spout propaganda, it's useless to argue with them. This happens at Harry's too, you get the fringes of both Left and Right whereas the site admins and most of the posters are pretty rational and well-educated and moderate.
Otherwise I agree with you totally, there is no comparison between the US experience and that of the Arab/Israeli conflict. Indeed at the time people gave the Israelis little chance of survival and as you point out the state and Zionism itself were predicated on co-existence with the Arabs.
Jewish leaders begged the Arabs to remain and help build the state and equality for all is written into the core documents of Israel.
I wonder if the PA has similar ideas concerning possible Jewish citizens in a Palestinian state?
#2 Cynic,
In my shock and awe at reading what appeared to be a reasonable argument, I missed that bit of jabberwockish boilerplate.
Well, that's the Jonathan Chait we all know and love.
I selected only the finest cuts for inclusion here, leaving the rest. :)
Sophia, please dont slander the American Right.
There is nothing nefarious about isolationism or seccession.
As much hate that has been spewed at the US by the Euro Left and the Muslim Right.....who could blame us?
The Jews will always have a home in the US...with nothing to worry about except Mexican Catholics and Canadian snowflakes.