by max socol

In the bowels of ED Kain’s most recent Israel prophecy, there’s a (pleasantly civil) debate swirling around the security implications of a West Bank withdrawal. As I mentioned there, it reminded me of speaking to Akiva Eldar, the Ha’aretz reporter and author whose anti-settlement politicking has made him a national star, of a sort.

I very much like Eldar and enjoyed his talk. He delivers a persuasive and excellent presentation on just how destructive settlements are — so good, in fact, that I dug out my old docket pad, where I scribbled the notes I took (just below, appropriately, notes from my interview with the party leader of National Union, the radical right-wing settlers’ party that wants to force Palestinians out of the West Bank.) Here they are, for those who are interested: [Read more →]

Upon returning from her visit to the West Bank last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked, ““For Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for vis-à-vis Iran, it can’t stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts. They go hand in hand.”

Clinton’s visit to the West Bank may have helped shape this statement, and may help shape the policy of the United States toward Israel and Palestine under the Obama administration.  Is this in fact a sign that the US will once again take a balanced role in peace negotiations?  After eight years of unilateral support for Israel, it is time to reevaluate whether that support is actually doing more harm than good.  With a possible Iranian conflict looming on the horizon, important steps toward diplomatic resolutions need to be taken.

There are many good reasons to support Israel, of course, and given our current national interest in the Middle East, support for Israel certainly makes sense.  It is a democracy in a sea of totalitarianism; a generally secular nation hedged in by theocracies.  In its short time as a modern state, the Israelis have proven time and time again that they are a country of innovators.  They have breathed life into the desert by developing remarkable irrigation technologies, and have built up an impressive tech industry.  Of course, their basic right to exist stems from none of these things.  Whatever one’s feelings regarding the division of the British Mandate, Israel is now an autonomous state and has a right to its security and continued existence. [Read more →]

Via Andrew, Chris Hitchens has some harsh words for Israeli settlers in the West Bank:

Peering over the horrible pile of Palestinian civilian casualties that has immediately resulted, it’s fairly easy to see where this is going in the medium-to-longer term. The zealot settlers and their clerical accomplices are establishing an army within the army so that one day, if it is ever decided to disband or evacuate the colonial settlements, there will be enough officers and soldiers, stiffened by enough rabbis and enough extremist sermons, to refuse to obey the order. Torah verses will also be found that make it permissible to murder secular Jews as well as Arabs. The dress rehearsals for this have already taken place, with the religious excuses given for Baruch Goldstein’s rampage and the Talmudic evasions concerning the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

It’s wonderful to hear this sort of thing from Hitchens because few people could question whether or not he’s a friend to Israel, though quite honestly this sort of essay could blacklist him fairly quickly, especially if he were to follow up with repeated criticisms of the far-right Israeli setters and the crazy religious leaders who are quite single-handedly making an Israeli push for a two-state solution look less and less likely daily.  The same is true, of course, of the crazy religious and nationalist Palestinians, though there is quite a bit more press on that front, and a rather more widespread agreement that their tactics are wrong.  People have less knowledge and thus less opinion or investment in the subject of radical Israeli settlers.

It’s time Americans began to learn about the settlements and how very un-American they are.  After all, the thing that unites us most closely with Israel is our affinity with that country.  But settlements and apartheid are not things Americans generally approve of – or at least not since the days of Indian killing out West.

[Read more →]

There is something remarkable and frightening about the fact that Avigdor Lieberman’s Party, Yisrael Beiteinu, came in third in Israel’s recent parliamentary elections, gaining 15 seats in the Knesset, only 13 fewer than Tipi Livni’s moderate Kadima Party and only 12 fewer than the Conservative Likud Party.  Yisrael Beiteinu, which translates to Israel is Our Home, campaigned on an anti-Arab ticket–denouncing Israeli Arabs as unpatriotic, and calling for their expulsion.  The Party could very well decide whether Likud or Kadima is the head of the next government, unless the two should choose to form a unity Government.

Now, every Democratic nation should be able to choose who they please to run their Government, even racially driven, extremist Parties like Yisrael Beiteinu, but the fact of that Party’s success does call to question how long Israel’s current course will be sustainable.  I am a great admirer of Israel, which I view as a a nation at odds with itself, a land of hope and tragedy, a strange mixture of redemption and defeat, startling oppression and the promise of freedom.

The birth of the State of Israel signaled the last chapter in the long Diaspora, but has led to sixty years of Palestinian existence as a homeless population–a sort of new Diaspora spread out across refugee camps, occupied territories, and Arab cities across the region; lead by terrorists, nationalists, and religious leaders; second class citizens in whatever place they have the bad luck of ending up in.  Israel, once lively with the dream of the original idealistis who founded it, has over the years become increasingly militarized, entrenched, and anti-Democratic.

I do sympathize with the plight of Israel.  It took a number of wars to drive them to this place.  Those misguided socialists whose ideas founded the Zionist movement have all been replaced by more realistic leaders.  Unfortunately, the reality that many of these new visionaries live by – be they Avigdor Lieberman or Tipi Livni -  is one of stubborn refusal to make the hard choices necessary to bring about a lasting peace, and in some cases a stubborn resolve to see these compromises aborted.

Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, ostensibly a move toward peace with the Palestinians, was coupled with increased settlement of the West Bank, a region fast becoming a mini-apartheid state with an state; a three-year blockade that has severely damaged the living conditions of Gazans (who had already become a captive market for Israeli exports, and have now been made dramatically more dependent on Israeli mercy and goods through the blockade and recent war); and despite all of this, continued rocket fire out of Gaza, continued violence between IDF forces and Palestinians, assassinations, arrests, and kidnappings–essentially, for all the increased militarism on Israel’s part, it has been met only with violent reprisal and the collective suffering of Israelis and Palestinians.

And now, Israelis have voted into the Knesset fifteen seats for a Party dedicated to the expulsion of Arabs from Israel, and the continued expansion of Israeli settlers into the West Bank–a policy whose logical outcome is the total expulsion of Palestinians and Arabs from Israel altogether, or into smaller Gaza-like enclaves within the West Bank, surrounded by Israeli security forces, and utterly dependent on Israel for their continued survival. [Read more →]

Following up on ED’s post (and the sad 60 Minutes video), here is another video on the Occupation.  Called Checkpoint by Israeli filmaker Yoav Shamir it simply leaves the camera’s rolling in daily interactions within the West Bank.  It’s brutal to watch.  Not because any absolutely horrible thing happens, but just the daily grind of occupation.  You see Israeli soldiers trying to be human beings, some of them increasingly de-humanized by their participation in this militarization of society.  And you see something of what it is like from The Palestinian side.  If something like this documentary were shown on US tv in primetime (which it never will), then maybe opinions would change.  What is so brilliant in my mind about it is that there is no commentary from the directors.  No viewpoints are inserted.  Just cameras and human beings interacting.

This is the first of eight parts (all of which are on YouTube):

–

Sadly my own view (like those in The 60 Minutes piece) is that the two state solution is increasingly a dying prospect.  And, what Gershom Gorenberg called in his brilliant book on the subject, The Accidental Empire (i.e. the occupation of West Bank) is at the heart of that failure.  It’s not the only reason but it is a central one.

As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, it is the settlements more than anything else that prevent a two-state solution from being realized.  Whereas the Palestinians have no true guiding authority to end, once and for all, the terrorist attacks on Israel, the Israelis do have a legal framework to end the settlements in the West Bank.  Of course, such a political move won’t be easy, but if Israel ever hopes to achieve some semblance of peace with her neighbors and the Palestinians, the settlements must be dismantled.

The Israelis take the best land, drive on separate roads, and sometimes settler extremists will attack Palestinians or burn their fields and homes.  Is this how Israel wants to be represented?  Is this what Israel intended when those original Zionists populated Tel Aviv?  I think not–I hope not.  Not all of Israel is an apartheid state, but the West Bank is fast becoming just that.

Tom Piatak writes:

If I had to live in the Middle East, I would want to live in Israel, a modern, democratic country with a productive economy, including a burgeoning high-tech sector, and a rich cultural and intellectual life.  There is much to admire in Israel, a dynamic and prosperous nation created in part by survivors of the Holocaust.

However, Piatak warns,

The refusal to criticize behavior that would be criticized if engaged in by any other country is just one sign that America has formed the type of “passionate attachment” to Israel that our first and greatest president warned against in his Farewell Address.

Indeed, this is the dual nature of our relationship, both in the media and in politics, with Israel.  We support them unconditionally.  We support their every move because somehow they are like us.  Because that is where we would choose to live if we moved to the Middle East.  We support policiies as horrendous as the continued occupation and settlement of the West Bank because we are blind to the harm they cause not only the Arabs, or the interests of the United States, but also to the vast majority of moderate Israelis who would like, someday, to live in peace.

It is time that this Government laid down its blind support of Israel and the settlers who now have all but blackmailed that nation, in favor of a more helpful variety of alliance–call it tough love, if you will.  Call it pragmatism, or America first.  Call it what you like, but no matter what else happens, until the settlements are dismantled, there is no point in supporting Israel or doing much of anything else with that conflict.  It will be a lost cause.  Peace will not come without compromise.

NOTE: The 60 minutes video above, and this Time Magazine article, are meant to point out to that there are a number of reasonable mainstream critiques of Israel emerging.  And here’s another question to those in the hyper-partisan pro-Israel camp: how long can you keep it up?  Without more substantitive steps on the part of Israel, how long do you think widespread support for that State will last?  And wouldn’t it be a shame if popular opinion did shift so drastically that Israel lost American support?  Better to act now, make the right decisions, withdraw from the West Bank, take the high road and instigate the two state solution, rather than risk going it alone.  I sense a shift in popular opinion taking place.  I’m no pollster, but I think one thing that the Bush administration did badly was uniquivecobly support Israel.  Now, in a sense, the unpopular President and his unpopular policies will be inextricably tied to Israel, and not to their benefit I fear.

When Joe the Plumber was asked whether he thought Obama would be the death of Israel, he may have been wiser to point out that Bush already begun that process by so undermining American credibility in the peace process.  Bush, like so many others, may sincerely believe that his brand of support was helpful, but I think history will prove that not to be the case…

Second Note: I also want to add that one reason I think this move on Israel’s part is that as the dialogue shifts in the media, in the mainstream, we will start to hear more virulent attacks on Israel.  As it stands, there are those who foolishly compare Israel to Nazi Germany (apparently without the ovens, death campst, etc.) or the Israeli actiosn to the Holocaust (without the millions of dead, I suppose?) and this seems to be the sort of natural extension you begin to see when there is a wider shift in perception.  The same ignorant people who currently support Israel without really any knowledge of the conflict or region, could shift their loyalties just as quickly.  It’s important, then, that Israel re-takes the high moral ground, or else I think they really do face isolation in the geopolitical future.

Max Socol is unhappy with our initial foray into the Israel/Palestine debate:

Moral arguments concerning Israel and Palestine may be of incidental interest (i.e., did Israel commit war crimes in Gaza? Who is to blame for civilian casualties, those doing the shooting, or those putting the civilian bodies in front of the bullets?), but they do not have a place in the larger dialogue about solutions for the region…

The real question that we should be asking right now, and one that I have started trying to answer, is how the US can forge and guard such a ceasefire. I hope that now, in this new conversation, one of the “Ordinary Gentlemen” will take up the yoke of writing such a proposal, or critiquing mine.

Max wants to talk policy, not morality (though I can hardly see how it is possible to separate the two) and so I will oblige him.  It is important to note that I am an American and Max is Israeli, and I tend to try to avoid giving policy advice to other nations.  But I will address how I believe both the United States and Israel should act in terms of a broad policy approach to this mess.  Max goes into some great detail in his policy suggestions for the immediate ceasefire, which included a gradual series of re-opened crossings if rocket fire out of Gaza ceases.  Thus, a cessation of attacks out of Gaza equates to freer movement of goods and services in and out of Gaza, Israel, and Egypt.  However:

If, at any time, Hamas or one of its secondaries should resume violence against Israel, the process rolls back one step. (Rafah closes, but Erez remains open; Erez closes, but Karni remains open; Karni remains open, but Israel strikes militarily.) “Resumed violence” in this case does not mean a single rocket, or two or five, but rather indicates one week of continuous or extremely frequent fire — or one month in which Hamas fired on average one rocket every two days, or more.

The specific definition of “resumed violence” here may be the bit that counts most, as there is almost no likelihood of a total cessation of rocket attacks out of Gaza at this time or in the foreseeable future.  In fact, in terms of the immediate ceasefire, I think Max has a pretty good idea.  Nonetheless, I don’t think this plan touches on much more than the immediate, and even then, should Hamas remain in defiance–a fairly likely outcome–Israel is still left with an ineffectual blockade at best, and another outright occupation at worst.

Essentially, I can’t determine how any strategy in Gaza, any policy toward opening or closing those borders, can have any chance of long-term success without an equally intense focus on policy in the West Bank, and namely policy in regards to settlers.  So I would add to Max’s list, a roll-out of unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank in gradual steps, evacuating settlements in waves starting with the furthermost Eastern settlements and moving back, and ending with a complete withdrawal of security forces from the West Bank.

I think Israel needs to determine where to re-draw borders, at least around Jerusalem, without consensus from the international community or the United States.  Too many actors in this process will only lead to logjam.  The Arabs will almost certainly be unhappy, at least publicly, with any decision, but will more than likely grow to accept whatever new borders are drawn.  Pre-1967 borders are impossible, but they should be as near to the original as possible.  At the same time, Israel should negotiate a return of the Golan Heights for a Syrian peace deal, utilizing the Turks as mediators.

The United States should take this move on Israel’s part as an opportunity to work to financially prop up the new Palestinian State that would, de facto, come into existence.  US policy should cast aside completely the effort to impose democracy on the new Palestine.  That mess has been made already, and it would make better sense to prop up an authoritarian Fatah than to insist on elections or other democratic policies that would surely only strengthen Hamas.  The US should work closely with Jordan and Egypt in this effort, as well as with the Turks.

Waiting for an end to terrorism or violence from Hamas is counter-intuitive.  Israel’s only hope to regain a meaningful security is to end its occupation of the West Bank.  Once two states have been created, it is much more likely that the hostilities will gradually come to a close, much as they have between Israel and other States in the region, who talk tough but never dare to do anything beyond subsidization of proxy militias such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

What happens next is beyond me, but I think rigorous diplomacy with no holds barred is the only option.  All parties at the table.