Roadmap and PeacemakingIsrael and Palestine
What starts the numerous peacemaking efforts? What brings them to a halt? Are they doomed to fail because the problem is intractable? Or are some peacemaking plans simply unrealistic? With one-sided conditions and expectations?
Friday, November 23, 2007
Why Israel Has No "Right to Exist" as a Jewish State
November 20, 2007 | Thus Spoke Equality | Why Israel Has No "Right to Exist" as a Jewish State | By OREN BEN-DOR
Yet again, the Annapolis meeting between Olmert and Abbas is preconditioned upon the recognition by the Palestinian side of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. ...
...
Notice, however, that Palestinian are not asked merely to recognise the perfectly true fact and with it, the absolutely feasible moral claim, that millions of Jewish people are now living in the State of Israel and that their physical existence, liberty and equality should be protected in any future settlement. They are not asked merely to recognise the assurance that any future arrangement would recognise historic Palestine as a home for the Jewish People. What Palestinians are asked to subscribe to recognition the right of an ideology that informs the make-up of a state to exist as Jewish one. They are asked to recognise that ethno-nationalistic premise of statehood.
...
So let us boldly ask: What exactly is entailed by the requirement to recognise Israel as a Jewish state? What do we recognise and support when we purchase a delightful avocado or a date from Israel or when we invite Israel to take part in an international football event? What does it mean to be a friend of Israel? What precisely is that Jewish state whose status as such would be once and for all legitimised by such a two-state solution?
A Jewish state is a state which exists more for the sake of whoever is considered Jewish according to various ethnic, tribal, religious, criteria, than for the sake of those who do not pass this test. What precisely are the criteria of the test for Jewishness is not important and at any rate the feeble consensus around them is constantly reinvented in Israel. Instigating violence provides them with the impetus for doing that. What is significant, thought, is that a test of Jewishness is being used in order to constitutionally protect differential stakes in, that is the differential ownership of, a polity. A recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is a recognition of the Jews special entitlement, as eternal victims, to have a Jewish state. Such a test of supreme stake for Jews is the supreme criterion not only for racist policy making by the legislature but also for a racist constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court.The idea of a state that is first and foremost for the sake of Jews trumps even that basic law of Human Freedom and Dignity to which the Israeli Supreme Court pays so much lip service. Such constitutional interpretation would have to make the egalitarian principle equality of citizenship compatible with, and thus subservient to, the need to maintain the Jewish majority and character of the state. This of course constitutes a serious compromise of equality, translated into many individual manifestations of oppression and domination of those victims of such compromise--non-Jews-Arabs citizens of Israel. ...
...
The Jewish state could only come into being in May 1948 by ethnically cleansing most of the indigenous population--750000 of them. The judaisation of the state could only be effectively implemented by constantly internally displacing the population of many villages within the Israel state.
...
The Right of Return of Palestinians means that Israel acknowledges and apologises for what it did in 1948. It does mean that Palestinian memory of the 1948 catastrophe, the Nakbah, is publicly revived in the Geography and collective memory of the polity. It does mean that Palestinians descendants would be allowed to come back to their villages. If this is not possible because there is a Jewish settlement there, they should be given the choice to found an alternative settlement nearby. This may mean some painful compulsory state purchase of agricultural lands that should be handed back to those who return. In cases when this is impossible they ought to be allowed the choice to settle in another place in the larger area or if not possible in another area in Palestine. Compensation would be the last resort and would always be offered as a choice. This kind of moral claim of return would encompass all Palestine including Tel Aviv.
At no time, however, it would be on the cards to throw Israeli Jews from their land.An egalitarian and pragmatic realisation of the Right of Return constitutes an egalitarian legal revolution. As such it would be paramount to address Jews' worries about security and equality in any future arrangement in which they, or any other group, may become a minority. Jews national symbols and importance would be preserved. Equality of stake involves equality of symbolic ownership. ...
November 20, 2007 | Thus Spoke Equality | Why Israel Has No "Right to Exist" as a Jewish State | By OREN BEN-DOR
Yet again, the Annapolis meeting between Olmert and Abbas is preconditioned upon the recognition by the Palestinian side of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. ...
...
Notice, however, that Palestinian are not asked merely to recognise the perfectly true fact and with it, the absolutely feasible moral claim, that millions of Jewish people are now living in the State of Israel and that their physical existence, liberty and equality should be protected in any future settlement. They are not asked merely to recognise the assurance that any future arrangement would recognise historic Palestine as a home for the Jewish People. What Palestinians are asked to subscribe to recognition the right of an ideology that informs the make-up of a state to exist as Jewish one. They are asked to recognise that ethno-nationalistic premise of statehood.
...
So let us boldly ask: What exactly is entailed by the requirement to recognise Israel as a Jewish state? What do we recognise and support when we purchase a delightful avocado or a date from Israel or when we invite Israel to take part in an international football event? What does it mean to be a friend of Israel? What precisely is that Jewish state whose status as such would be once and for all legitimised by such a two-state solution?
A Jewish state is a state which exists more for the sake of whoever is considered Jewish according to various ethnic, tribal, religious, criteria, than for the sake of those who do not pass this test. What precisely are the criteria of the test for Jewishness is not important and at any rate the feeble consensus around them is constantly reinvented in Israel. Instigating violence provides them with the impetus for doing that. What is significant, thought, is that a test of Jewishness is being used in order to constitutionally protect differential stakes in, that is the differential ownership of, a polity. A recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is a recognition of the Jews special entitlement, as eternal victims, to have a Jewish state. Such a test of supreme stake for Jews is the supreme criterion not only for racist policy making by the legislature but also for a racist constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court.The idea of a state that is first and foremost for the sake of Jews trumps even that basic law of Human Freedom and Dignity to which the Israeli Supreme Court pays so much lip service. Such constitutional interpretation would have to make the egalitarian principle equality of citizenship compatible with, and thus subservient to, the need to maintain the Jewish majority and character of the state. This of course constitutes a serious compromise of equality, translated into many individual manifestations of oppression and domination of those victims of such compromise--non-Jews-Arabs citizens of Israel. ...
...
The Jewish state could only come into being in May 1948 by ethnically cleansing most of the indigenous population--750000 of them. The judaisation of the state could only be effectively implemented by constantly internally displacing the population of many villages within the Israel state.
...
The Right of Return of Palestinians means that Israel acknowledges and apologises for what it did in 1948. It does mean that Palestinian memory of the 1948 catastrophe, the Nakbah, is publicly revived in the Geography and collective memory of the polity. It does mean that Palestinians descendants would be allowed to come back to their villages. If this is not possible because there is a Jewish settlement there, they should be given the choice to found an alternative settlement nearby. This may mean some painful compulsory state purchase of agricultural lands that should be handed back to those who return. In cases when this is impossible they ought to be allowed the choice to settle in another place in the larger area or if not possible in another area in Palestine. Compensation would be the last resort and would always be offered as a choice. This kind of moral claim of return would encompass all Palestine including Tel Aviv.
At no time, however, it would be on the cards to throw Israeli Jews from their land.An egalitarian and pragmatic realisation of the Right of Return constitutes an egalitarian legal revolution. As such it would be paramount to address Jews' worries about security and equality in any future arrangement in which they, or any other group, may become a minority. Jews national symbols and importance would be preserved. Equality of stake involves equality of symbolic ownership. ...
Of the 40 years of occupation, only during three has construction been stopped despite all the agreements ...
What do you mean when you say 'no'? | By Gideon Levy | Nov 21, 2007, 22:01
A festive day for peace: Israel is planning to announce a freeze on construction in the settlements as compensation for refusing to discuss the core issues. The Palestinians are ecstatic at all the good-will gestures Israel is throwing their way. First came the release of prisoners, now a freeze on construction, and the prime minister has already spoken with the settler leaders and informed them of the decision. They said it was a "difficult meeting," as it always is, winking at each other deviously.
Undoubtedly, Israel wants peace. But a tiny detail seems to have been forgotten: Israel has signed a series of binding agreements to freeze settlement activity, which it never intended to fulfill. Of the 40 years of occupation, only during three has construction been stopped despite all the agreements and promises to do so. There is no reason to believe that Israel will behave differently this time.
Of all Israel's iniquities in the occupied territories - the brutality, the assassinations, the siege, the hunger, the blackouts, the checkpoints and the mass arrests - nothing serves as witness to its real intentions than the settlements. Certainly for the future. Every home built in the territories, every light pole and every road are like a thousand witnesses: Israel does not want peace; Israel wants occupation. Whoever is serious about peace and a Palestinian state does not put up even a shed.
From Oslo through Camp David and on to the road map, Israel has not put an end to the most criminal enterprise in its history. A short memory refresher: In article 7 of the Oslo Accords, Israel promised that "no party would undertake unilateral steps to alter the situation on the ground, prior to the completion of negotiations for the final status." That really made an impression on Israel. During the 10 years that followed, the number of settlers doubled. What about the heroic peace efforts of Ehud Barak as prime minister? During the 18 months of his government, Israel began the construction of 6,045 residential units in the territories.
And why did Israel sign up to the road map two years later? "The government of Israel will freeze all its settlement activities, in accordance with the Mitchell report, except for natural growth in the settlements." And what happened in practice? Accusations that the Palestinians are not implementing the agreements, and a boatload of new settlers. This was also the case in 2005, another major "year of peace": the disengagement. And what did Israel do in its own backyard? Another 12,000 new settlers. ...
What do you mean when you say 'no'? | By Gideon Levy | Nov 21, 2007, 22:01
A festive day for peace: Israel is planning to announce a freeze on construction in the settlements as compensation for refusing to discuss the core issues. The Palestinians are ecstatic at all the good-will gestures Israel is throwing their way. First came the release of prisoners, now a freeze on construction, and the prime minister has already spoken with the settler leaders and informed them of the decision. They said it was a "difficult meeting," as it always is, winking at each other deviously.
Undoubtedly, Israel wants peace. But a tiny detail seems to have been forgotten: Israel has signed a series of binding agreements to freeze settlement activity, which it never intended to fulfill. Of the 40 years of occupation, only during three has construction been stopped despite all the agreements and promises to do so. There is no reason to believe that Israel will behave differently this time.
Of all Israel's iniquities in the occupied territories - the brutality, the assassinations, the siege, the hunger, the blackouts, the checkpoints and the mass arrests - nothing serves as witness to its real intentions than the settlements. Certainly for the future. Every home built in the territories, every light pole and every road are like a thousand witnesses: Israel does not want peace; Israel wants occupation. Whoever is serious about peace and a Palestinian state does not put up even a shed.
From Oslo through Camp David and on to the road map, Israel has not put an end to the most criminal enterprise in its history. A short memory refresher: In article 7 of the Oslo Accords, Israel promised that "no party would undertake unilateral steps to alter the situation on the ground, prior to the completion of negotiations for the final status." That really made an impression on Israel. During the 10 years that followed, the number of settlers doubled. What about the heroic peace efforts of Ehud Barak as prime minister? During the 18 months of his government, Israel began the construction of 6,045 residential units in the territories.
And why did Israel sign up to the road map two years later? "The government of Israel will freeze all its settlement activities, in accordance with the Mitchell report, except for natural growth in the settlements." And what happened in practice? Accusations that the Palestinians are not implementing the agreements, and a boatload of new settlers. This was also the case in 2005, another major "year of peace": the disengagement. And what did Israel do in its own backyard? Another 12,000 new settlers. ...
Monday, November 19, 2007
U.S. Said Unhappy With Israel Positions ... dispute over settlement construction ... Palestinians say have taken serious action to disarm militants
U.S. Said Unhappy With Israel Positions | AMY TEIBEL | November 18, 2007 05:49 AM EST | AP
JERUSALEM — The U.S. is pressuring Israel to declare a complete freeze on West Bank settlement construction ahead of a high-stakes peace conference, rejecting Israel's long-standing policy of expanding existing communities, Israeli government officials say.
The U.S. also wants Israel to release more Palestinian prisoners than it plans to free before the meeting, expected to take place in Annapolis, Maryland, later this month, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal the information.
...
The dispute over settlement construction is just one sign of the gaping divide between Israel and the Palestinians as they head to Annapolis.
...
Ahead of the conference, Israel and the Palestinians recommitted to carry out their initial obligations under the long-dormant, U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan, which would require Israel to stop settlement construction and the Palestinians to disarm militants.
The Palestinians say they have taken serious action to disarm militants in the West Bank, where a government loyal to Abbas is in charge. Israel says they have to do more to rein in gunmen. ...
U.S. Said Unhappy With Israel Positions | AMY TEIBEL | November 18, 2007 05:49 AM EST | AP
JERUSALEM — The U.S. is pressuring Israel to declare a complete freeze on West Bank settlement construction ahead of a high-stakes peace conference, rejecting Israel's long-standing policy of expanding existing communities, Israeli government officials say.
The U.S. also wants Israel to release more Palestinian prisoners than it plans to free before the meeting, expected to take place in Annapolis, Maryland, later this month, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal the information.
...
The dispute over settlement construction is just one sign of the gaping divide between Israel and the Palestinians as they head to Annapolis.
...
Ahead of the conference, Israel and the Palestinians recommitted to carry out their initial obligations under the long-dormant, U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan, which would require Israel to stop settlement construction and the Palestinians to disarm militants.
The Palestinians say they have taken serious action to disarm militants in the West Bank, where a government loyal to Abbas is in charge. Israel says they have to do more to rein in gunmen. ...
Palestinians: "I know why you want to say it's purely Jewish, so there is no room for any refugees,"
Israel's demand to be recognized as Jewish state roils preparations for Annapolis | The Associated Press | Published: November 16, 2007
JERUSALEM: An Israeli demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state lies at the heart of the latest crisis to upset preparations for an upcoming Mideast peace conference.
In Israel's eyes, the demand seems obvious. Israel has always defined itself as the homeland of the Jewish people.
But the Palestinians think offering that recognition would imply they are dropping one of their key demands in any peace deal — a solution for Palestinian refugees who lost their homes after Israel's 1948 creation and for their millions of descendants. Israel opposes a return of refugees, for fear they would eventually outnumber the Jewish majority.
The Palestinians see Israel's insistence that they recognize its Jewish nature now as no less than a last-minute effort to sabotage the conference, which is to take place in Annapolis, Maryland, at the end of the month.
"I know why you want to say it's purely Jewish, so there is no room for any refugees," said Palestinian negotiator Yasser Abed Rabbo. "Why should I do that?" ...
Israel's demand to be recognized as Jewish state roils preparations for Annapolis | The Associated Press | Published: November 16, 2007
JERUSALEM: An Israeli demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state lies at the heart of the latest crisis to upset preparations for an upcoming Mideast peace conference.
In Israel's eyes, the demand seems obvious. Israel has always defined itself as the homeland of the Jewish people.
But the Palestinians think offering that recognition would imply they are dropping one of their key demands in any peace deal — a solution for Palestinian refugees who lost their homes after Israel's 1948 creation and for their millions of descendants. Israel opposes a return of refugees, for fear they would eventually outnumber the Jewish majority.
The Palestinians see Israel's insistence that they recognize its Jewish nature now as no less than a last-minute effort to sabotage the conference, which is to take place in Annapolis, Maryland, at the end of the month.
"I know why you want to say it's purely Jewish, so there is no room for any refugees," said Palestinian negotiator Yasser Abed Rabbo. "Why should I do that?" ...
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
[Israel] "nothing but deceptive talk covering its own deeds, which are aimed at achieving exactly the opposite -- of eroding Palestinian society."
Palestine | Carter's Clarity, Bush's Befuddlement | By Robert D. Novak | Nov 8, 2007, 23:57
...
But the former president's clarity on the Palestinian question contrasts sharply with George W. Bush's refusal to face reality, casting a pall over hopes to conclude his presidency with a diplomatic triumph.
In the film, Carter repeatedly and unequivocally states what Palestinian and Israeli peace advocates view as undeniable: to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace, with all its benefits for the world, Israel must end its illegal and oppressive occupation of the West Bank. That is a prerequisite that neither President Bush nor congressional leaders of both parties can approach for fear of being labeled anti-Israeli or even anti-Semitic (as Carter has been).
With the end to the occupation not on any participant's agenda, hopes for substantive accomplishment at Annapolis are dim. Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 24, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned of "further radicalization of Palestinian politics, of politics in the region" if "we lose the window for a two-state solution." But she did not mention the forbidden words of Israeli removal from the West Bank.
These words are not forbidden in "Man From Plains." ...
...
In the movie, Carter repeatedly declares that Israel must end its occupation of Palestine for peace to have a chance. The hecklers at his appearances and confused interviewers only provoke a stubborn Carter, who says chopping up the West Bank is actually worse than apartheid, just as Palestinian peace-seekers told me this year in Jerusalem.
...
A broader, more detailed analysis can be found in the newly updated American version of "Lords of the Land" by Professor Idith Zertal and leading Israeli columnist Akiva Eldar. This scathing account of the occupation, first published in Israel in 2005, declares that former prime minister Ariel Sharon's plan for a security wall was intended to "take hold of as much West Bank territory as possible and block the establishment of a viable Palestinian state."
As Israelis, Eldar and Zertal employ language that not even Carter dares use: "Israel's lofty demands that Palestinians strengthen their democracy and impose control on extremist organizations is ... nothing but deceptive talk covering its own deeds, which are aimed at achieving exactly the opposite -- of eroding Palestinian society."
In "Man From Plains," Carter goes further in this direction than any other prominent American has to date, and people who wander into a movie theater to see the film may be shocked. It raises questions that must at least be asked for the contemplated conference at Annapolis to have any chance.
Palestine | Carter's Clarity, Bush's Befuddlement | By Robert D. Novak | Nov 8, 2007, 23:57
...
But the former president's clarity on the Palestinian question contrasts sharply with George W. Bush's refusal to face reality, casting a pall over hopes to conclude his presidency with a diplomatic triumph.
In the film, Carter repeatedly and unequivocally states what Palestinian and Israeli peace advocates view as undeniable: to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace, with all its benefits for the world, Israel must end its illegal and oppressive occupation of the West Bank. That is a prerequisite that neither President Bush nor congressional leaders of both parties can approach for fear of being labeled anti-Israeli or even anti-Semitic (as Carter has been).
With the end to the occupation not on any participant's agenda, hopes for substantive accomplishment at Annapolis are dim. Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 24, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned of "further radicalization of Palestinian politics, of politics in the region" if "we lose the window for a two-state solution." But she did not mention the forbidden words of Israeli removal from the West Bank.
These words are not forbidden in "Man From Plains." ...
...
In the movie, Carter repeatedly declares that Israel must end its occupation of Palestine for peace to have a chance. The hecklers at his appearances and confused interviewers only provoke a stubborn Carter, who says chopping up the West Bank is actually worse than apartheid, just as Palestinian peace-seekers told me this year in Jerusalem.
...
A broader, more detailed analysis can be found in the newly updated American version of "Lords of the Land" by Professor Idith Zertal and leading Israeli columnist Akiva Eldar. This scathing account of the occupation, first published in Israel in 2005, declares that former prime minister Ariel Sharon's plan for a security wall was intended to "take hold of as much West Bank territory as possible and block the establishment of a viable Palestinian state."
As Israelis, Eldar and Zertal employ language that not even Carter dares use: "Israel's lofty demands that Palestinians strengthen their democracy and impose control on extremist organizations is ... nothing but deceptive talk covering its own deeds, which are aimed at achieving exactly the opposite -- of eroding Palestinian society."
In "Man From Plains," Carter goes further in this direction than any other prominent American has to date, and people who wander into a movie theater to see the film may be shocked. It raises questions that must at least be asked for the contemplated conference at Annapolis to have any chance.
