It’s pretty hard to argue that any movement for peace in Israel-Palestine has been successful. It’s obvious that the situation today is worse than it has been in a long time, perhaps ever, and little progress is visible on the horizon. But there is one thing that peace activists of all stripes on this question have proven themselves amazingly adept at–savaging one another.
The latest example is the cancellation of simultaneous concerts in Jericho and Tel Aviv that was to be a part of the “One Million Voices” campaign put on by the organization known as One Voice. The dual concerts were to be free, with participants being asked to add their signatures to the One Voice statement. This would not have been a requirement, but it was an obvious effort to help One Voice reach its goal of one million signatures on their statement (they have a little less than 600,000 at this time). 
The One Voice platform is clearly a two-state one, and, while the group professes only to be pushing for negotiations, it’s clear that their stance is based on the sorts of agreements that are on the diplomatic table–the Clinton Parameters (which the group mentions in its own overview of their mission), the Taba talks, the Geneva Accords, etc. It is not surprising that many activist groups would disagree with this platform, as a growing trend in Israeli-Palestinian activism is to embrace a one-state solution, and even many who are not committed to that path bristle at these agreements as being insufficient.
But whether or not groups agree, the rhetoric employed all around on this issue has been terribly divisive. The status quo on an issue like this is always difficult to change, and the fact that various individuals and groups find it much easier to attack others working on a peace program, albeit a different one from what they would desire, only serves to strengthen the occupation and ensure that Palestinians will continue to live in misery, violence and dispossession while Israelis continue to live in perpetual fear. (more…)
As a matter of course, one might well ignore “peace plans” put forward by Knesset members like MK Benny Elon of the ultra-right Moledet party, a central member of the National Union coalition party. But Elon’s new “Israeli Initiative” bears some examination both because it may unfortunately become a significant part of Israel’s policy planning if Benjamin Netanyahu is elected Prime Minister after the fall of Ehud Olmert and because it has at least one point of interest.
Under Elon’s initiative, Israel would annex the entire West Bank, placing it all under Israeli sovereignty. But the Palestinians in the West Bank would then become citizens of Jordan, without actually leaving, although those that wished to would be given financing to do so. Elon revives the old right-wing contention that there is already a Palestinian state, and it is Jordan. But he adds to this a fairly bizarre layer wherein Palestinians would be living on sovereign Israeli land, but would be represented by Jordan. Thus, they would be subject to Israeli security arrangements (this is the most basic characteristic of sovereignty, after all) and their only recourse would be to the Jordanian government in hopes it would plead and win a case with Israel. What happens in Gaza is unclear.
Elon either willfully misrepresents or completely misunderstands various polls of Palestinians who say they would move elsewhere if they could. Rather than ascribe this to the obvious, and accurate, cause–the misery, economic devastation and hopelessness of living under occupation–Elon decides this is because they don’t have faith in the Palestinian Authority, hence would not wish to live in an independent Palestinian state that would be led by the PA. He similarly distorts Jordan’s view by saying it sees the emergence of a Palestinian state as a threat, something that might be true if such a state was headed by Hamas, but not if it is headed by Fatah. (more…)
The Middle East peace conference, announced with much ballyhoo over the summer and convened by the Bush Administration, is struggling, with good reason.
The easiest obstacle to overcome is the one that’s gotten the most publicity: the talks between Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert attempting to devise a joint Israeli-Palestinian agreement on some framework before the conference. There are many problems here, but both parties have a vested interest in making this agreement happen. Olmert needs to do something concrete to support Abbas, both in the eyes of Palestinians and of Israelis. Abbas needs to show he can get something accomplished with Israel, or his ability to hold control of the West Bank will be seriously diminished.
Yet both sides are facing increasing pressure, both internal and external, against any real progress being made. Saudi Arabia, for instance, remains noncommittal about its attendance at the conference. This is no small point. The Saudis’ absence form the conference will significantly diminish the credibility of any agreement reached in the eyes of the Arab world. But they are not going to give their imprimatur to a conference that doesn’t seem serious about addressing the Palestinians’ rights. The Saudis are also committed to try to bring Fatah and Hamas back into one unified government. This is now a long-range plan, as the Saudis surely recognize that Fatah has little inclination or incentive to pursue this goal right now. That means the Saudis have to be concerned about building relationships with both sides. Fatah is, at best, ambiguous (one might say divided) over the conference, and Hamas is strongly opposed to it. While Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon has opened the discussion about sharing Jerusalem in Israel, an aide to Mahmoud Abbas has made the explosive claim that the Palestinians must retain control over the holiest Jewish site, the Western Wall, an obvious non-starter. This illustrates the splits within Fatah more than anything else, as the aide, Adnan Husseini, surely knows that such a claim will never be supported even by the Arab League. Thus it should be seen as an attempt to scuttle the conference more than anything else. The Saudis need to tread carefully here.
While Hamas and Hezbollah have been vocal in calling on Arab leaders not to attend the conference, the reality that a failure of this conference will have severe repercussions, including repercussions beyond Israel and Palestine, is a much more significant force in casting a shadow over the proposed meeting. One of the purposes, from the Arab point of view, of this meeting is to put together some sort of united front to counter increasing Iranian influence in the region. For the Arab states, it is imperative that this be accomplished without military action, either by Israel or the United States. But both of those countries are not so kindly disposed to a diplomatic initiative, especially the US. (more…)
Cecilie Surasky and I had an op-ed printed in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune today, submitted and published before the University of St. Thomas reversed its decision to refuse permission to invite Desmond Tutu to their campus. Click here to read the op-ed.
For those interested, I appeared on a radio show today for one hour with Steven Walt, one of the authors of “The Israel Lobby.” You can listen to the show online by clicking here. If you have a problem with that direct connection, you can go to the page for the show by clicking here
This is the first time I’ve ever written publicly about the issue of the USS Liberty, the American espionage vessel that was attacked by Israeli forces during the Six-Day War.
I’ve never written about it before because there was scant substance to write about. The facts we have don’t extend much beyond this: Israeli planes attacked the Liberty, followed by a sea attack by an Israeli ship. The incident left 34 American sailors dead and 170 more injured, some severely. Two US squadrons were mobilized after the attack on the Liberty started and were then called back. Israel claimed the attack was a case of mistaken identity and apologized, and a US investigation was pursued, but only a quick one, which ended with American acceptance of Israel’s excuse and the matter was closed.
Today, we really don’t know much more than that. But the Chicago Tribune brought the incident back up this week, and so, despite the fact that the article really doesn’t shed any new light on the episode, I feel the urge to say something about this.
The attack on the Liberty has provided great fodder for conspiracy theorists for the past four decades. The surviving sailors who have spoken publicly have all been unanimous in rejecting the Israeli claim that they did not see the American flag flying on the ship. The one major point the Tribune article provides is much more conclusive evidence that indeed, the Israeli pilots were fully aware that they were attacking an American ship. This isn’t a big surprise, frankly; Israel’s explanation on this score was never all that credible. The Liberty was not off-course or in an unexpected place and there was no reason ever offered as to why the ship would not have been flying its colors.
But the conspiracy theorists have repeatedly used this incident to prove how much fealty the US gives to Israel, and frankly, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. The US commitment to Israel in 1967 was a lot more tenuous and more slender than it is today. There is no credible evidence that Israel would be able to get away with an intentional attack on an American ship in those days, even if one wants to argue that their influence is so great today that they could (a claim I would not agree with, as is obvious from my recent post on the Israel Lobby). (more…)
politics in Israel and the US. But the chief factor blocking Israel-Syria talks at this time is the Bush Administration’s refusal to allow them. This is not something often talked about, which is not surprising–one can only picture the response of the overwhelming majority of Jews to the news that the US is blocking Israel-Arab peace talks that Israel desires.