![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabotabbyIt is quite simple, actually. Politicians, negotiators, and pundits are hereby forbidden from uttering the following hackneyed phrases: "painful concessions," "new realities on the ground," "Where is the Palestinian peace movement?/Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?", and "a democratic (and/or independent) Palestine and a secure Israel." Then, maybe, we'll get somewhere.
Okay, perhaps it is not the solution. But in watching the latest round of "breakthroughs," I am reminded uncomfortably of the Oslo Accords. Everyone seems to think that Obama's call for a return to the 1967 borders with the odd land swap is some sort of radical (anti-Semitic, in some circles) departure from the traditional U.S. line in these discussions, but really, it's the one thing that everyone but extremists (including myself and Benjamin Netanyahu, albeit for different reasons) seem to agree upon. As that last link puts it:
In fact, it's Harper, not Obama, who is Netanyahu's staunch ally this time around, (Obama's stance makes some political sense in context), drawing praise from such luminaries as convicted fraudster Conrad Black.
Harper's bluster distracts from the fact that there's really nothing new on the table, which is why May's posturing will inevitably lead to no change whatsoever. Israel under Netanyahu won't agree to the 1967 borders; the various factions within Palestine won't agree to a truncated and militarily neutered state, and two states divided on 1967 borders is likely demographically not feasible in the long term. The issue is not ultimately where the borders are adjusted to; the most perfectly drawn map in the world will not compensate for fundamental imbalances of power and resources, the refugee issue that no one wants to talk about, and the question of whether a state can be both "Jewish" and "democratic," especially once its non-Jewish population rises to equal its Jewish population.
As for the Palestinian Gandhi, lately we've seen what happens when Palestinians adopt—rightly so, by the way—the strategies of non-violence. A clash with the IDF at the Syrian border has left 20 dead. A very one-sided "clash,: since according to reports, the closest the protesters had to weapons were some rocks; if someone else were doing the shooting, we would call that a "massacre."
Here's an interesting editorial from the Guardian on non-violence in Palestine and India. (Is anyone talking about Kashmir anymore? I guess not.) And another one from Al Jazeera about the rhetorical use of children.
I actually don't think that peace is impossible, despite the overwhelming negativity in this post. Quite the opposite; I think it's inevitable, but only after Netanyahu's generation dies or retires out of politics, opening the way for pragmatists, and only after the continued entanglement of Jewish and Arab populations erodes the convenient fantasy that maps are the solution to the problem. One can certainly understand, though, given the recent violence, that no one wants to wait that long. Accordingly, I propose as a first step the purging of convenient and meaningless catchphrases from the political vocabulary in favour of a frank assessment of what is actually going on over there.
Okay, perhaps it is not the solution. But in watching the latest round of "breakthroughs," I am reminded uncomfortably of the Oslo Accords. Everyone seems to think that Obama's call for a return to the 1967 borders with the odd land swap is some sort of radical (anti-Semitic, in some circles) departure from the traditional U.S. line in these discussions, but really, it's the one thing that everyone but extremists (including myself and Benjamin Netanyahu, albeit for different reasons) seem to agree upon. As that last link puts it:
Although the use of the phrase “1967 lines” will irk many Israelis and delight Palestinians, the basic framework of an independent Palestine comprised of Gaza and the West Bank with land swaps to accommodate major Jewish settlements has long been American policy.
In fact, it's Harper, not Obama, who is Netanyahu's staunch ally this time around, (Obama's stance makes some political sense in context), drawing praise from such luminaries as convicted fraudster Conrad Black.
Harper's bluster distracts from the fact that there's really nothing new on the table, which is why May's posturing will inevitably lead to no change whatsoever. Israel under Netanyahu won't agree to the 1967 borders; the various factions within Palestine won't agree to a truncated and militarily neutered state, and two states divided on 1967 borders is likely demographically not feasible in the long term. The issue is not ultimately where the borders are adjusted to; the most perfectly drawn map in the world will not compensate for fundamental imbalances of power and resources, the refugee issue that no one wants to talk about, and the question of whether a state can be both "Jewish" and "democratic," especially once its non-Jewish population rises to equal its Jewish population.
As for the Palestinian Gandhi, lately we've seen what happens when Palestinians adopt—rightly so, by the way—the strategies of non-violence. A clash with the IDF at the Syrian border has left 20 dead. A very one-sided "clash,: since according to reports, the closest the protesters had to weapons were some rocks; if someone else were doing the shooting, we would call that a "massacre."
Here's an interesting editorial from the Guardian on non-violence in Palestine and India. (Is anyone talking about Kashmir anymore? I guess not.) And another one from Al Jazeera about the rhetorical use of children.
I actually don't think that peace is impossible, despite the overwhelming negativity in this post. Quite the opposite; I think it's inevitable, but only after Netanyahu's generation dies or retires out of politics, opening the way for pragmatists, and only after the continued entanglement of Jewish and Arab populations erodes the convenient fantasy that maps are the solution to the problem. One can certainly understand, though, given the recent violence, that no one wants to wait that long. Accordingly, I propose as a first step the purging of convenient and meaningless catchphrases from the political vocabulary in favour of a frank assessment of what is actually going on over there.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-08 01:06 pm (UTC)Hmmm...sorry if I was unclear. I'm simply trying to imagine what an effective Palestinian non-violent protest looks like and I'm having trouble.
If Palestinians demonstrate within their territory, Israel almost certainly wouldn't care. People non-violently protest American actions all over the world and we rarely take notice of it (unless it turns violent).
If Palestinians demonstrate within Israel, to bring their complaints front and center, they're likely to meet stiff, even violent resistance. And the protest has to allow Palestinians to get into Israel, which either won't happen at all for large groups or be quietly diverted/hushed up for smaller groups/individuals.
Theoretically, Palestinians could encourage a sort of economic isolation of Israel as a form of non-violent protest or a form of non-violent leverage, but even if they could convince long-standing allies to sever economic ties (highly unlikely), the Israelis would almost certainly dig in their heels.
I'm mostly trying to get a wider view on the options, but if I have a point it's that Israel has never been very interested in concessions to the Palestinians no matter what tactics have been applied. Although perhaps you're right in that Israeli attitudes will change after Netanyahu's generation leaves power.
My ramblings and $1.25 gets you a bottled water
Tom
no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 12:11 am (UTC)I think probably the best option is a combination of international moral and economic pressure—which is possible, I think—and local cooperation with emerging democracies, if that's the way the Arab Spring develops. But I don't really know what that would look like either.