Guest Writers

A Progressive Zionist Perspective

by Guest Writers  ::  Filed Under Middle East / South Asia  ::  July 16th, 2007 @ 8:20 pm EST

After I submitted my piece on CUFI to The Seminal, it was requested that I should come out with a progressive Zionist perspective on the current situation in the Middle East. I’m happy to do so, but with the usual Jewish caveats: my perspective is not meant to represent the majority view of the Jewish people, and there is no official Jewish position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. My perspective is my own. What I bring here is an attempt to outline a progressive, Zionist, viewpoint, with an eye toward the historical realities of the region and the chances for future peace.

For a long time now, I’ve resisted coming out with a new essay about the Israel-Palestine conflict, because, quite frankly, there hasn’t been much point. The current Israeli regime seemed inept and corrupt, and the Palestinians were too busy fighting amongst themselves to do anything constructive. Now that a new dynamic has emerged that isolates the terrorist elements of the Palestinian government and allows the more moderate elements to work with Israel, perhaps there is hope once more.

Before I outline the steps I believe are necessary to bring peace to the Israel-Palestine conflict, I need to do some historical analysis, in an effort to find the roots of the mess we find ourselves in today.

The creation of the modern State of Israel was a long, complex, and bloody process. The linked article gives a good history of the British Mandate of Palestine up until Israeli independence, so I won’t dwell any further on it. This article on the history of Zionism is also good background reading. The key point to emphasize when discussing the situation between World War II and 1948 is that the U.N. tried to create two independent states: one for Palestinian Arabs, and one for Palestinian Jews. The state that the U.N. proposed gave the Jews a much smaller slice of Israel, and gave the Palestinians a contiguous, independent state comprising not only the West Bank and Gaza, but quite a bit of what is now the modern state of Israel. The plan also made Jerusalem a U.N. administered, independent city.

The Jews accepted the U.N. partition. The Arabs rejected it.

There, in a nutshell, is the root of the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In 1948, Israel declared independence. It was immediately besieged on all sides, and was forced to fight a war for its very existence. After Israel’s decisive victory, a large portion of the Arab population of Israel fled and ended up in refugee camps in neighboring Arab countries. Some Arabs also fled to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, controlled at the time by Egypt and Jordan, respectively. Instead of integrating these refugees into society, as they should have done, the Arab nations have let them fester in fetid, overpopulated, poverty-stricken refugee camps, where they continue to live today. Arab nations also expelled or otherwise forced out much of their own Jewish populations, and Israel itself was forced to deal with a huge influx of refugees from the Arab countries (the linked Wikipedia article has sourcing issues, and I therefore recommend interested readers do their own research for further information on the Jewish exodus from Arab countries).

Before 1967, Egypt and Jordan had every opportunity to create a stable Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, but both nations chose instead to let those areas turn into poverty-stricken refugee zones.

These refugee camps have become breeding grounds for religious extremists who have exploited Palestinian hopes for a homeland and anger about the appalling conditions in the camps to create terrorist militias. Thus, instead of directing anger about living conditions to their host countries, Palestinian refugees were guided by terrorist groups and religious zealots to blame Israel for all of their troubles.

Palestinian nationalists managed to win the sympathies of the international community, even convincing the United Nations to declare Zionism as a form of racism: a hurtful, specious, and disgusting charge.

Between 1948 and 1967, Israel endured a constant threat of destruction from every one of its neighbors, and fought and won several decisive military victories to secure its place as a legitimate member of the international community of nations. The Six Day War brought the conflict to a head. Israel took, by force, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai. These areas were won by Israel through military action, although the Sinai was later given back to Egypt in exchange for peace.

Now that Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza, the Arab nations could “legitimately” point at Israel as the cause of the appalling conditions in which the Palestinian refugees living there found themselves. In fact, Israel inherited these problems from the very Arab nations who claimed to be the champions of the Palestinian nationalist cause.

The next two decades saw the formation and development of the PLO, a quasi-governmental paramilitary organization representing the Palestinian nationalist forces controlling the refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank. Its leader, Yasser Arafat, was embraced by the international community as the legitimate, moderate face of the Palestinian cause.

Despite the violence of the first Intifada, relations between Israel and this new Palestinian entity gradually improved, with the Oslo accords being the first serious attempt at dialogue between the two sides. The next decade saw several attempts at final status negotiations between the two sides, with mixed results.

In 2000, Ariel Sharon, a hardline Likud leader, was elected Prime Minister of Israel, at a time of rising tensions with the Palestinians. Many people blame Sharon for the start of the current Intifada with his pre-election visit to the Temple Mount.

The ensuing years saw a spike in suicide bombings against Israel, spiraling deterioration in relations between the two sides, the death of Arafat, the political reinvention and subsequent incapacitation of Sharon, the civil war between Hamas and Fatah, and the Hamas coup d’etat in Gaza and partitioning of Palestinian territories into Hamas and Fatah zones of control.

So, where are we now?

Surprisingly, the isolation of Hamas in Gaza has given Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas a lot more breathing room to deal with Israel and the international community. When Hamas, a terrorist group responsible for numerous suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, won the majority of the Palestinian parliamentary elections last year, it seemed peace was doomed. The international community cut off aid to the Palestinians, and the Israeli government (rightly) refused to deal with the newly formed Hamas government unless Hamas renounced violence and recognized Israel’s right to exist. Israel cut off millions in tax dollars to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians found themselves living in a pariah state.

This tension led to a growing conflict between the radical Hamas government and the more moderate Fatah President, which eventually exploded in a civil war. Hamas, which had always been strongest in Gaza, managed to pull off a coup d’etat and force Abbas’s administration to the West Bank,which has always been a Fatah stronghold.

In doing so, Hamas has unintentionally created the conditions for peace with Israel. By isolating itself in the Gaza Strip, Hamas has allowed Israel to ignore it completely and deny its claim to be part of the legitimate government of the Palestinians. Israel can now deal exclusively with Mahmoud Abbas, bolstering his own credibility by releasing Palestinian prisoners, funds, and beginning serious negotiations towards peace.

It is important to consider with incredulity what Hamas has actually done here. On the one hand, it claims to be part of a democratic unity government established by Mahmoud Abbas and comprising both Fatah and Hamas members. At the same time, however, Hamas, using military force, has overthrown the very unity government it claims to be a part of in a violent coup d’etat, and has established its own military rule in the Gaza Strip. How Hamas can claim any legitimacy as a democratic political force after engineering such a blatantly anti-democratic military takeover is hard to fathom.

The coming months, and possibly years, may see the development of a new paradigm in the Palestinian territories. If Hamas manages to solidify its hold on the Gaza Strip, Israel may find itself facing two separate Palestinian entities, and the two-state solution so widely supported on all sides may become politically impossible.

Barring such a scenario, however, the road to peace remains the same as it has always been. The Economist has it just about right, the Arab League came pretty close to it in 2002, and the Geneva Initiative was another good effort.

All of the history I just cited, all of the misery, and the mistrust, and the hatred, and the bloodshed, can be solved. There are a few key points to consider.

  1. Israel must give up most of the land it captured in the 1967 war. Border concessions must be made on both sides to preserve the integrity of long-established Jewish and Palestinian settlements, and to ensure the long-term security of both states.
  2. Israel must find some way to give a future Palestinian state some real control over Arab sectors of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and must be preserved as such, but the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to those areas with a majority Palestinian population. However, Israel must preserve its sovereignty over Jewish holy sites such as the Western Wall, and over the majority of the city of Jerusalem itself.
  3. The Palestinians have to realize that their dream of a “right of return” for Palestinian refugees cannot mean that all Palestinian refugees get to move back into Israel. That would cause a demographic crisis that would not only threaten the Jewish nature of Israel, but would cause a major economic catastrophe as Israel is forced to deal with a huge influx of very poor people. Granted, Israel has to find some way to compensate those Palestinians who were forced out of their homes as a result of the 1948 war of Independence. The best way to do so is financial compensation. The best way to do that is for Israel to aid the Palestinians in developing Gaza and the West Bank into viable, economically stable areas where there are jobs and public infrastructure to support a peaceful, democratic state. The Arab countries, meanwhile, need to integrate Palestinian refugees into their own countries, as full citizens, give them economic assistance, and destroy the fetid camps in which the refugees have been forced to live for more than 50 years.
  4. The United States has to be a prime mover for peace in the Arab world. We have a responsibility to undo the damage we have done with our military misadventures in Iraq. We must withdraw from Iraq immediately, seriously refocus our efforts in Afghanistan on fighting terrorism, and put real political pressure on our so-called allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both of which are actually harboring Al-Qaida terrorists, including, possibly, Osama Bin Laden himself. We must show that we are committed to providing real peace and stability in the region, not just throwing our weight around and invading countries without cause. If the United States becomes a productive voice for peace in the greater Arab world, then that will take a lot of the wind out of the sails of the extremists using the Palestinian cause, and the anti-Americanism that partially underlies it, as a rallying cry for global jihad.

This is a conflict that can be solved, but not until forces in the region, on all sides, start thinking bigger than their own ideologies. Until we have political leaders who are willing to take real political risks, in Israel, in the Palestinian territories, in the Arab world, and here in America, then peace won’t happen. Until we recognize the very humanity in our enemies that we claim for ourselves, we will never achieve a lasting peace.

Ethan Jones is a Jewish writer living in Tulsa, Oklahoma with his life partner and a one-eyed Tonkinese cat named Cosette. He is also the blogmaster of Sinister, which can be found at http://lefthandedblog.blogspot.com.

The Seminal News Feed

FACTBOX-Developments in Gaza fighting, Jan 6
Tuesday, 6 January 2009, 7:52 am
Jan 6 (Reuters) - Following are developments in the fighting in the Gaza Strip as of 0730 GMT:

Israel sets key condition for Gaza ceasefire
Tuesday, 6 January 2009, 7:36 am
JERUSALEM, Jan 6 (Reuters) - Israel on Tuesday set a key condition for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, saying it would not agree to a truce unless it included provisions to prevent Hamas from rearming.

North Korea shaking up cabinet, says South
Tuesday, 6 January 2009, 7:12 am
SEOUL, Jan 6 (Reuters) - North Korea has replaced five ministers in the past few months, a South Korea government agency said on Tuesday, while a leading daily newspaper said the impoverished state wa. […]

DISCUSSION

8 RESPONSES to “A Progressive Zionist Perspective”

Ish says  ::  July 16th, 2007 @ 10:26 pm EST

Ethan, I thank you for this detailed and thoughtful piece. I’m afraid, however, that it only inspires more questions. I’ll try not to be overwhelming, but here goes:

Do you agree with The Economist’s assessment that the Israelis were “intoxicated” (and religiously inspired) by their success in 1967?

What, in your eyes, is Sharon’s legacy?

Who do you believe should control or administer Jerusalem? The Israeli government? The UN? Some kind of multinational group that does not include the UN?

What, and how severe, do you think the consequences of ignoring Hamas during the peace process would be?

J-Ro says  ::  July 17th, 2007 @ 9:46 am EST

My main concern would be along the lines of Ish’s last question. From what I’ve read, Fatah is widely considered to be corrupt, a government that lines its own pockets while the citizens starve. Hamas, on the other hand, has been very active in humanitarian and populist programs, which explains its popularity. From my perspective, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the election of Hamas was not a vote for radical Islam, but rather a repudiation of Fatah’s corruption.

If that is true, I fear that the US and the rest of the West might be backing the wrong horse. It is great that Fatah is moderate. It is great that they are willing to talk and recognize Israel. But if Fatah isn’t seen as legitimate in the eyes of the Palestinians and the refugees, how can our current push ever lead to peace?

Ethan says  ::  July 17th, 2007 @ 10:16 am EST

I’ll respond more fully later. Let me just turn your question around:

If Hamas refuses to renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist, then how can dealing with them ever lead to peace? Yes, Fatah is corrupt - it always has been - but Hamas is a terrorist organization, and is not interested in peace. Frankly, also, by legitimizing Hamas, Israel would be spitting in the face of all of those civilians that Hamas suicide bombers have murdered.

As for Hamas’s “humanitarian work,” you must be referring to the social agencies that Hamas set up in Gaza. Most of those are simply suicide bomber recruiting grounds, teaching children about the glory of martyrdom and spreading libelous hate speech against Jews and Israel. Do a google search for Hamas’s mickey mouse martyr character. That’s an example of the “social programs” that Hamas is involved in. That’s not something we want to encourage.

Ish says  ::  July 17th, 2007 @ 10:48 am EST

Is it possible that Hamas’ refusal to recognize Israel is a bluff? That is, if everyone was really serious and earnest about wanting to make peace, and the parties could somehow be brought to trust each other, might Hamas not change their tune? I mean, is it possible that they are pragmatists, deep down? Maybe they’re afraid of losing support from radicals, but I wonder how they could just sit on the sidelines with their arms crossed if some international coalition was actively planning to partition Israel and create a Palestinian state.

J-Ro says  ::  July 17th, 2007 @ 5:52 pm EST

I would agree that Hamas is not a horse we want to back, sure, but I think you do need to take into account Hamas’s legitimacy. So far, I have seen little pressure on Fatah from Israel and the West to clean up its act and get rid of corruption. That might be a move that will come back and bite us later on. What happens if Fatah fashions a deal with Israel, and the Palestinian people soundly reject it because they don’t want to be ruled by Fatah? What happens in the next election, if Hamas wins seats again, after a peace deal?

I guess all I’m saying is that our 100% support for Fatah must look mighty disengenuous for Palestinians who elected Hamas. It does us a disservice to disregard Fatah’s faults.

Ethan says  ::  July 18th, 2007 @ 6:19 pm EST

The Palestinians who elected Hamas need to realize the true nature of Hamas - a terrorist organization bent on the establishment of radical Islam in the Palestinian territories and the violent destruction of Israel. It is not a political party, nor should it be treated as one. Now, granted, Fatah is not a great partner either - yes, it’s corrupt, and it always has been, especially under Arafat. But at least they’re willing to talk, and they’ve got the power and the backing of enough of the Palestinian populace to possibly make a real difference. Israel should definitely work on forcing Fatah to reform and fight corruption.

Whether Hamas is bluffing or not is irrelevant. In my mind, there is absolutely no room at the negotiating table for an organization responsible for so much of the terrorism and Jew-hatred that fuels the Intifada and has dashed hopes for peace for so long. The Palestinian people who voted for Hamas have two choices: figure out that Hamas is a group of murderous thugs, or never know peace.

In practical terms, I believe that isolating Hamas in the Gaza Strip can only be a positive move. The Palestinians living there will soon be fed up with Hamas’s inability to provide even basic infrastructure and societal needs, and will, ideally, revolt against them. If not, then we simply ignore the Gaza Strip, isolate it, blockade it, and deal exclusively with the Fatah government in the West Bank. When the Palestinians living under Hamas see the Fatah government in the West Bank achieving real gains, economic help, prisoner exchanges, and positive cooperation with Israel, while Gaza festers in misery, maybe then they’ll think twice about backing Hamas. That may seem harsh, but we cannot, absolutely cannot, give any legitimacy to a terrorist organization like Hamas.

J-Ro says  ::  July 19th, 2007 @ 2:23 pm EST

I think you are right when you say that the Palestinians need to recognize Hamas for what it is. But that is easier said then done, especially because Hamas is/was providing the kinds of social services that are important to them right in the moment. It is no wonder the people like them when they are being given food, jobs, etc…, even if it is a front for terrorism. And I don’t think driving the Palestinians in Gaza into a corner is really a good idea, at least how it will most likely turn out. For example, if people are fed up with Hamas, can they cross over into the West Bank? From what I’ve heard, the crossings are closed. So now, you are really just punishing people for living in the wrong area. That’s not going to make them think, that’s going to make them mad. Now, if you let those leave who want to leave, that might work.

I don’t hold that Hamas can’t be reformed either. We’ve seen a lot of examples on former terrorist organizations being brought into true political legitimacy, not the least of which would be the IRA in Northern Ireland. Granted, they are a long way from that, but again, marginalizing them I feel will not make them reform, it will only make them mad.

Lastly, the question always comes down to who will be the first mover. So far, I think Israel and the West have taken the right steps in freeing up the money and aid and such. I hope that will continue, as Israel is in a much better position to give concessions, being so much richer and more protected.

Arieh Lebowitz says  ::  November 21st, 2007 @ 9:07 pm EST

Meretz USA is a progressive Zionist organization with roots in the traditional Zionist left, close ties with the Israeli peace movement, and stands as the left edge of the American Zionist movement.
Take a look at our website and see if we’re … your kind of group.
>> Arieh Lebowitz — Secretary, Meretz USA


LEAVE A COMMENT

Join the discussion! Get started by reading our Comment Policies.
YOUR COMMENT   (simple HTML is allowed)   Click to quote selected text
       

Take the Blog Reader Project survey.

UPCOMING ON REDDIT
Please vote!

UPCOMING ON DIGG
Please vote!
I support Health Care for America Now