 |
Palestine: “Not Ready”? |
 |
Chris Bowers, whose analyses I usually appreciate, recently passed a judgment on Palestine that I simply can’t accept. His statements exemplify a type of logic that I hear often, and do my best to refute:
There is a lot to say about the territories, from the giant “CTR + ALT + DEL” graffiti on the security barrier, to what struck me as an unavoidable conclusion that it was not a viable nation-state at this time. A variety of factors contribute to this conclusion, from the physical and political separation between Gaza and the West Bank, to the PA’s lack of control over the region, to the location of the Israeli settlement blocks, to the continued military occupation, to the rise of Hamas, to the general poverty, and much more. Further, from what I heard from all sides during my trip was that the negotiations were not going well.
Of course there are a “variety of factors” impeding the realization of Palestinian statehood. But where are we to assign responsibility for these factors? A lot of smart people have proposed just and equitable solutions to these problems that could be implemented relatively quickly, including the immediate withdrawal of Israeli occupiers. Even George Bush has called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state by the end of 2008.
To cite these factors without going further into detail, and without discussing how Israel has defaulted on agreements and violated international law, almost inevitably reinforces the frame that difficulties in the peace process should be attributed to the “immaturity” of the Palestinian people. I guess the shadowy menace of Hamas is offered as another demonstration of this immaturity.
Moreover, this sets up a catch-22 for Palestine: not a viable nation state, so Israel can’t hand over full sovereignty. Why aren’t they a viable nation state? Partly because of the Israeli occupation and Israeli checkpoints. This catch-22 inadvertently supports the status quo.
This logic, incidentally, also makes no mention of the US’ influence over events in Israel/Palestine (such as our repeated interference on behalf of Fatah from the elections of the 2006 to the present). But when observers leave out the question of responsibility and focus on “viability,” they may find themselves in an odd camp.
The situation in Palestine can best be understood as neo-colonial. I do not dispute Israel’s right to exist on the pre-1967 borders. But I do dispute their right to control or administer (or colonize) territories that are inhabited by people who want to have their own country.
Saying that a Palestinian state is “not viable” is essentially saying that the Palestinians are “not ready” for statehood. Guess who else wasn’t ready?
- According to South Africa’s National Party as recently as 1990, Nelson Mandela’s ANC wasn’t ready:
Over the years, when whites in South Africa have made their arguments against black rule, the most common contention has been that blacks are not ready for the responsibilities of power. But beginning in the 1950’s, these same whites have supported a Government that has banned, imprisoned or driven into exile most of the blacks who would have been most likely to play that role. In the process, the Government removed a group that had pledged to secure a future for whites after racial barriers are removed.
- According to Nixon and colonial France, the Algerians weren’t ready for independence in the 1950s:
Eisenhower was the first president to involve the United States in Middle Eastern politics. In 1956 the French, Israelis, and British invaded Egypt to take back the Suez Canal, which Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized (see Nationalization). They expected American support. Eisenhower, however, came to Nasser’s rescue, using a ban on trade, or embargo, to force the invaders to withdraw. It came as a shock to the invaders that the United States would help an unaligned country—one that would not take sides with either NATO or the Communists—against its closest allies. Eisenhower, however, consistently denounced such “gunboat diplomacy,” explaining “We cannot subscribe to one law for the weak, another law for the strong; one law for those opposing us, another for those allied with us. There can be only one law—or there shall be no peace.”
Eisenhower supported other countries in Africa and Asia as they struggled to win their independence. When Nixon advised him to support the French in their war to keep their colony of Algeria on the grounds that the Algerians were not ready for independence, Eisenhower replied, “The United States cannot possibly maintain that freedom, independence, liberty, are necessary to us, but not to others.”
- According to the Bush administration, the Iraqis aren’t ready either.
I think history has proven how ugly it is when one people tells another that they cannot choose their own destiny. Our country has been choking on its own hypocritical rhetoric about democracy, freedom, and self-determination since at least the days of Wilson’s 14 Points.
Anyone can pass judgment. But would the mothers who bury their own sons agree that Palestine is not a viable nation state? Would the Algerians who fought the French body and soul for 8 years have agreed that they weren’t ready? Would Mandela, or Steve Biko, have agreed that black South Africans weren’t ready? Would all the formerly colonized peoples of the world, many of whom now struggle to keep their heads above water in the face of crippling diseases, wars, and disasters, wish for a return to rule by another people?
I’m afraid too much blood has been spilled over these questions to say that any people is “not ready” to have
their own country.
Sir, you are a troglodyte. You “dispute their right to control or administer (or colonize) territories that are inhabited by people who want to have their own country.” Sir, nothing is more stupid than what you have just said. It is their country, their territory, just because there are people who want their own countries. Thats like saying that Chinatown in NYC should be able to declare independence and become a Sovereign mini China. I mean, what if it is a territory inhabited by people who want it to be their own country? Your logic is flawed, consider suicide.
I chose my language carefully here because I wanted to avoid the conclusion you make. I said, “dispute.” Not “deny.” I’m also referring to a specific case where it’s pretty clear that two peoples are not going to coexist peacefully.
Other cases, as you point out, could be more complicated. This is why we should probably take them on a case by case basis. Chinatown’s leaders and the governments of the US and NYC seem to be able to coexist peacefully. Israel and Palestine not so much. Other cases are in a gray area - the Kurds in Iraq, for example. I am not asserting a universal principle here because I’m afraid their may not be one. I’m just saying I don’t think Israel has the right to occupy Palestine, and it happens that the UN and substantial numbers of people around the world agree with me.
Another important flaw in your argument, Trogdor, is that New York City was there BEFORE Chinatown. The Israeli-Palestine situation is much closer to the one you put forth as ridiculous. The Palestinians where there first and Israel moved in and declared a sovereign nation, moreover, one that doesn’t include equal rights for the non-Israelis.
Indeed it is as if Chinatown has declared their own sovereignty, then taken over the whole city, rerouted the public services from manhattan and queens and put armed guards at all the bridges and tunnels.
The only right to the land that Israel can claim before the 20th century is thousands of years old. This is like saying we should allow native americans to settle a new nation on long island, since they were there first, after all.
There is a problem, for sure, but allowing the blame to settle on the Palestinians alone betrays the complex and long-running historical situation. The Israeli government must recognize it’s own role in the situation or the violence will never end.
maybe you’ve been living in a box for the last 20 years, but Arafat was offered full sovereignty over west bank and gaza strip at camp david summit in 2000, which they refused to take advantage of. So your whole argument is null and moot.
Why would Arafat do that Uly? It seems like a completely irrational action the way you say it. I can’t understand why anyone would turn down such an offer… unless it was more complicated than that… which it was. Look, I’m not going to sit here in America and say that the Palestinians have never done anything extreme. But I’m also not going to pass judgment on people trying to escape an illegal military occupation. It is clear that there has not been the necessary dialog between the two groups and no amount of pointing finger is going to advance the discussion.
its really simple why. if arafat accepted sovereignty they would actually have to do something (like build a country) — and that takes considerable effort. instead if they kept Palestinian territories as ‘illegal occupations by israel’, they could receive millions of dollars in aid from various sources (including us) and profit from it financially without changing status quo.
its all about money homes.
Well, what is a “viable nation-state”? To be considered a nation, the people must have a common descent, a common language, a common culture, and a common religion. Arguably, Palestinians have this. What the Palestinians don’t have is a State. A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area. Palestine is effectively divided into two parts, and if you look at a map of the west bank, it looks like swiss cheese.
Furthermore, a state usually includes the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the exercise of coercive violence for the people of the society in that territory. Palestine doesn’t have a strong set of institutions and it least two competing groups who are fighting to control its destiny. Plus, there is an international legitimacy problem, because of the widespread and rampant use of terrorism (hijacking airplanes, targeting civilians and children) and failure to recognize the legitimacy of its closest democratic neighbor. This is why Palestine isn’t a nation-state.
The U.S. and Mexico went to war over what is now the Southwestern United States. Guess who won? Winner gets the prize, loser goes home.
The land that is now a sovereign nation known as Israel was once up for grabs and was fought over by two interested parties. Guess who won? Israel was subsequently attacked twice more in an attempt to reverse their victory. Guess who won those too? Winner gets the prize, loser goes home.
So what you have in essence is 2 or more generations of sore losers, unlike the Japanese or Germans who accepted their loss with relative grace and prospered as a result. Why was there no ‘intifada’ and cries for statehood when the Ottomans controlled the land?… or the British? Why did they wait for the Jews to get there to think about establishing their own country?
France defeated the Algerians in 1830, right? So they get to keep it, right? Except eventually, a colonizing power gets exhausted by the resistance that the colonized put up. So they leave.
Sure, Israel won several wars. Has that ended the conflict? How much longer is Israel willing to sustain the conflict? Until the Palestinians “give up”? Do you really think that’s likely?
Alex, you really need to read up on history before you make these accusations. I can point you to 100s of sources which all confide in the fact that this land originally belonged to jews. this very land that is currently contested, 1000 years BCE was called israel and was occupied by the same people that occupy it now. Why then does anybody claim this land to be occupied by the wrong people. The fact of the matter is, Israel is about 25% arabic population, who live very good lives, and the Palestinians are just an arabic scape goat the all the arabic nations around it are using as a way to eliminate israel form its existence (they tried directly and failed many times). Trust me when I say this, israel just wants peace, and would accept any reasonable and acceptable peace treaty with lots of concessions given to the Palestinians, if they were *guaranteed* peace.
Huh? Lame comparison. France was a colonial power trying to expand and secure it’s empire in it%u2019s competition with the UK and Spain.
The U.S. could have pushed further South past the Rio Grande, but it was a simple matter of not being interested. With the exception of a couple of islands (Guam, Puerto Rico), the U.S. has never been a true imperial power.
Similarly, Israel has never been a colonial power and has no imperial designs on it%u2019s neighbors or anywhere else. It just wants to live in peace within it%u2019s own borders.
That’s very well said VNJD. The only problem is that the Palestinian land was never “up for grabs” as you claim it. Since the complex history of the region seems to be beyond your understanding, you should not try to enter a debate without fact-based arguments.
When you say the “loser goes home”, it is quite funny. Because the “loser”, in this case, the Palestinian people, we’re already home (although it wasn’t a ’state’). Following your logic, they get to stay there, don’t they ? Well, just in case you missed it, that form of conflict is called colonialism, and that is what this article was about, mostly.
Well, I think you’re bright enough to answer this one yourself. Just google this up: How many Palestinians were deported from their land during the Ottoman’s Empire rule of the land ? How many were killed during the British rule in a struggle to keep their land, a land they owned for many generations before the nation of Israel was founded ? I don’t think they “waited for the Jews to get there”. It was a matter of circumstances: i.e. When they realized the nation of Israel was not a democracy, but an ecclesia.
I hate to be the one who says this but we are all tip toeing around the big issue here. Yes, this country was colonized(USA) and land was stolen from the Native Americans. But what the United States did here was grant citizenship to all of the Native Americans, and said yes you can vote.
The difference here is that that Israel will not grant citizenship to the Palestinians, in order to “preserve” the pure Jewish state. Now lets call a spade a spade here, this is blatant racism, something that this country is supposed to stand up against. But we continue to support this modern day racism by continuing to give funds to Israel.
What is being done and has been done to the Palestinians is very sad story, and if you have any doubts about this or the fact that this is racism I suggest you read “Palestine, Peace not Apartheid” By Jimmy Carter-this book will really open your eyes to the involvement of this government, and our complacency.
Israel will not grant citizenship to Palestinians? What about 1.5 million arab-israelis that already live in Israel as citizens.
Again, an extremely one sided way to look at the conflict. Israeli arabs have a representation in knesset, have the same rights as any israeli citizen, and recieve all social benefits like schools, police, fire etc, free of charge, but don’t pay taxes and don’t serve in the Israeli military.
I don’t think anyone is claming there is a “right or wrong” party here, except for VNJD. I think we can all recognize the complexity of this conflict, and those trying to simplify it by saying stuff like : “Israel is a big evil cabal” or “Palestinians are terrorists” are, other than obviously wrong, not helping at all.
The debate about the past has simply go on for too long (from my point of view). Although I cannot speak for the Palestinians, nor the Israelis, I think both camps, the vast majority of the moderates of both camps, those who suffered the most from this on-going conflict, have had enough. It is more than time for change.
I think what Anne was trying to say, Uly, is that, since the West Bank and Gaza have been under Israel’s control for so long and since, as even you pointed out earlier, Palestinians are not about to receive any control, as a people, of those lands, then it would be fair to allow them the same basic treatment as Israeli citizens (but without the need of a citizenship). (Note how she wrote “Israel will not grant citizenship to the Palestinians”, aka people from Gaza and the West Bank, the only official Palestinian territories) (Sorry Anne if I misinterpreted your statement)
If we could all agree that the conflict has go on for too long, that we should relegate to the past “our” differences on the matter and look for answers where all others have failed, then I think there is still hope.
I don’t believe two nations can coexist in that region. As others pointed out, politically, historically, sociologically, economically, and other adjectives ending with “cally”, it is a challenge that is beyond anyone’s reach. We (everyone, from everywhere more or less affected by this subject) need to recognize this. Palestinians and Israelis can be proud of their heritage and still share ONE nation, ONE true democracy, ONE land. They’d call it the ‘Land of Hope’.
I might be consired a lunatic for this, but at least I’m trying to imagine a solution…
Right on MoBe! I’m glad that you could understand what I was saying, and no you’re not a lunatic for hoping for peace-I hope for that too!