Prof. Asher Susser of Tel-Aviv University was interviewed on the news show "London and Kirschenbaum" last week. He said interesting things that are worth repeating. The gist of it was that there are two "cases" in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: the Case of 1948 and the Case of 1967. The latter is easier to resolve, and indeed, the two sides have come closer on '67-related issues over the years: the two-state solution, borders, and even the question of Jerusalem. The Case of 1948, however, seems harder to resolve, if it is even possible at all. Over the last few years the gaps have even widened over the issues stemming from the very birth of the State of Israel: Palestinian refugees, the Jewish character of Israel, the question of Israeli responsibility for the Nakba, etc.
So if we realize that this is the reality, what is to be done? Susser suggested in the interview that Israel should withdraw unilaterally from most of the West Bank, except for the large settlement blocs just on the green line. I strongly disagree with this solution. I opposed the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and in hindsight, I was absolutely right. Unilateralism is a disaster that awards and encourages terrorism like the rocket fire from the Strip.
It is exactly this inability to resolve the Case of 1948 that makes unilateralism dangerous. If we leave the West Bank and semi-solve some of the 1967 problems without any agreement, the Palestinians will be encouraged to keep fighting for 1948. We need an agreement - not because it will absolutely prevent Palestinians from reigniting the flames of conflict, but because it will be our insurance in case they do. If Palestinians violate the agreement, the world will hold them responsible.
So what's the solution? That's the million dollar question and I don't have an answer.
Since the interview was in Hebrew, I looked for a similar link in English. Here is a lecture Prof. Susser gave at a conference at Tel-Aviv University a few months ago, where he pretty much discusses the same issue. It's almost 20 minutes long, but it is worth it. He talks more specifically about 1948 vs. 1967 near the end, at the 1 hour 7 minute mark, if you don't want to hear the whole thing.
Farewell to Steve Silberman
3 days ago
For those who still believe in the TSS, there’s a third way. Israel withdraws its settlers ‘unilaterally’ but maintains the military occupation, in the name of security and later withdraws its army fully, upon full bilateral agreement. This is an offer the Palestinians could not refuse in good faith.
ReplyDeleteThis would also show that Israel is acting in ‘good faith’ (well, sort of) and would show the world it’s willing to make ‘concessions’ (withdrawing from what doesn’t belong to you isn’t a concession in my book but the world imposes its parlance upon me!)
By maintaining and accelerating settlement building the prospect of reaching an agreement becomes simply impossible: it’s a miracle that some Palestinians (albeit now very few) still seem in favour of negotiating with Israel; it’s a bit like negotiating the price of a house while the ‘owners’ are constantly reducing the dwelling’s size! No one would fall for that.
But it’s all a pipe dream: as long as the I/P issue is a matter that can make or break a potential POTUS election/re-election the US will support whatever Israel does, bar paying a bit of lip to some objections.
If the growing anti-Zionist movement one day prevails in the US, there will be hell to pay for Israel. For that to happen, Israel only needs to keep doing what it does right now: the truth will inevitably out one fine day…
As regards ‘the cases of 1948 and 1967’, that faux-separation is a typical Israeli ‘Left’ construction. It’s very clear that the policies of 1948 (then directed by ‘Leftist’ Revisionist Zionists) have been continued after 1967 by alternating ‘Leftist’ Revisionist Zionist and ‘Rightist’ Revisionist Zionist Goverments. There really NEVER was an intention to ‘share’ and Palestinian claims to the land have always been minimised from Day One to this day. Lizzard Gingrich (now dangerously closer to getting the nomination) is only one of many who echoed that sentiment recently. The RNC’s latest adopted resolutions re. Zionism’s place in the ME further underscore it.
The settlement policy isn’t the brainchild of a few ‘crazed religious fanatics’ or of ‘Bad Likud’, it runs through Zionism’s history like a prominent thread. Undeniable and plain for all to see…
"For those who still believe in the TSS, there’s a third way. Israel withdraws its settlers ‘unilaterally’ but maintains the military occupation, in the name of security and later withdraws its army fully, upon full bilateral agreement. This is an offer the Palestinians could not refuse in good faith."
ReplyDeleteSometimes I think that's a good idea. Sometimes I'm not sure such a huge effort is worth it without international guarentees. Sometimes I think the exact opposite should be done - the military should leave (after an agreement only), and the fanatic settlers who want to stay there should stay. No point in fighting the bastards.
"As regards ‘the cases of 1948 and 1967’, that faux-separation is a typical Israeli ‘Left’ construction. It’s very clear that the policies of 1948 (then directed by ‘Leftist’ Revisionist Zionists) have been continued after 1967 by alternating ‘Leftist’ Revisionist Zionist and ‘Rightist’ Revisionist Zionist Goverments."
You're using the term "Revisionist Zionists" incorrectly. The term has a very specific meaning - it is the right-wing movement (both economically and conflict-wise) founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and which later became Menachem Begin's Herut and Likud.
I assume that by "revisionist" you meant to say expansionist. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Whether or not 1967 was a continuation of 1948 or not (in some aspects it was, in some it wasn't) is irrelevant to Susser's arguments. The question is whether the Palestinians will ever stop trying to undo 1948.
”You're using the term "Revisionist Zionists" incorrectly. The term has a very specific meaning - it is the right-wing movement (both economically and conflict-wise) founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and which later became Menachem Begin's Herut and Likud.”
ReplyDeleteStrictly speaking you are correct but de facto there was very little difference between Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion re. how the sate had to be established (there always was only one way, of course). The former articulated his views louder and more publicly than the latter. In that respect it’s really a distinction w/o a difference.