To summarize that article: all talk of 1967 borders is pointless until we realize that the conflict started in 1948, long before Israel had conquered the West Bank. Returning to the pre-1967 state of affairs won't bring peace, because there wasn't peace during pre-1967 in the first place.
The article is correct, but everything it says is banal, self-evident, and obvious. On the other hand, the world at large is still hopelessly ignorant of these most banal, self-evident, and obvious facts.
Regarding the 1967 borders, however, I'd like to add something, however, quoting what I wrote here:
The truth is, the boundaries of the West Bank are entirely arbitrary. There is no geographic, political, or demographic logic to those borders; they are simply where the fighting stopped between Israel and Jordan. Since then, the Palestinians, with no discernable logic that conforms to conventional canons of human reasoning, have claimed that these armistice lines have special cultural and demographic value. The fact is, the Palestinians could just as well claim - with equal basis - that any other territory in Israel belongs to them. What if they suddenly claim that Tel Aviv is Palestinian as well? (Actually, they already claim this.) Would Tel Aviv becomes theirs as well? Would Tel Aviv-ian Israelis also be "... us[ing] Palestinian natural resources..."?
Also, Fishman notes (to pastiche this and this) that
[I]t is wonderous[ly] strange, but during the 19 years of Jordanian/Egyptian occupation of the Palestinians (1948-1967) no-one seemed to be burning with the flame of Palestinian nationalism. Either they felt that the Arab occupation is legitimate, or the occupiers were ruthless.....makes one think.
...
I think that in explaining the lack of a Palestinian national movement in Arab occupied Gaza and West bank one has two choices: Either one regards the Palestinian Arabs as a distinct culture which is existentially threatened by other Arab cultures, in which case the absence of Palestinian nationalism under the Jordan/Egypt occupation can be seen as a result of succesful supression by the Arab occupiers (so succesful that no evidence of Palestinian rebelion ever leaked out), or one considers them to be a part of a homogenious Arabian heritage,with only minor differences in traditions; in which case the lack of nationalist sentiment can be attributed to Palestinian recognition of the Arab occuption's legitimacy.
Whatever choice...[one]...makes, ...[the] argument [in favor of Palestinian nationalism] is evicerated. Either the Arab occupiers are to be blamed for perpetuating the Palestinian's homelessness and dismal condition after 1948, or the Palestinians have bought into a pan-Arab movement to destroy Israel.
Posts
10 comments:
Interesting points from Fishman about the mysterious lack of Palestinian nationalism while under Arab control. Going back further than 1948, I think we can see that the conflict has historically had less to do with Palestinian national aspirations than it has with Islamic hatred of Jews - the 1929 massacres in Hevron are an example.
Ah, I just love it when people say things that make sense. It eases some of my angst. :)
I hope this doesn't destroy your reprieve from angst, but reading back over what you wrote I have to push back a little against what you said:
"Since then, the Palestinians, with no discernable logic that conforms to conventional canons of human reasoning, have claimed that these armistice lines have special cultural and demographic value."
Perhaps you are correct that these lines have no particular demographic value as opposed to other lines we could have drawn, but I think the claim that there is no logic involved is hyperbolic. Maybe the Palestinians were simply looking at the reality of the situation and said, this is what we think we can get. Better some patch of land than nothing (even if ideally they would like the whole thing). This is giving them the benefit of the doubt. Who knows what the initial framers of this argument were actually thinking. Unfortunately, organizations such as Hamas have made it very clear that they believe the entirety of the State of Israel belongs to the Palestinians. Anyway, you know all this already, just wanted to draw your attention to the wording that was a bit problematic.
You can understand where Palestinian nationalism comes from, even as we look at the history of the occupation of the land and realize that there was never a such thing as a self-governed Palestinian nation. However, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were full of nationalist movements and we can find many examples of nations that now exist which were never self-governing. National boundaries can often be somewhat arbitrary. Many of the national movements in Europe were centered around particular ethnic groups with a unique language and culture, however - as you and others have suggested, it is unclear whether Palestinians have a unique culture that differs from that of surrounding Arab nations. It's understandable that Palestinians feel jealous of their Arab neighbors who all got states when the colonial powers pulled out, and I'm inclined to say that they have as much a right to one as, say, the Jordanians. But, if the Arab world had only accepted the partition in 1947 we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
I'll grant your point. My problem is that people seem to worship the 1967 borders, as if they have metaphysical significance. If they're merely pragmatic, fine, but say so, and stop making sacrificial offerings.
Are you aware of who Robert Malley is?
Robert Malley? No idea.
Originally he was chosen by Obama to be a middle east policy advisor.
In the past, Malley made a career of being a PLO spokesman, championing Arafat with his Israel-bashing, particularly radical articles, and was appointed special assistant to Bill Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs. Before that Malley was a scholar in third world affairs and a member of the CFR specializing in Algeria crisis.
When he was elevated to a position regarding Arab-Israel affairs, he openly began to parrot terrorist views and even support for Hamas.
Back to more recent events.
From wikipedia despite the bias there: According to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, Malley provided informal advice to the campaign in the past without having any formal role in the campaign.[7] (My note: A less than honest claim). See here: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/obama_and_malley.html):
"The New Republic's Martin Peretz today writes that Robert Malley is not an advisor to Barack Obama. It was just less than a month ago that Peretz wrote that Malley was an adviser. At that time, the information horrified him. He also wrote that he gets the shudders when he contemplates that "Zbigniew Brzezinski ... and Robert Malley'' were on Obama's foreign policy advisers team. The Washington Post also listed Malley as an adviser (he works for a think tank that also is linked to Zbigniew Brzezinski) in this article."
Back to Barak obama and Malley from wikipedia: "On May 9, 2008, the campaign severed ties with Malley when the British Times reported that Malley had been in discussions with the militant Palestinian group Hamas, listed by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization.[7] In response, Malley told The Times he had been in regular contact with Hamas officials as part of his work with the International Crisis Group.
"Malley told NBC News, adding that he informs the State Department about his meetings beforehand and briefs them afterward.[8] Malley has published many articles in which he calls upon the Israelis (and the international community) to bring Hamas to the negotiating table"
Then, once Obama got the Jewish vote, he brought back his boy Malley. From frontpagemagazine http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33036
"History will record that Barack Obama’s first act of diplomacy as America’s president-elect took place two days after his election victory, when he dispatched his senior foreign-policy adviser, Robert Malley, to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—to outline for them the forthcoming administration’s Mideast policy vis-à-vis those nations"
The author there also adds "A Harvard-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, Robert Malley is no newcomer to the Obama team. In 2007, Obama selected him as a foreign policy adviser to his campaign. At the time, Malley was (and still is today) the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), which receives funding from the Open Society Institute of George Soros (who, incidentally, serves on the ICG Executive Committee)."
"His father, Simon Malley (1923-2006), was a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party. A passionate hater of Israel, the elder Malley was a close friend and confidante of the late PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. According to American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky, Simon Malley “participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World [and] … wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations.”
"
Currently Malley is on the advisory council of J Street.
He is known to overstate his involvement in the Oslo agreements, as Dennis Ross has accused him of doing. Dennis Ross was actually in the room for those events.
Also of interest : http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=57231
"Obama worked with terrorist"
Anyway, it is important to know what colors the views of certain propagandists such as Malley.
Isn't it interesting how an Obama Policy advisor is writing op-ed pieces in the NY Times as if he's a common citizen who just happened to have worked in the ICG?
No word on his current employment from NY times.
"Robert Malley, the director of the Middle East Program at the International Crisis Group, was a special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001."
In any case, it is clear that they reject the two-state solution on the grounds that Israel should be a one-state solution as a "state of all its peoples" so that Arabs can demographically take over the country and control it as entirely a Fakestinian state.
Well, accept the truth from everyone who states it. If Malley says that attempts at peace will fail until we address the pre-1967 hostilities, I cannot disagree with him.
Of course, his proposed redress to pre-1967 animosities, I very well may disagree with him. For example, if his solution is to deport all Jews to their homeland in Europe, or Hell, or the Moon, or Zyclon B factories, or wherever he thinks we come from, then I'll reject his solution.
But I agree with his statement of the problem. Solutions are something entirely else.
Post a Comment