Monday, March 24, 2014

PM NETANYAHU IS RIGHT - AN OPEN LETTER TO AMOS SCHOCKEN

It really is simple. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is absolutely right in his insistence that Israel be recognized as  the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People.

Now I certainly cannot lecture you and any other Israeli on your feelings in this matter. I am not Israeli. I lived in Israel for a time when I was younger, but I didn’t stay and make Aliyah. I never served in Tzahal. I never really sacrificed for Israel. I give money to the Magen David, and I have spent over the last 38 years or so thousands of hours as part of the Zionist Movement. But, I do consider myself a strong supporter of the Zionist dream, and I would ask that you and others that share your opinion please consider my words here. 

I think you are mistaken in your piece in Haaretz when you argue here against Ari Shavit’s (and by extension the Prime Ministers position) piece in the same newspaper.

In that piece you rightly recognize that those of us who support the fact that Israel needs to be recognized as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people cite this as the core the principle of Zionism itself.  After all what is Zionism in it’s most essential form if not the philosophical underpinning that the Nation of Israel indeed be the National Homeland of the Jewish People.  Isn’t that the root definition of the term “Zionism”?

It is after this that your argument goes awry.  You state:
“Contrary to what Shavit says, having the State of Israel alongside a Palestinian state, with the two living in peace with one another, is the aspiration of many good people. They will be satisfied if peace will be merely with the Palestinian state, and not with the nation-state of the Palestinian people.

In order to create an artificial balance and justify his position, Shavit invents a Palestinian nationality. If there is a Palestinian nationality (if there is such a thing as a nationality altogether), then in Jordan there are apparently two nationalities – the Palestinian one and the Bedouin one.”
First of all… While that may be the aspiration of many good people in the Peace Camp, and I know that there are many good people in the Peace Camp, that is not the aspiration of the majority of the Palestinian people. Nothing happens in a vacuum and the Israeli Palestinian conflict is certainly no exception to that rule. Whether or not you (or the interestingly enough the Hard Right that denies that there even is a “Palestinian People”) recognize Palestinian nationalism, it exists and the Palestinians recognize it. So de facto (if not de juer) does the U.N. who has recognized a Palestinian State from 1948 and forward.

And so yes in Jordan, there are two nationalities and they have been at odds whether we like to recognize that or not. Of course why else did Jordan declare that people in the West Bank were not citizens of Jordan? The ruling Hashemites recognize a difference and so do those in the opposition to that regime. Are you really arguing that the Palestinians in Jordan do not recognize themselves as Palestinian?

But being Palestinian doesn’t mean that one cannot be Jordanian as well. If a person feels that their nationality is Palestinian but wants to live or supports the political system in Jordan then I see no reason that someone cannot be Palestinian-Jordanian. Just as people can be part of the “Jewish Nation” (meaning being bound to the ethnic traditions and culture of the Jewish people) and live in America, or Europe, or any other part of the diaspora. Certainly I can still be a committed Zionist and not live in Israel (though some may certainly disagree).

Ok, anti-nationalist feelings aside. You then go on to say:
“When Israel recognized the fact that there are Palestinians deserving of self-determination, the Palestinians recognized Israel – that same Israel that was founded on the constitutive principles of Zionism. What’s missing is an agreement on substance – borders, security, refugees and Jerusalem.”
No… the Palestinians DID NOT recognize “that same Israel”. They recognized that there would be a State called Israel and that was it. Why do I say that? Because had they recognized an Israel founded on the constitutive principles of Zionism they would have renounced the so-called “Palestinian Right of Return”. Borders, security and the status of a City (even as important as Jerusalem) are all up for discussion, even if they are breaking points in themselves. The refugee situation and insistence on “Right of Return” (not to confused with the Hoq’ HaShvut) goes right to the heart of the situation.
The Palestinian polity has never given up on that and still doesn’t to this day. 

The insistence on that “Right” has publicly been stated by P.A. President Abbas and is certainly supported Palestinian Public Opinion (which also by the way rejects a Democratic Palestine where Jews and Arabs enjoy equal rights). Of course everyone understands that this would cause a demographic shift in Israel which would cause Israel to cease to exist in the terms that the nation was founded upon.

What is proof of this? Well, look at the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) Movement. It proposes a boycott of only Jewish businesses in Israel. Of course it doesn’t say that (because credit to them, they are media savvy enough to understand just how destructive that would be) but ask any member of said movement if they also advocate boycotts of Palestinian/Arab Israeli businesses, sports teams, cultural groups or academics. Every time I have run into BDS people, I ask that question and every time the answer is the same “No”. Of course they couch their terminology in just saying it’s about Israel but if you don’t boycott the Arabs in Israel exactly who is left to boycott? Either the Jews or the small percentage of immigrant non-Jews.

You then go on to say:
“…Will he (Shavit) accept a Palestinian recognition of a Jewish nation-state that is built on the ruins of 400 Palestinian villages and hundreds of thousands of refugees, who have since become millions, and where 20 percent of the citizenry are Palestinians, who are just as nationalist as he is?

Those who present themselves as supporters of the two-state solution, but who insist on demanding recognition of a nation-state, are acting to perpetuate the occupation and settlement.”
I cannot speak for Ari Shavit but I think I can safe safely say that (at least according to the polls) most Israelis WOULD accept a Palestinian recognition of a Jewish State that is “built on the ruins” of villages and creation of war-time refugees. I live in the U.S. and I accept that my nation was built in part by war, and conquest. It happens, in the world. It has happened since the dawn of time and it will continue to happen into the future. No matter how much we wish it would not, it is simply unrealistic to think it will not. Oh and by the way, you can bet that the Palestinians would ALSO accept a nation built on the smoking ruin of Israel and the creation of millions of Jewish refugees.

Supporting a “Two State Solution” and recognition that the only real way to a lasting peace (something that I very much do support) is in understanding BOTH peoples legitimate aspirations for self governance. To recognize this fact does nothing to delegitimize the history of Palestinians who lived in the Mandate.

“…..because it is actually impossible to demand from the Palestinians that they change their spots and convert their identity, it is required to demand they recognize this: that the Jewish people is a people of this land, and it did not arrive here from Mars (my emphasis). It is necessary to demand of them to admit that the Jewish people has a history of its own and a tragedy of its own and its own justification. The Palestinians must concede that the Jews are not colonialists but legal neighbors. There will not be peace if the children growing up in the Deheisheh refugee camp will not know that the country across the border is a legitimate Jewish state of a true Jewish people, whom they are decreed to live with. It is those who give up on the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state who are actually giving up on peace.”
This is important and I think this is where you and others in the Peace Camp go awry. I do not doubt the intentions of many there. I am not a raging Right Winger, in fact I come from a Center-Left perspective. I follow Israeli politics closely and where I there, I would probably vote for either Avodah or HaTnuah. I understand that people want peace and want to find a way to find a “just peace” for this conflict. So I am not demeaning anyone on the Left.

That said, I have to say that the PM’s argument in this case is correct. His demand cuts to the heart of the matter and it is one that needs to be addressed whether one likes it or not. Shavit is correct in identifying that this conflict does not take place in a vacuum and that the Palestinians and their supporters do need to take responsibility for their part / actions in this conflict. That is not some racist or harsh demand. It is a demand that necessitates a real peace treaty.

Of course, there is a certain amount of hopelessness to resolving this conflict peacefully and who really wants let their optimism for a resolution drain down a “sinkhole of despair”? I don’t think anyone outside of extremists in either camp wants that. But we also cannot be blind to what is happening beyond the Green Line in the fractured Palestinian Polity or to their supporters throughout the world. Just wishing for an end to Nationalism, or supporting solutions like a proposed creation of the United States of Isratine (or other ridiculous names), might be fine in a fictional 24th Century Earth (Star-Trek reference here), but this is not that place and not that time. AND given the history of the Jewish people is that really something that we can “bank on” right now.

So Mr. Schocken (and those who agree with him), unless you are willing to simply come out and declare the Zionist dream D.O.A. or renounce that, then you should very much re-consider your arguments here. Zionism defined is the National movement of the Jewish People. Israel was created by Zionism and it is something that must be recognized or there cannot be lasting peace.

8 comments:

  1. Indeed, and that is in the TOI I cited. IF the Palestinians won't give up RoR and they won't agree to a permanent end to the conflict, why the hell is this even happening? I mean I really want these talks to work but if that is Abbas' public stand why exactly should the Israelis concede anything?

    IF that is indeed his point, were I Israel I would simply take what I needed for security and say to the Palestinians... Ok gents, you have what you have. You want to be friends? Dynamite... let's trade. You want to be enemies well we can roll that way too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (livosh1)
    I agree and disagree.

    It is indeed an important issue. One need not look any further than the disingenuous and hateful BDS movement to see that rejection of Israel's existence as a Jewish state is a core component of the conflict. I don't see how there can be a genuine two-state peace agreement if one of the states continues to seek an end to Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Sorry, but peace agreements don't work that way.

    But, there is only one reason that Bibi is pushing this issue to the forefront, ahead of borders, ahead of Jerusalem, ahead of refugees, ahead of water . . . it is because he knows that doing so provides the best opportunity to derail the negotiations before having to make any serious proposals or concessions on these other issues.

    Bibi wants to derail the negotiations but not get blamed for it.

    He knows damn well that if the parties agree on the other issues, the recognition issue will be much easier to achieve, and he also knows that there is no chance that Abbas would agree to this before the parties reach agreement on even a lousy stinking little framework. Bibi knows that Abbas is foolish enough to take his bait and allow the arguments over this issue to drown out and preclude serious negotiations and agreements on other issues.

    And Abbas is foolish enough to fall for this. If Abbas were smarter, he'd call Bibi's bluff, and say let's first talk about borders, Jerusalem, compensation for refugees, and water (or even say say let's reach agreement on some of these issues), and then we'll talk about recognition . . . and I promise you Bibi, at that point it will be easy to work out language agreeable to both sides. But Bibi is playing Abbas perfectly.

    Bibi is dishonest and Abbas is a fool. They can both go suck eggs, as far as I'm concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well livosh... You know I am not so sure about PM Netanyahu's motivations here. I agree with you that he doesn't seem that interested in really seeing the negotiations succeed but that said, I do believe that he really does want to get to the heart of the issue.

      As for President Abbas... I am not sure it is "foolishness" on his part. Though by "calling Bibi's bluff" as you say, he could gain traction, he literally cannot because the second he does... his life gets measured in seconds, not years. PLUS he has promised a referendum and the Palestinian People don't want to give up RoR either.

      I would not vote for Likud right now for all of the shekls in Tel Aviv, but in this one case I do agree with the PM (and honestly always have, and have said so). This issue cuts right to the bone (as I say). Resolve this, and the rest is easy. It really is (well except for Jerusalem).

      To be honest.. I don't care what PM Netanyahu's motivations are here. This is something so crucial to a lasting agreement and it really is the baseline of the issue. SO... whether or not I like what the PM does in any other situation, I like what he is doing here.

      Delete
    2. (livosh1)
      Volley, you and I profoundly disagree on this one. It would be one thing if, after reaching agreement on other issues, Bibi insisted on recognition before an agreement was signed. In that context, Abbas might have a plausible way to sell it to his side, because he could show that he actually is getting something substantial in return.

      It is quite another, however, for Bibi to, in effect, use this issue to avoid reaching an agreement on the other issues. That's what Bibi is doing here, and I absolutely do not support that.

      If Bibi were acting in good faith and truly desirous of reaching an agreement, he'd focus on the other issues first. But he wants the negotiations derailed, so he is -- in essence -- making Abbas publicly offer a concession on this point as a condition to signing Kerry's framework (i.e., making it a precondition to continue negotiating, a condition that he knows full well can't be sold to the other side without something tangible the Israeli side).

      I think it is crystal clear that Bibi's not acting in good faith on this one, volley. I'm a bit surprised you don't recognize that.

      Delete
    3. I don't think it's a precondition. I think the idea is that Netanyahu and the US are saying that as part of a final agreement Abbas will have to accept Israel as a Jewish state and end the conflict. Not now, but as part of a final agreement. Abbas is saying he won't have those things in a final agreement.

      Delete
    4. (livosh1)
      I think that the behavior in negotiations indicates whether there is an intent to negotiate in good faith. If the goal is to reach an agreement, and there are considerable differences, good faith bargaining focuses on finding ways to narrow those differences. Clearly, Bibi is doing no such thing. Knowing full well that Abbas has his hardliners to deal with (as does Bibi), he is making this an issue now, with full knowledge that Abbas cannot publically respond with a statement of acceptance in the absence of any concrete concessions on the other side. In these circumstances, there is little difference from making this a precondition to continuing negotiations.

      Here, the behavior reveals the intent.

      Delete
    5. Well livosh... I think you are right, we definitely have a profound disagreement here and honestly that's ok. I think you make good points.

      HOWEVER, I have to counter your arguments.

      Do I think the PM is negotiating in Good Faith? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that I do believe he is trying to cut right to the heart of the matter and that in the end this is the issue that is going to make or break any final peace agreement. See, I believe that by getting this "recognition" the PM can then discuss borders, security and even neighborhoods in Jerusalem in Peace talks. Remember, the hard Right is ascendent in Likud right now and Bayit Yehudi gains strength everyday. Without this core agreement the Israelis are pinned back by their own restrictive Right who frankly don't want to give up one inch of the West Bank.

      Without his party behind him here he cannot do anything and honestly they are in a cold sweat that President Abbas would call Bibi on that point because if he did they would be up a very long and rough creek without so much as a toothpick for a paddle. Remember, Likud and their allies in Bayit Yehudi have pledged not to give an inch of Judea and Samaria.

      I think you very much underestimate the influence and power of the Israeli Right.

      All of that said, I don't think it matters whether this is just a tactic or not, and honestly (and forgive me here I know you will very much disagree with what I am about to say), I. Don't. Care. See, I am pretty much over worrying about this. The direction of this conflict has to be decided once and for all. Either there will be Peace (which would be great and to everyone's benefit) or there won't (to at least one sides detriment as it will mean that only "total victory" will settle the issue.

      This issue cuts to the core of that. Either the Palestinians can accept the existence of a Jewish State or there will be no peace. No ten year Hudna's. no conditional "yeah buts'... either yes or no.

      Is this a "precondition", yes... it absolutely is. Does it give lie to PM Netanyahu's claim that he wants to talk with no "preconditions": Yes.. it absolutely does.

      And really... I don't care. it's a necessary precondition, because if this baseline is not established in the end all of the agreements and all of the negotiations don't mean a thing.

      I guess we differ here livosh, in that I would simply never negotiate without this precondition. BUT.. I think once that is solved I believe the rest of this is wide open to negotiation.

      Delete
    6. (livosh1)
      Well, volley, we do agree on some aspects of this topic. We do agree that Bibi is effectively making this a precondition to further negotiations. And we do agree that Bibi is indeed a liar, because he said he wanted negotiations without preconditions.

      So, we have proof positive that Bibi is not honest, and is not sincere in what he says about the framework for -- and his intention regarding -- negotiations.

      Some negotiating partner, eh?

      Further, I think it is evident that he DOES NOT want Abbas to agree to anything at all, even to recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. He knows (because it is obvious) that Abbas could not agree to that without getting anything tangible in return. So, Bibi has decided that this is precisely how to demand it -- present it in an manner that makes it a demand for recognition in exchange for further negotiations. He's saying that Abbas must play his trump card and get nothing tangible in return. Those are the rules, and they are not negotiable.

      If Bibi truly wanted Abbas to agree to recognition, he would signal some flexibility as to when this point is to be negotiated, and he would certainly try to move it to a later point, after there are tangible agreements on the table, thereby making the conditions more conducive to agreement on this point.

      But Bibiwants Abbas to reject it, and to walk away from negotiations. That is the objective, and that is why he is demanding it as a precondition and offering nothing tangible in return.

      It's nothing but a ploy, volley. He wants Abbas to walk. If he truly wanted to reach an agreement, he would negotiate in good faith. But when you tell the other side not to make preconditions while also demanding your own preconditions, that's not even close to honest good-faith negotiations.

      You negotiate in good faith if you are seeking an agreement. You negotiate in bad faith if you you are seeking an impasse.

      Finally, I am not impressed with your argument about the hard right in the coalition. Those loons will not agree to any agreement, under any circumstances, period, end of the story. They will leave the coalition if there is any agreement and any concession on territory. Bibi knows this, and also knows that he would have to rely on Labor, Meretz and Shas to effectuate any agreement he reached with Abbas. It simply cannot get done with his current coalition. So if Bibi is catering to those who won't accept any agreement under any circumstances, he is doing so because he has no intention of finding a way to "get to yes" with Abbas. That much is clear.

      Abbas is fully aware that any agreement requires language of recognition. And Bibi is fully aware that Abbas can't cave on this point before negotiations start; he knows that is an impossibility. So, either Bibi can work with the circumstances and try to get an agreement that way, or he draws lines in the sand that make it impossible for negotiations to move forward. He has chosen the latter course, and on this he does not have my support.

      Delete