[WCUSP] The Failure of the Israeli Left and the Two State Solution

[KATHARLOW at aol.com]

"But let’s be honest with ourselves,  the two-state solution is dead. It is a 
figment of the imagination of the  Israeli left and of the multitude of 
Palestinian leaders and diplomats who have  gone enormous lengths to sell out the 
Palestinian people. That is the danger of  looking at the two-state solution 
and Israel/Palestine through an Israeli prism:  it draws the parameters of 
practicality, affecting even those who support the  Palestinian 
plight...divestment, boycott, and  sanctions coupled with a movement forward for both Israelis 
and Palestinians to  live as equals in a shared society is the only hope for 
true peace. "

_http://www.amin.org/look/amin/en.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=7&NrArticle=4
0834&NrIssue=1&NrSection=3_ 
(http://www.amin.org/look/amin/en.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=7&NrArticle=40834&NrIssue=1&NrSection=3) 
Prism of Peace: The Failure of the Israeli Left and the  Two-State Solution
by Remi  Kanazi

Time and again one is told of the Israeli “left,”  the many number of 
Israelis, ranging from members of the Knesset to shop owners,  dedicated to peace. 
The 40 year occupation is of particular concern to putative  peace activists 
and purported individuals of conscience. “The burden of  occupation” and its 
ugly realities, as many so-called dovish Israeli politicians  have pointed out, 
tear at the moral fiber of the Jewish state. Yet, even when  one looks at the 
horrors of the occupation in the Israeli media and political  circles, it is 
at best through the Israeli prism, which juxtaposes the pain of  Israel in 
equal magnitude to the pain of the Palestinian people. This Israeli  pain, without 
its counterpart’s suffering, is transferred to the papers of the  US press 
and is ultimately exponentially magnified, giving the American people a  
distorted awareness of the Israeli narrative. 
Nonetheless, there must be a clear understanding  that only one people is 
living under occupation—many after being dispossessed in  1948 and again in 1967. 
By even phrasing today’s climate as a conflict, it lends  support to the 
assumption that this is a dispute between two equal sides, with  equal grievances. 
The complexities of the Palestine question is further  complicated by issues 
beyond the 40 year occupation, including the Palestinian  right of return, the 
Israeli settler movement in the West Bank and East  Jerusalem, and the third 
class status of Palestinians living in a Jewish state.  
Supposed peace activists find solace in verbally  condemning the settlement 
movement and the harsh conditions that emanate from  occupation. Yet most aren'’
t doing anything to actively stop it, and when moral  fiber is truly urgent, 
as was the case during the Lebanon war or the continuing  debilitating 
sanctions and bombardment on the Palestinian people, they remain  silent. 
Condemnation after a war isn'’t moral reflection, it’s cowardice. There  is no 
difference between hawkish and dovish policy in Israel, only a divergence  in the 
approach to implement it. Those on the “far left,” who are the brink of  being 
classified as “self-hating Jews,” including self-styled humanitarians such  as 
Meretz MK Yossi Beilin, only serve to massage their own egos and consciences  
by portraying an image that they are fighting for peace. In reality, these  
people assign themselves to the same racist and exclusivist ideology that came  
into form long before the creation of the state of Israel.   
The discourse that frames the parameters of debate  pertaining to the 
Palestine question is disturbing on multiple levels. Take for  example, the recent 
fighting in the Gaza Strip. Nine Israelis have been killed  in Palestinian 
rocket attacks over the last seven years, while last year alone,  700 Palestinians—
half of them unarmed civilians—were killed throughout the  occupied 
territories. Reading the news columns, be it in Israeli or Western  newspapers, one 
would think it was the Israeli people who were occupied and  being 
indiscriminately killed. The opposite remains true: when one woman is  killed in Sderot, it 
consumes the Israeli media and immediately becomes headline  material for 
nearly every Western newspaper.  
The cease-fire between occupied Gaza and Israel is  another case in point. 
Hamas eventually ended its unilateral recognition of a  cease-fire because of 
continued attacks by Israeli forces inside of Gaza and the  West Bank. The 
demand for a Gaza/West Bank cease-fire by Hamas is seen by Israel  as the same old 
story, where “conventional wisdom” suggests that the obstinate,  overreaching 
Arabs insist on the fulfillment of unreasonable demands, when they  are in no 
position to do so. Yet, calling on the Palestinians (including Hamas,  
Islamic Jihad, and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade), to accept a truce localized to the  
Gaza Strip, giving Israel impunity to act within the West Bank, is tantamount to  
asking Hamas not to fire rockets at Sderot and the Negev, while remaining 
free  to bombard Tel Aviv and Haifa. The Palestinians are a people, no less than 
the  Israelis are a people, and a death in Ramallah is as significant as a 
death in  Gaza City.  
Every problem afflicting Palestinian society, be  it the expansion of the 
Apartheid Wall, checkpoints, flying checkpoints,  curfews, or the restriction of 
goods and access to education, is characterized  as necessary measures for 
Israeli security. Nonetheless, many non-partisan  organizations, including the 
World Bank, the United Nations, the Hague, Amnesty  International and a number 
of other institutions have condemned Israel and its  tactics on levels of 
morality, legality, and effectiveness. Logically, if one is  looking for peace with 
a society, economic strangulation and imprisonment will  not create an 
environment conducive to peace. The Wall is not being built on the  internationally 
recognized green line and encroaches so far into the West Bank  that thousands 
of Palestinians have been kicked out of their homes, lost their  land or have 
been split from their towns, workplaces, and schools. Even if one  were to 
justify the Wall, which the Israeli Shin Bet has called an ineffective  means of 
protection, why not build the Wall on Israeli territory? “Punishing”  the 
Palestinian people by creating a greater refugee problem and economic  
deprivation is hardly an incentive for Palestinians to resort to more preferred  
tactics of resistance.  Furthermore, settlements continue to grow, far  surpassing 
the number of settlers that were removed from Gaza, and even with the  basic 
cessation of suicide bombings, restrictions in movement have markedly  increased 
in the West Bank.  
The issue of the 400,000 settlers in the West Bank  and East Jerusalem is 
particularly startling. Policy in the United States has  slowly shifted from a 
two-state solution on the basis of the green line, with no Jewish settlers 
within Palestinian territory, to the vast majority of settlers  staying in place, 
with effective Israeli control of half of the West Bank for an  indefinite 
period of time. The prevailing truth that Israel and America want  people to 
accept is that time creates “indisputable” facts on the ground,  meaning: if a 
crime is committed for a long enough period of time, the  international community 
and the victim must recognize the crime. It is to the  bewilderment of the 
Palestinian people that they are seen as the uncompromising  ones when they are 
asking for no more than international law provides. Sadly, it  was the Labor 
party—the party that many purported peace activists are  members—that propped 
up and legitimized the settler movement, leading to one of  the many disputes 
Palestinians and Israelis find themselves in today.   
Many so-called Israeli peace activists point to  Camp David 2000 as the 
quintessential example of Arab rejectionism. One is told  that Israel offered the 
Palestinians 95 percent of the occupied territories,  including a grand 
compromise on East Jerusalem. Let us suppose this is true and  forget the Palestinian 
narrative, that by engaging in Oslo, the Palestinians had  effectively 
relinquished the right to 78 percent of historic Palestine (a  “generous” 
compromise in their minds). Even looking through the Israel prism,  one should ask 
themselves, if Israel was interested in peace (added to the fact  they are the 
occupying force with the upper hand), would it not be reasonable  with peace at 
the forefront of one’s mind, to give up all of the occupied Gaza,  the West 
Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as 5 percent of the Negev? While  Israel has 
much empty land, an abundance of resources, power and capital, an  Israeli could 
claim that on principle alone, the state could not commit to such  a plan. But 
is principle really an option when peace could be just over the  horizon or 
even a remote possibility? If the offer failed, the Israeli left  could point 
out further Arab rejectionism, could it not?  
The way in which one is expected to digest the  so-called “facts” of the 
Israeli occupation and the Palestine question hinders  any rationale debate and 
demonizes any individual calling for an end to Israel’s  racist and hegemonic 
policy, as was the case with former US president Jimmy  Carter. If there were a 
100 suicide bombings in Tel Aviv tomorrow, it would not  diminish the 
Palestinian right to see an end to the occupation, nor would it  minimize the 
urgency. Furthermore, Israel is not occupying Palestinian land as a  punishment. It 
is not as though a suicide bombing struck Tel Aviv 40 years ago  by a 
Palestinian group and the Israel army decided it was time to clamp down on  Palestinian 
society. Rather after a preempted strike on neighboring states,  Israel 
colonized a land that the international community, including the United  States, 
insisted it had no business occupying.  
A quick and just two-state resolution to  Israel/Palestine may sound like an 
oversimplification, but if supposed steps  towards peace were made and “offered
” at Camp David 2000 and at the following  talks at Taba, the same type of 
directive could be taken today. But let’s be  honest with ourselves, the 
two-state solution is dead. It is a figment of the  imagination of the Israeli left 
and of the multitude of Palestinian leaders and  diplomats who have gone 
enormous lengths to sell out the Palestinian people.  That is the danger of looking 
at the two-state solution and Israel/Palestine  through an Israeli prism: it 
draws the parameters of practicality, affecting  even those who support the 
Palestinian plight. Israel does'’t want peace, not  under a Barak government, a 
Sharon government, an Olmert government or a Peres  government. It’s been forty 
years, and yet Israel has become married to the  settlements and to an 
ideology that sees a Jewish state with inherent rights  over its non-Jewish 
citizens, but more critically it as an expansionist state  that believes in the right 
to permanent domination of the lands it controls.  
The only way to break down a racist and  exclusivist structure is to chip 
away at its base and force an alternative  reality. This would require not only 
ending the occupation, but looking  internally at the Israeli state, a Jewish 
state, a state which does''’t and  can'’t function as democracy for all its 
people. Many Palestinians leaders and  supporters within Israel have come to 
realize this and have been ostracized for  bringing this notion to light, namely 
Azmi Bishara, while many more will be  undermined and attacked in the future. 
Yet, divestment, boycott, and sanctions  coupled with a movement forward for 
both Israelis and Palestinians to live as  equals in a shared society is the 
only hope for true peace. This new path must  run counter to the Oslo mentality 
of submissiveness and acquiescence: a model  much like South Africa, Northern 
Ireland and Belgium. It is time for an end to  the occupation, but more 
importantly, it is time to look through a new prism,  one that sees a better 
solution for Israel/Palestine.  

* Remi Kanazi is the co-founder of the  political website 
_www.PoeticInjustice.net_ (http://www.poeticinjustice.net/) . He is the  editor of the 
forthcoming book of poetry, Poets for Palestine, for more  information visit Poetic 
Injustice. He can reached via email at _remroum at gmail_ (mailto:remroum at gmail.com) 





************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wilpf.org/pipermail/wcusp_wilpf.org/attachments/20070611/4119c7c3/attachment-0001.html