Jeff Goldberg does good work pointing out the simple fact that Israel withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders is in fact an idea that is so widely recognized as to be banal. I also think it's worth reminding those who are showily attacking that idea as "anti-Israel" that a large part of the reason for this is that the occupation, now in its 44 year, is a violation of international law and treaties that Israel is bound to uphold.
There are plenty of practical and moral reasons for Israel to withdraw, as I've written about for years, and certainly some of them are in the best interest of Israel, as Goldberg has written about for years. But it's always worth pointing out that Israel is a signatory and contracting power of the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions of 1907, both of which forbid the occupation. That statement is controversial, of course-- nothing regarding Israel and Palestine is not. But most would agree that the occupation violates the spirit of these treaties that Israel is bound to uphold. And certainly, I can imagine very few who would defend the legality of the destructive presence of the settlements in the occupied territories. I'm a skeptic of the practical importance of international law-- laws are made by victors-- but the symbolic importance of restoring the borders to a condition consistent with Israel's treaty obligations shouldn't be underestimated.
The shamelessness and opportunism of conservatives in government and media would astound, if movement conservatism hadn't extinguished any sparks of credibility years ago. They say that they are defending Israel while trying to perpetuate a status quo that isolates Israel internationally, dooms it through demographics to a small handful of equally noxious choices, and undermines the moral legitimacy of both the state and the righteous purpose of providing a safe home for Jews in the world. (How many movement conservatives, if they were honest and actually consistent in the application of their religious beliefs, would be forced to say that all Israeli Jews are condemned to hell?)
Solving this conflict is not merely a matter of delivering justice and self-governance to the Palestinian people; it is about restoring the legitimacy of the Israeli government and ensuring that the principles of democracy and freedom which attended its creation, albeit in a flawed and partial manner, are carried out in practice. I'm a pessimist by nature, and this conflict has defied good intentions and optimism for decades. But I am deeply encouraged by the slow evolution in our political dialogue and the rise of Palestinian activists who are dedicated to nonviolent resistance. There are always going to be those who claim that one must favor one side in an Israeli/Palestinian binary, but we must insist on nothing less than freedom, justice, and peace for both Israel and Palestine. If there's ever a time for idealism, this is it.
3 comments:
I support peace first, but I oppose Israel as a "Jewish" state, and in the end I want a one-state solution; I'll accept a two-state solution if it can happen, but I think a one-state solution is more preferable both morally and practically. In fact, with all of the settlements, I see no other way around it. With a bunch of land swaps, I see the occupation continuing in a way with checkpoints at every turn. As Obama said here:
"the defence of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River."
This sounds like an Apartheid setup, a Palestine surrounded by Israeli settlements, the wall, IDF checkpoints, and restriction of movement.
Well good luck with your optimism.
Even the NYT went above the fold on Obama's speech, making it seem like Obama made some ground breaking historic new proclamation about Israel/Palestine.
Is it because Drudge went with the red siren (I don't think he even brought that out when OBL was caught)?
I share your humanism principles but I'm just so pessimistic given the state of our media. Seriously, Obama gives the standard, balanced, run of the mill speech, acknowledging both sides of the conflict and promotes constructive dialogue, and the AP, everyone, runs with it like it's some crazy talk and steppin to Bibi.
How can you advocate when facts and reality have no bearing on these events are reported.
@jdrs,
Wow, I didn't even catch that:
"[T]he defence of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River."
So Obama endorses a Palestinian state that doesn't control it's own borders. And yet, half the headlines in this country are Obama threw Israel under the Bus.
I concur with your last sentence as well.
Post a Comment