Rethinking Israel After Sixty Years - By Jeff Halper

Date: 16 / 05 / 2008 Time: 16:20



Israeli Independence Day 2008, marking the sixtieth anniversary of the rise of the Jewish State, should be cause for sober reflection and reevaluation as well as celebration. Indeed, we Israeli Jews have much to celebrate. But something, it appears, is amiss. Israel’s 60 Year gala appeared exaggerated, the joy expressed through the blaring loudspeakers somewhat artificial and forced. The celebrations were certainly more militaristic and triumphalist than usual. Neither the Palestinians nor the Occupation were allowed to penetrate the close narrative encasing Independence Day, of course, but military themes and displays, plus the presence of thousands of soldiers and police in every public place, conveyed an underlying disquiet. Something else was present, an unsettling but unspoken element. I call it the Palestinian poltergeist.

Perhaps our demonstrative triumphalism had to do less with celebration than with the disturbing realization that the two-state solution, which even Olmert claims is Israel‘s only hope of remaining a Jewish state, is disappearing before our eyes. Anyone familiar with Israel’s massive settlements blocs, its fragmentation of the Palestinian territories and their irreversible incorporation into Israel proper through a maze of Israeli-only highways and other “facts on the ground,” anyone who has spent an hour in the West Bank, can plainly see that this is the case. The expansion of Israel’s Matrix of Control throughout the Occupied Territories, coupled with American protection from any international pressures for meaningful withdrawal, have rendered a viable Palestinian state, and thus a genuine two-state solution, unattainable.

The transformation of the Occupation into a permanent political fact now shifts the question of co-existence, peace and reconciliation from the West Bank and Gaza to the entire country, to an indivisible Israel/Palestine. This is the true significance of the 60 Years. For if a viable Palestinian state cannot be detached from Israel, then the conflict becomes one which encompasses the entire country from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. The focus on 1948 raises issues we’d rather leave untouched, events and policies we have suppressed these past six decades.

Did the Palestinians really flee or did we Israeli Jews drive them out? If almost half the inhabitants of that part of Palestine apportioned by the UN to the Jews in 1947 were Arabs, how could we have turned even that small bit of land into a “Jewish state”? Is Zionism, then, truly free of war crimes or did we in fact conduct a deliberate and cruel campaign of ethnic cleansing that went far beyond the borders of partition? In that context, was the occupation of the entire land of Palestine the result of Jordanian miscalculation or, from a perspective of forty years later, was it actually an inevitable “completion” of 1948, as Rabin and many others have said? How can we reconcile our professed desire for peace with a steady annexation of the Occupied Territories, including almost 250 settlements? Can we really expect to “win,” to frustrate Palestinian aspirations for freedom in their homeland forever, and if we do, what kind of society will we have, what will our children inherit? Indeed, while we presume to speak in the name of world Jewry, can we expect our Diaspora – fundamentally liberal and not tribal as is Judaism in Israel – to support war crimes that only undermine the moral basis of their community, convictions and faith?

And then comes the hardest question of all: If it was we who eliminated a viable two-state solution – the creation of a truncated Palestinian prison-state on 15% of historic Palestine a la South Africa’s Bantustans will not solve the conflict – then how shall we end our century-old conflict? How shall we deal with the bi-national entity that is Israel/Palestine, largely our own creation?

In order to avoid these questions, we have developed a number of mechanisms, delaying forever a political solution being only one of them. It is enough for us to merely assert our support for a two-state solution in order that we be considered peace-minded and reasonable. Two-state supporters require only the notion of a Palestinian state, a never-ending process towards it, to escape confronting the reality we created. As long as a Palestinian state can be held out as a possibility, the pressure’s off. Thus many Israelis, Diaspora Jews and others – including such searching and otherwise radical figures as Noam Chomsky and Uri Avnery, together with Peace Now, Brit Tzedek, Rabbis Michael Lerner and Arthur Waskow and members of Rabbis for Human Rights – cling tenaciously to the two-state solution, all refusing to admit it is no longer viable.

Please read on!
http://maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=29332

I'd love to hear any feedback.

the ubiquitous use of the word "we" .....inherent is his assumption that the jews/zionists are all powerful had complete control and are 100% responsible for the events.....

stinks of colonialism...that the 'downtrodden" are of a "lesser god" and have no ability to affect events. I take the other view, that the Palestenians/Arabs were and are a force to respect and to be reckoned with, that had a major effect on the events in the past and in the present and have the power to shape the future as well along with the jews and israelis.

A "Matrix of Control" that enslaves both people.

absurd to act like there is any MAYBE in this situation.

solution is simply not possible?

And what to do about his contention: It is enough for us to merely assert our support for a two-state solution in order that we be considered peace-minded and reasonable. Two-state supporters require only the notion of a Palestinian state, a never-ending process towards it, to escape confronting the reality we created. As long as a Palestinian state can be held out as a possibility, the pressure’s off.

Now what? What does a liberal, moral zionist make of that?

It offers a fairly concrete foundation for the creation of a two-state solution that any peace-minded and reasonable individual ought to be embracing, in my opinion.

I wish that more energy could be injected into that proposal.

From their website:

W. Bank settlement head at GI conference on the separation barrier: "I would evacuate my home for peace"

http://www.geneva-accord.org/staff.aspx?docID=2845&FolderID=36&lang=en

The Geneva Initiative presents a pathway to a two-state solution that is equitable and fair, that requires compromises from both sides, and, most importantly, that is a workable framework for long-term peace.

think it's possible to evacuate the WB?

that the steps necessary to evacuate the WB settlements will be taken than that the steps necessary to implement a single-state solution will be.

Is that worse than "regular" apartheid?

Since Israel gets accused of genocide and ethnic cleansing regularly in this forum I guess charges of "regular" apartheid hardly seemed worth the effort.

:popcorn:

You're now on permanent ignore. I don't converse with posters who cavort on hate sites.

You're quite the hero among those DU rejects, huh?

Is that up there with "double secret probation" like in Belushi's Animal House?

Well, I'm off to cavort on some hate sites. See ya!:rofl:

Unless you've been doing some "cavorting" on your own?

(I couldn't find a :cavorting: smiley so this will have to do :bounce:.)

. . is still bouncing. You'd think he'd get tired after a while and you'd be able to catch him on a break. ;)

but from which side?

We can agree, I think, that the status-quo is not acceptable.

In terms of workable, equitable solutions, I strongly feel that the Geneva Initiative (or something like it) is a good starting off point.

I think that most Israelis would be willing to support the removal of the vast majority of settlements if they believed that it would lead to a lasting peace with the Palestinians.

I also think that most Palestinians would be willing to accept a one-for-one territorial exchange so that a small number of settlement blocs could be incorporated into Israel while an equal amount of land inside Israel is incorporated into the new Palestinian state.

In terms of actual pathways towards finally ended this crisis, this initiative seems to present one that would be acceptable to the majority of Israelis and Palestinians.

From the website:

If the Geneva Initiative is implemented then there will be a Palestinian state on the equivalent of all the Palestinian lands occupied in 1967 – with no Israeli soldiers and no checkpoints and a multinational force for guaranteed security. Jerusalem – in all its Palestinian neighborhoods and holy sites – will again be open to Palestinians and recognized as Palestine's capital. The refugees will finally have solutions, rights, and choices, and also compensation – with Palestine as a guaranteed home.

I would say the primary barriers are continual settlement expansion, and Palestinian civil strife.

What are the forces behind those barriers?

Neither the Israelis not the Palestinians have leaders who are willing to take the bold steps necessary to break past the barriers you've indicated.

or future Palestinian or Israeli leadership to break these barriers.

It's like they have hated each other for so long, it would take a miracle to get past the loathing and distrust, on both sides.

Although most people want peace in the region, I honestly don't see it forthcoming.

The first is difficult, but possible - and necessary. The second appears impossible.

because the alternative is unthinkable.

Hamas has made it clear that they plan to take back all of Israel. It's a one state solution with no Jews.

I don't think the Israelis will agree to that plan, whether they are liberal, moral zionists or right wing racists.

I agree with Oberliner about the Geneva accord.

intentions; merely put it all on his view of Zionism. He would have made a good Soviet propagandist.

(not saying Halper does, but it is a common theme among posted articles here) seem to neglect these important points.

It isn't like Hamas is hanging at the door with a negotiation agreement in hand.

Hamas wants all of Israel. They say it everyday.

They also say there will be no negotiation whatsover with the "Zionist entity".

There will be not be one state without major bloodshed (and Hamas will lose that one).

However, nor will there be two states, as long as Hamas has the leadership position.

Perhaps that will change one day, but time is running out.

Israel can suffer the status quo longer than the Palestinians can.