Resolving the Israel-Palestine Conflict: What we can learn from Gandhi - by Norman G. Finkelstein

01.16.2009 | The Gandhi Foundation
By gandhifriends

The following article was delivered as the Tans Lecture, Maastricht University, Netherlands on 13th November 2008. The numbers in brackets mark footnotes.

"This lecture will divide into three parts. First, I will lay out the terms of the international consensus for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Second, I will sketch Gandhi's doctrine of nonviolent civil resistance. Third, I will assess the relevance of Gandhi's doctrine for the Israel-Palestine conflict. I will argue that a moral legal consensus is a prerequisite for Gandhi's doctrine to succeed. In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict such a consensus does exist, and consequently those seeking a just and lasting peace might benefit from giving Gandhi's doctrine a serious hearing.
I. What is the international consensus for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict?
One of the best kept diplomatic secrets is that a broad international consensus has long existed on how to settle the Israel-Palestine conflict. (1) Although this conflict has been depicted as among the most intricate, the authoritative political, legal and human rights bodies in the world in fact concur on the basis of its resolution. In the jargon of the so-called peace process, the "final status" issues are supposed to be so intractable that they need be deferred until the last stage of negotiations. These final status issues include borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees. The documentary record shows, however, that, on the terms for resolving these allegedly "controversial" issues, Israel and the United States stand virtually alone.

article in full here:http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2061

Avi Shafran. A gentleman associated with right of center Orthodox groups. Perhaps you have a source you consider unbiased, I would be happy to read it. Also, if one were to remove the advice of Ghandi, fine, as I do believe the advisory ruling from the ICJ 2004 is the most definitive and powerful legal document and victory for the Palestinians. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have no leadership, at least not one without corruption and thus that advisory ruling has been wasted. I won't hold my breath waiting for the United States to change their foreign policy approach, some hope is all that is left imo.

Thank you for your post.

As a general rule, he's irrelevant to intelligent discussion (that is he has nothing to add). A couple of examples from the first section of his lecture.

He makes the point that, "The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, 'Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.'" He then goes on to list the elements of the yearly resolutions. My question to you and anyone who wants to answer is, "So what?" Why does the UN have any legal or moral authority that I should care about? At least think about it. If you don't have a good answer it means that Finkelstein doesn't have an argument at all.

Next he says, "In 2004 the International Court of Justice rendered a landmark advisory opinion on the legality of the wall Israel has been constructing in the West Bank." Same question. Same problem for Finkelstein. His point fails for lack of any authority.

Of course what Finkelstein really wants to talk about is the right of return. It's interesting that his lecture is titled "Resolving the Israel-Palestine Conflict." Interesting because it's about resolving a conflict and not about bringing about peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Very clever title. There's lots of ways to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, but many of them do not involve making peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Demanding the right of return is one of them. Why? Because if the right of return was fully implemented (as Finkelstein desires), then their would not be an Israel at the conclusion of the process. Instead Israel would be an Arab state with a Jewish minority. So Finkelstein isn't talking about peace between Israel and the Palestinians, he's talking about ways that he thinks Israel can be defeated and destroyed. What he's asking for is not something that can be achieved peacefully ever, and he knows it.

I can't help you. If you believe the ICJ advisory ruling, a neutral body of international judges should carry no weight, which included a United States judge who is also a Holocaust survivor, I can't help with that either. Your question, "Why does the UN have any legal or moral authority that I should care about?" It means nothing to the United States government, needless to say, nothing to the Israeli government, two countries that snub what most of the rest of the world accepts as a rational ruling absent of impartiality and bigotry.

If you really believe that Finkelstein represents serious thought, then I can't help you. If you really believe that the UN and the World Court are unbiased moral arbiters, and you haven't given a reason for that belief, then I can't help you. Have a nice day.

When you think the U.N. is out to get you, you have issues. When 189/191 countries in the UN condemn your actions as immoral at best, and potentially illegal at worst, you have no basis for claiming bias.

The Geneva Conventions were not written because the world is anti-Semitic.

you are still left with a ruling that is the majority consensus of legal opinions on a international level, although contrary to the position of the Israeli government. Inconvenient as that may be for Israel, most of the world does not see the bias in the advisory ruling. The fact that the United States and Israel took the position that the case should not have even gone before the court was a red flag, as the US claimed this a political issue as their prime objection once the decision was rendered and did not assault the content of the decision with claims of bias as you have. And I most certainly did give you my reasoning above, and will reiterate for you. An international court, which included a Holocaust survivor, all these many legal minds have it out for Israel?? That advisory opinion was not a divided court. What is tragic for the Palestinians is obvious, but the voice of dissent among Israeli Jews, however small by comparison to the majority, would have greater impact imo on the average Americans opinion if they were equally informed by the MSM. Time will tell if our foreign policy remains as is with respect to Israel/Palestine.

Thank you for your response.

Next he says, "In 2004 the International Court of Justice rendered a landmark advisory opinion on the legality of the wall Israel has been constructing in the West Bank." Same question. Same problem for Finkelstein. His point fails for lack of any authority.

you have summarily dismissed the unanimous opinion of the UN, (save US and Israel). and dismissed the intl court of justice, which the rest of the world respects greatly...is there anything else you can put forward to justify this occupation? is the barrel of a gun the only authority?

As for your assertion that the right of return could put the jewish population in the minority in Israel. Even if it went down that way, and it is not at all clear that it would, this does not justify the occupation. These are people who have been expelled from THEIR LAND. I think it is more likely that dislocated Arabs would choose compensation over repatriation but if not, it is simply racist aspersion that they would not be assets to the community.

I think you might want to think about an Israel that doesnt destroy itself through a policy of brutality and illegality. somethings gotta give eventually. the palestinians won't just lay down, nor should they.