Regarding Israel's disputes with the non-Jewish residents of Palestine, the merits of the respective cases, rooted as they are in history, probably have almost nothing to do with the views of Americans, which I'm afraid come down to a kind of picture preference wherein the Jews (close to white, and believers in the God of the Old Testament) prevail over the Palestinians (more alien on both counts). So basic information about the situation is needed, and I recommend Justin Elliott's interview, over at Salon, with Geoffrey Aronson, of the Foundation for Mideast Peace. Elliot asks about the settlements in the occupied territories, and Aronson replies that they are to be understood as "a continuation of the historical effort of the Jewish community in Palestine to expand its sovereign presence and by so doing undermine the ability of Palestinian Arabs to do the same." Then Elliott: "But under international law this is considered illegal?" And Aronson: "Most international lawyers whom one would consult would consider the settlement of civilians in permanent settlements in areas that are under hostile military occupation to be illegal. Israel, however, has its own view of this. The bottom line is they feel they’ve got a right to do this."
He's trying to be evenhanded, but it's hard. The settlements are illegal. "Israel, however, has its own view of this." What is that view? Why does it have a right? Inevitably it amounts to the methods of the Palestinians. It's not an argument that gets to the heart of the matter. Why do the Palestinians, however despicable their methods, have no case? Again, what is the justification for settlements in the occupied territories? The settlers themselves would appeal to triumphalist religious interpretations. The leaders of the Israeli government have the good sense not to do that but they don't appear to have anything better to say.
Elliott also asks Aronson about the checkpoints. His answer, fine so far as it goes, leaves out the daily humiliations suffered by Palestinians as they attempt to move around in the occupied West Bank. I wrote here about one incident among thousands. It happens that a recent New Yorker article, by David Remnick, on the Israeli daily Haaretz, includes a mini-profile of columnist Gideon Levy, who told Remnick that he could never forget a scene, at a checkpoint, where
I saw a soldier checking the X-ray of an old lady, as if he will decide if she is sick enough to get to the hospital in the West Bank. The scene of this nineteen-year-old child who has the right to decide on her fate and plays God and looks at her X-ray without knowing a thing, just to humiliate her or give himself this power--those things can happen today, too.
Criticizing Israel is politically risky in the United States. In Israel, it can be lethal. Zeev Sternhell, a professor at Hebrew University, has expressed in Haaretz views that, as summarized by Remnick, match my own:
In 2008, on the sixtieth anniversary of the state, Sternhell won its highest honor, the Israel Prize, and the announcement infuriated settlers, who claimed that he supported armed insurrection. Sternhell did no such thing, but he had written in Haaretz that Palaestinians had no recourse other than armed resistance. "My intention was not to say that they could kill civilians," Sternhell recalled. "No. The important thing is that I said the settler's movement was both illegal and illegitimate, and the Palestinian resistance to settlements was understandable."
On September 25, 2008, Sternhell was nearly killed by a pipe bomb that exploded as he opened the door of his apartment. He was returning from a trip and was shielded from the blast by his luggage. The police eventually arrested a settler, Yaakov Teitel, formerly of Florida, who, Remnick reports, "had also killed a Palestinian shepherd in the West Bank and an Arab cabdriver."
Comments