Israel and Palestine

 Israel and Palestine

 

I have no hesitation in condemning the attack by Hamas on October 7. The execution of the attack unquestionably entailed terrorism of civilian targets. However, the narrative that the attack was unprovoked is simply wrong. The Palestinian problem has deep historical roots and that history is broadly absent from most reporting on the conflict. At the same time we ought to equally condemn Israel’s onslaught against civilians in Gaza. The conduct of Israel’s Defense Forces has been unmistakably disproportionate and inhumane. Moreover, the policy, as stated by the Defense Minister, to cut off water and electricity and to warn civilians to evacuate northern Gaza represents an open admission of an unfolding war crime. In a parallel vein I absolutely decry all acts of antisemitism within the US and other Western countries. Attacks on Jewish people and synagogues are criminal acts. Hate crimes against Jewish people living remote from the Israel-Palestine conflict is an inexcusably reactionary response. Having stated these points let me now proceed to delve more deeply into historical background and a critique of policy positions of Israel, Palestine and the US. 

 

The nation of Israel has for myriad reasons enjoyed a pass in terms of historical coverage, media reporting of ongoing events, and accountability with regard to enforcement of past UN decisions and international law. The result is a series of glaring double standards whenever one looks objectively at the facts. In 1947-48 Israel became established as a new State following an advisory vote at the UN General Assembly. The vote recommended implementation of a UN proposal to divide the land of Palestine, then being administered by the United Kingdom under a mandate granted at the end of WWI. The plan granted 56% of the land to a new Jewish State despite the fact that the Jews were a minority of the local population and held title to a mere 7% of the land. Why is it that such an unfair plan was put forward? Why was a Jewish State even proposed, when the prevailing political ideal favored liberal democracy and respect for minority rights? Indeed what about respect for majority rights? 

 

The Palestinians refused to accept the plan. Demonstrations broke out. The Jewish community in Palestine was ready. Its armed forces, the Haganah, launched an offensive which effectively razed villages and ethnically cleansed all of Palestine except for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This civil war ended with the formation of the State of Israel in May of 1948 which coincided with the end of the British Mandate. How is it that this ethnic cleansing by Israel was not condemned? Why was the State of Israel recognized as governing far more territory than envisioned in the original (unjust) UN plan? In 1967 during the six day war Israel conquered Gaza, the West Bank, and Sinai. (Sinai was subsequently returned to Egypt.) Despite a UN resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from the newly conquered territories of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel continues to control these occupied territories. It has also pursued a policy of seizing land from Palestinians and building Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank. The occupied people of the West Bank have never been granted political rights and are subjected to what has become apartheid conditions. Why was apartheid condemned in South Africa, but has largely been ignored or denied in the US and Western Europe?

 

The Palestinians have unquestionably been the losers in this 75 year history of support for  the Jewish State. Furthermore they continue to live in occupied territory within greater Israel or in refugee camps within Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. The Palestinian resistance movement has gone through various phases. The most effective was the first intifada which employed relatively peaceful demonstrations against occupation and culminated in the Oslo Accords. Upon the signing of the Oslo Accords there was a great deal of optimism that a two state solution could be implemented and that peaceful coexistence might be achieved. However, Prime Minister Rabin was later assassinated and Israel pursued its illegal settlement program of the West Bank. The failure to implement a two state solution provided an opening for the rise of Hamas. Subsequently most media reporting seizes on acts of terror committed by Hamas and other groups, while the Palestinian Authority has progressively lost popularity due to its inability to deliver on the promise of the Oslo agreement. While media coverage emphasizes Hamas’s terror tactics, Israel’s continuing breach of international law is either ignored or shielded within the Security Council by US vetoes. Over the years the scale of violent deaths weighs overwhelmingly against Palestinians. Far more Palestinian youths have been killed and maimed by the IDF than Israelis killed in terror attacks. In recent years Palestinians in Gaza had initiated peaceful demonstrations approaching the barricades along the border with Israel. They were calling for the right of return to the villages where their ancestors lived prior to 1948 and to an end to confinement in the open air prison that Gaza has become. The response of the IDF was to shoot those approaching too close to the fence. 

 

One often hears pundits offering advice to Palestinian leaders to employ methods of civil disobedience in lieu of terrorist tactics or armed resistance. That is certainly wise advice. One can bemoan the fact that Palestine has yet to produce a leader like Gandhi or Mandela. But we also should question whether such a leader could even be effective. Such a strategy would only work if coupled with continuing pressure on Israel to accept a Palestinian State, to withdraw its settlements from occupied territory and to allow the new Palestinian State to enjoy open borders. Instead Israel has been allowed to stall any such progress and to continue building new, illegal settlements. The proverbial international community has failed Palestinians. And the dream of a Palestinian Mandela has been dashed by the West’s callous indifference.

 

The US has been the most guilty party within the international community. Despite its huge amounts of aid, both economic and military, to Israel it has failed to apply leverage toward a solution to the conflict. On the contrary the US has continued to exercise its veto powers to shield Israel from censure. Over the years the US has been more focused upon dislodging Soviet influence in the Middle East and later launching military incursions toward establishing a Pax Americana in the greater region. More recently US policy has focused on efforts to bring about the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab nations, ignoring Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian lands. One wonders how  such policy directions can possibly reflect US strategic interests?