Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

I've posted this before, but I thought I'd resurrect this summary of a talk on the Israeli Palestinian issue - and which highlights that the issue is quite simple:

He began with the almost iconoclastic phrase that the Israeli-Palestinian situation was not, in any way shape or form, complex. It is not – he continued – controversial; too difficult to understand or comprehend; it does not defy analysis; and it is, above all else, quite simple. This was the theme throughout the lecture, and it was well argued.




Finkelstein on the Israeli-Palestinian situation: it’s not complicated 26, January 2008

Posted by davidbroberts in American ME Relations, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Media in the ME, Western-Muslim Relations.

The soft spoken Norman Finkelstein took the stage some 15 minutes late: not so bad for a visiting lecturer. For the next two and a half hours he gave a professional and persuasive lecture entitled ‘Israel and Palestine: the roots of the problem and the prospects for peace.’ He was, of course, preaching to the converted. This event was the last of a five stop UK tour which began in Manchester and ended last night at the George Square theatre in Edinburgh. It was organised by the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS) and had the typical adornments of such events: the pro-Palestinian pamphlets, the selection of hippies, and the communists – literally – outside in the cold.

He began with the almost iconoclastic phrase that the Israeli-Palestinian situation was not, in any way shape or form, complex. It is not – he continued – controversial; too difficult to understand or comprehend; it does not defy analysis; and it is, above all else, quite simple. This was the theme throughout the lecture, and it was well argued.

He cites the four issues of the conflict, which are often said to be the most intractable:

1) the question of the legal borders of Israel and Palestine

2) the question of the legality of the Israeli settlements

3) the questions of East Jerusalem

4) the question of the Palestinian refugees

These are the four questions which are the kernel of the problem, he maintains, which are consistently portrayed as being so complex as to be nigh-on insoluble. However, they are not at all that controversial and this confusion is sowed specifically to muddy the issues, he continued.

Finkelstein explained that in July 2004 the highest judicial body in the world, The International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave an advisory opinion as to the legality of the wall that the Israelis were (and are) constructing. In order to render this opinion, the court had to consider preliminary questions which correspond to the first three questions above.

On the question of Israeli borders the ICJ was unequivocal. Since, according to international law, land may not be acquired by force, and since Israel acquired land in Gaza and the West Bank this way, it is, ipso facto, illegal. There is, therefore, in effect, no dispute regarding the disputed territories: international law is clear and straight forward – the land does not belong to the Israelis. Therefore, following on from this judgement, Israeli settlers are settled on land that was obtained illegally, and are thus in flagrant violation of international law.

On the question of East Jerusalem the court is similarly unambiguous. It was acquired during the 1967 war and thus, again, because land may not be seized by force according to international law, this is Palestinian land and Israelis have no title to it.

However, the crucial aspect is how many judges voted on or for the above arguments? The final tally was a resounding 14:1. This is where Finkelstein gets his ‘there is no confusion or complexity’ notion from: it has already been overwhelmingly decided upon by the ICJ. Even the one vote against the motion from the American judge was not a rejection but a more neutral lack of acceptance, and furthermore, he did accept the notion that the wall that the Israelis are building was illegal because they had acquired the land illegally and thus, on that specific question, the vote was 15:0.

The second theme that he addressed was around the issue of terrorism semantics. A crucial difference, it is often claimed, is that the various Arab terrorist groups strive to maximize civilian fatalities, where as the Israelis, whilst killing three or four times as many people, at least do not have this as an avowed aim. Finkelstein defines terrorism as ‘the targeting of civilians to further a political end’ and retorts that if the Israeli army launch artillery into a town or spray a crowd with bullets then the “inevitable and foreseeable consequence” of this is the deaths of civilians and therefore, these actions are ipso facto purposeful and intentional. Israeli actions are thus the intended targeting of civilians. The stated Israeli aim of many such actions (eg. the shelling of a village) is to put pressure on the leaders to do x and y, which is wholly political. Thus, Israel are pursuing a political end by the specific targeted killing of civilians, which is terrorism.

In order to answer the fourth ‘intractable’ question, he used his own situation as an analogy to good effect. When he was denied tenure at his former university, he firmly believed that had he gone through the court system, he would have won eventually. However, he was told that this would take around six years and would cost an exorbitant amount of money. He said that whilst he will always believe that he does have the right to tenure at the university, just as the Palestinians have the right to return, in terms of practicality, for him it was just not feasible to pursue it, just as he believes, the Palestinian right of return is not feasible.

He also eloquently argued against several other perceived injustices surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Returning to his central theme, he pointed out that every year the UN security council vote on a resolution on a peaceful settlement of the conflict. The vote is typically utterly one sided. E.g. 1981: 151:3, 1997: 155:2, 2002: 160:4, 2007: 161:7. Although the numbers of dissenters appears to have been rising in recent years, it must be forgotten that one is always the US and the other Israel, whilst the others are states such Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu, the Federal States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands.

Another interesting point that he made was about the comparison of the conflict with others in the past. Whist to some there seems to be an apt comparison between Israel and apartheid South Africa, such notions, if they make it to mainstream media are drowned out in a sea of vitriol and outrage. This was the case when former American President Jimmy Carter released a book titled ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’ to considerable opprobrium .Those defending Israel from this comparison, inevitably end up discussing the holocaust and using it to garner sympathy and obfuscate generally. However, the list of people who do think that such a comparison is warranted is lengthy and impressive, including Jimmy Carter, Haaretz the leading Israeli newspaper, Israel’s former attorney general, education minister and even Ariel Sharon.

Finkelstein concluded by saying that all is not lost. Much or even most public opinion is against Israel in this situation and that while the Israeli lobby may be strong; those fighting for the Palestinians have truth on their side.

Overall, Finkelstein was impressive, but there are, without doubt, several points to be raised with Finkelstein’s argument. The ICJ is a famously toothless body, rendering opinions for those that want to hear them. There is no coercion there whatsoever. Israel can ignore their injunctions and motions continually. They will have to be made to adhere to such motions by some other source. Also, in his section comparing Palestinian and Israeli terrorism, he defined terrorism in a self-serving manner, referring to it as ‘targeting of civilians for a political end.’ Whole books (and not small ones) have been written discussing the difficulties of defining terrorism. However, the vast majority these definitions include some notion of a sub-state actor in the definition. This would, thus, exculpate Israel from committing terrorism in a semantic way. I am not sure if simply glossing over this is the way to deal with this particular argument. Israel will simply refer back to the semantics which are in their favour. However, if – somehow – a concerted effort could be made to change the definition to one that included actions of states against civilians for political ends, then this would be enormously fruitful.

http://thegulfblog.com/2008/01/26/finke ... mplicated/

Cheers,
Shafique

Another interesting development:

The EU is planning to call for the division of Jerusalem between Israel and a future Palestinian state.
12.01.2009 | Haaretz

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Israel on Tuesday lashed out a new plan by the European Union to call for the division of Jerusalem with a future Palestinian state, saying that such a move by the EU would further harm the chances of renewing peace negotiations in the Middle East.

EU foreign ministers are expected to issue an official call next week for Jerusalem to be divided, in order to serve as the capitals of both Israel and a Palestinian state. A draft document authored by the current holder of the rotating EU presidency, Sweden, and implying that the EU would recognize a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood, has been obtained by Haaretz.
....

On the issue of borders, the document states that the EU will not accept any changes made by Israel to the 1967 borders unless they have PA approval. The EU, it says, welcomes PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s proposal of a unilateral declaration of statehood and would “be able, at the appropriate time, to recognize a Palestinian state.”
...

The Israeli spin machine seems to be in a tail-spin these days!

Ok - let's here the usual chorus of 'don't they understand that Israel is above the law' etc ..

Cheers,
Shafique

I thought I'd just bump this for Tom's comment - as he stated that his view was that the conflict is complex. I have to say that I find Finkelstein's explanations very compelling.
(But then again, perhaps I'm just a brainwashed biased Muslim? )

Cheers
Shafique

Very interesting read.... in both posts.

Yes.. it appears simple when you look at that way.....but...alas....it ain't!!!

I think perhaps only a Genie can bring peace to the Middle East:

A woman was walking along the beach when she stumbled upon a Genie's lamp. She picked it up and rubbed it, and lo-and-behold a Genie appeared. The amazed woman asked if she was going to receive the usual three wishes.

The Genie said, "Nope ... due to the recession, the downsizing, low wages in third-world countries, and fierce global competition, I can only grant you one wish. So ... what will it be?"

The woman didn't hesitate. She said, "I want peace in the Middle East. See this map? I want these countries to stop fighting with each other."

The Genie looked at the map and exclaimed, "Gadzooks, lady! These countries have been at war for thousands of years. I'm good, but not THAT good! I don't think it can be done. Make another wish."

The woman thought for a minute and said, "Well, I've never been able to find the right man. You know, one that's considerate and fun, likes to cook and helps with the housecleaning, is good in bed, gets along with my family, doesn't watch sports all the time, and is faithful. That's what I wish for ... just a lovely, wonderful man."

The Genie let out a long sigh and said, "Let me see that frigging map again!"

I've heard a few variations of the joke.

However, Finkelstein's points are that one side insists that the issue is complicated and intractable - but that on examination these, he argues, are excuses and smokescreens.

There is certainly rhetoric from both sides, however on the steps to achieving peace - the issue is quite simple and has been the basis of all viable peace plans: 2 states, Jerusalem shared capital, 1967 borders with perhaps some land swaps, just solution to refugee problems - i.e. UN resolution 242!

The complication arises when one side does not want to abide by International law and want more concessions from the occupied people.

What surprises many is the verifiable fact that it is only the Palestinians who have made concessions - the Israelis have only grudgingly complied to a few obligations.
dubai-politics-talk/palestine-push-for-independence-t39413-270.html?hilit=israel%20facts#p325228

Now, the issue is complicated - but it is complicated for reasons not commonly realised by those who just take in the headlines or mainstream narratives. The main complication is that a sub-section of Israel want to hold on to land outside of the 1967 borders - the land that the world does not recognise as Israel. The annexation of Jerusalem was illegal (still is today), and much of what is now called 'East Jerusalem' was renamed by Israelis before they annexed it (i.e. they stole West Bank land).

Once the facts are laid out, the issues to be resolved take on a new light - but it doesn't change the fact that the issues need to be resolved - it only puts the narrative/spin on who is holding up the negotiations in their proper perspective. (Examine the facts and the argument that Palestinians walked away from viable peace deals in the past crumbles, for example.)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:the issue is quite simple and has been the basis of all viable peace plans: 2 states, Jerusalem shared capital, 1967 borders with perhaps some land swaps, just solution to refugee problems - i.e. UN resolution 242!

Arafat approves Taba plan too late

The Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, yesterday belatedly accepted a Middle East peace plan put forward 18 months ago by the then US president, Bill Clinton.

Taba:

The two sides agreed that in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242, the June 4, 1967 lines would be the basis for the borders between Israel and the state of Palestine.

The Israeli side accepted that Jerusalem would be the capital of the two states: Yerushalaim, capital of Israel and Al-Quds, capital of the state of Palestine. Both parties accepted the principle of respective control over each side's respective holy sites.

Both sides suggested, as a basis, that the parties should agree that a just settlement of the refugee problem in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242 must lead to the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194

The Myth of the Generous offer:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113


Israel hasn't made any concessions:
http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/Israel-P ... locharade/

Amnon Lipkin-Shahak , one of the Israeli negotiators has since said that "Taba was bullshit. Taba was an elections exercise...Taba was not aimed to reach an agreement. Taba was aimed to convince the Israeli-Arabs to vote".

cheers,
Shafique

Arafat refused an offer based on UN resolutions. Excuses for the eternal Palestinian "NO" will always be found.

Peace for Palestinian leaders means having to deal with the hereditary Palestinian refugees, kept inside the camps under PA and Hamas jurisdiction by their leaders.

Repeating the myth won't change reality FD.

But it is moot anyway - the Palestinians today are the ones still making concessions according to international law and the settlers/colonists still want to steal more land.

Fortunately, what you think happened in the past doesn't really matter when it comes to the peace negotiations and which parties are standing in the way of peace.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:the Palestinians today are the ones still making concessions according to international law

Resolution 242 asks for reciprocracy, not a unilateral withdrawal. Also, drafters of the resolution made it clear that the resolution was written is such a way that Israel doesn't necessary have to withdrawal in case of a peace agreement to the pre-1967 armistice lines.

UN resolution 242 is quite short - and I couldn't see where it said that the Palestinians need to reciprocate - the first point just states that Israel should withdraw from territory it conquered, and the preamble clearly states it is illegal to acquire territory by war.
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/scres67.htm

It really +is+ quite simple.

But, I'm curious - how would you like the Palestinians to reciprocate? Should they steal some Israeli land first and then hand it back?

Anyway, these intellectual hair-splitting exercises doesn't change the fact that it is only the Palestinian side that has made any concessions, but the Israelis seem to want even more.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:UN resolution 242 is quite short - and I couldn't see where it said that the Palestinians need to reciprocate - the first point just states that Israel should withdraw from territory it conquered, and the preamble clearly states it is illegal to acquire territory by war.

242:

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Caradon, one of the drafters on res. 242:

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967 because these positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers on each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them, and I think we were right not to."

shafique wrote: how would you like the Palestinians to reciprocate?

By acceptating a peace proposal based on resolution 242 of course, like Taba, not refusing it.

shafique wrote:Should they steal some Israeli land first and then hand it back?

The Westbank and Gaza were not considered Palestinian by Palestinians. Israel acquired the land in a defensive war.

Why do you use 'based on' when you actually mean 'falls short of'?

I refer you to the myth that Taba etc were 'generous' offers and ask you to show why these offers to create bantustans is in anyway related to UN resolution 242 which says it is illegal to acquire land by force and calls for Israeli withdrawal from occupied land.

You also need to look up the word 'reciprocate' - it does not mean 'agree to give up more land for nothing in return'.

Palestinians are willing to allow Israel have 78% of Palestine (as defined in the Hope Simpson report you quoted) and stick with the 22% (even though the UN originally gave Israel 55% in 1947). The Israelis seem to be greedy and not willing to make any concessions. I'm not sure why anyone would defend their greediness?

Cheers,
Shafique