Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
| Agha and Malley in NYRB get it so wrong |
|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2011-01-20
Review of ”Who’s Afraid of the Palestinians?”, February 10, 2011, NYRB, by Hussein Agha and Robert Malley. ”The conflict Israelis have come to care about is not with the Palestinians; it is with the rest of the world. The deal that interests Israel is one that would result in a dramatic change in its condition that only non-Palestinian actors can produce. * * * Israel might have dealt with its Palestinian problem but has yet to deal with the problems the Palestinian problem has spawned. Agha and Malley approach my thought, although curiously expressing it as though international pressure meant only pressure from the USA (an “avowed friend” of Israel); they ignore pressure from an international community fed up with Israeli lawlessness: In this setting, temptation has grown to increase international pressure on Israel and heighten its discomfort. If it is delegitimization Israelis fear, then it must be delegitimization that will make them budge. Faced with the prospect of isolation, Israel might be persuaded to end its occupation. But pressure is a double-edged sword requiring skillful handling, especially when exercised on a people convinced by the calamities of their own history of the inveterate hostility of much of the outside world. Those who wield it often only confirm in Israeli eyes how unreliable their avowed friendship was in the first place. One should not be surprised if the Israeli people, their sense of vulnerability enhanced, opt to hunker down rather than reach out. Agha and Malley express this “conflict” as one to be resolved by the rest of the world giving Israel what Israel wants. Above, I have expressed it as a problem of getting the rest of the world to pressure Israel so severely that it sees that the game has changed, against it, and that it will suffer unless it gives the Palestinians what they want. In either case, the problem is what the international community will do,[2] not in negotiations between Israel and the PLO. Agha and Malley suggest that the time of the PLO is running out: “He [Abbas] is the last Palestinian, for some time to come, with the history, authority, and legitimacy to sign a deal on behalf of all Palestinians that could end the conflict.” I think they wrongly ignore Ashrawi. She has the clear sight to see and to insist that international law is the path to Palestinian statehood, not negotiation. And she is clearly right. ----------- [1] As required, tho without teeth, by UNSC 465 (1980). ----------- [2] ”What matters is not what the Goyim say, what matters is what the Jews do”—David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister and terroristquoted here |
Comments:
| irishmoses 2011-01-21 | |
| Peter, I found the Agha/Malley piece useful in that it showed all the possible Israeli responses to the various Palestinian actions/options. The most important point was that a premature declaration of a Palestinian state could well result in a very diminished state (60 percent of West Bank plus Gaza) which might have the effect of taking the I-P issue out of the international limelight. Here is the key quote (toward the end of section 4): \"Some Palestinians suspect the strategy could lead to a state of their own but they are not so sure that would be a good thing. Like the idea of declaring a state or having it recognized, building one on the parts of the West Bank the Palestinians already control carries risks. By normalizing the situation on the West Bank, it could enable the perpetuation of the status quo at low cost and with diminished international attention. Fayyad hopes that the world will not stop halfway, and that Palestinian accomplishments will provide the momentum for a forceful international effort to resolve all remaining issues. But history is not in the habit of rewarding good behavior; it is a struggle, not a beauty contest. If Palestinians have a state or its equivalent and are celebrated worldwide, if West Bankers can enjoy the fruits of greater self- governance and economic prosperity, then any international drive for tackling the core issues might well fizzle. The priority, at that point, would be to consolidate what has been achieved rather than jeopardize it by reopening more thorny subjects. A profound emotional conflict between two national movements could be transformed into a tedious, manageable interstate border dispute. The greater danger to the Palestinian cause, according to this view, is not the absence of a state. It is the premature creation of one.\" The Agha/Malley article has caused me to reevaluate my view of possible solutions to the I-P issue. I now don\'t see any utility to further US sponsored negotiations. There is simply no way any US administration will be able to force a \"reasonable\" solution (e.g. Arab or Geneva initiatives) on Israel in the current US political environment. The one way that could change would be if there was sufficient publicity about the harm the I-P issue is doing to US vital national security interests, including the linkage between the I-P issue and growing Islamic extremism. This possibility terrifies the Israelis and AIPAC and they fight it vigorously (see Jennifer Rubin\'s piece in today\'s WAPO). I think we may be getting closer to that point as more and more Israeli stalwarts like Jeffrey Goldberg start showing doubts about the mindless insanity of current Israeli domestic and foreign policy. Getting us back on the realist track from the neocon disaster is the key to solving the I-P issue or at least divorcing the US from it to allow the UN to play the key role. This leads me to your point that the key is international law not negotiations. While I agree with you, the problem is the all-powerful US veto which will be wielded in Israel’s favor so long as US middle east policy remains Neocon-based. That reality has prevented international law solutions for the past 43 years and will continue to do so. Ashrawi recognizes that in the first paragraph of her article when she implores the US to not block the pending UN resolution on the illegality of the settlements. If and when that changes, and the US again focuses on its own vital national security interests then Katie bar the door. A determined US, freed from the boot of Israeli and AIPAC political constraints, can easily handle Israel and AIPAC. There is a wealth of effective internal tools available, from funding cuts to declaring AIPAC an agent of a foreign power, to bully pulpit PR by the president. Externally, the US could lead UN international law-based efforts to force Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories. But, until the US makes that fundamental change in outlook, from neocon-ism back to realism, the US veto power will protect Israel from international law and UN sanctions. It is also possible that public outrage against Israel could grow to the point that politicians would feel compelled to represent that outrage rather than AIPAC interests. That’s largely what happened in the US civil rights movement of the late 1950s and 1960s. TV publicity of southern police and redneck brutality toward Blacks so outraged voters that politicians finally felt compelled to protect Blacks and pass civil rights legislation. That could work internationally as well, a la South Africa. BDS is a part of that. The key is getting US politicians to recognize the harm Israel is doing to US vital interests and that patriotism lies in protecting US not Israeli interests. |
Submit a comment, subject to review:
|
123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com |