Israel-Palestine: Why Does It Take a Socialist?

As another ceasefire begins in the Israel-Gaza conflict, I’m returning to the issue for a few reflections on some reading I’ve done since my last post.

A few days ago, President Obama sat down to talk with journalist Thomas L. Friedman, largely about criticism of his foreign policy (column and videos). Many of the president’s comments display the intelligence and vision that attracted me to him as a candidate in the 2008 presidential election. But when it comes to Israel and Palestine, he disappoints yet again:

“It is amazing to see what Israel has become over the last several decades. To have scratched out of rock this incredibly vibrant, incredibly successful, wealthy and powerful country is a testament to the ingenuity, energy and vision of the Jewish people. And because Israel is so capable militarily, I don’t worry about Israel’s survival.”

Thank you, Mr. President, for that rousing summary of Zionism. I expect to be similarly moved as I work my way through Leon Uris’s Exodus, but when innocent civilians have died in the thousands in the last few weeks, is describing the pioneer spirit of the Israeli people really pertinent? Is it really a time to be praising Israel’s military when they’ve been bombing schools and refugee camps?

The president does go on to express a desire for progress through peaceful negotiations, but any pol can do that in his sleep and I’ve never taken Obama for just any hack. Previous presidents have stuck their neck out to bring the two sides together, and to some success, so maybe this one could do something more than mouth the usual platitudes?

 

The president likes to lead from behind, but as I’ve written before, on this issue he’s just way behind. I want the administration to express a stronger understanding of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and to express firm condemnation of Israel’s actions.

Such statements are rare from politicians in or running for office, but this past week, one of America’s best did just that. Socialist Kshama Sawant (previous post) presented to her fellow Seattle city council members the draft of an open letter to President Obama and Congress that makes and demands such a statement:

“We call on President Obama, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate to issue a formal statement denouncing Israel’s siege and blockade of Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank. We also call for an immediate end to all U.S. government military aid for Israel.”

If socialists are so bad, why does it take one to condemn slaughter and other crimes that even prominent Israeli intellectuals such as historian Ilan Pappe (another socialist) have said deserve to be labeled genocide and ethnic cleansing?

 

 

I suppose at least part of the answer is easy. America’s political system has calcified around play-it-safe centrism, with the center-left all too often resembling the right. In a land where glorification of Israel is practically in the high school curriculum, it’s not surprising politicians, who are good at getting re-elected if nothing else, refuse to take a stand. Sawant, on the other hand, may be a rising star but she has less to lose than a U.S. congressperson or the president.

But perhaps there’s more to it than that. Perhaps something good can be said for the real left’s ideology, for its emphasis on human rights and internationalism. When all people are equal, all deaths are lamentable, whether those of Palestinians, Israelis or others caught in the crossfire, and indeed Sawant’s letter, while focused on Israel’s extreme violence toward Palestine, also raises concern for Israeli soldiers and a Thai worker killed, condemns Hamas for attacks on civilians, and voices support for regular Israeli citizens:

“We stand in solidarity with the ordinary people of Israel and their desire for security, and in particular with the Israeli anti-war movement.”

Again, why does it take a socialist to take an ethical stand on this issue? This is a question the politicians of America’s two major parties should be asking themselves, and a question we should be asking ourselves as voters.

 

Israel-Palestine: When Civilians Die, the Killer Is to Blame

In the Six Day War of 1967, a war Israel fought against Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan--not Palestine--Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank and decided to stay. In the years since, Israel has relinquished control of some areas, but settlements continue to expand onto Palestinian lands, and since 2007 a blockade has turned Gaza into what some have labeled an open-air prison. To make matters worse, Israel’s military--one of the most advanced and effective militaries in the world, backed by the world’s most advanced and largest military--occasionally conducts airstrikes and ground incursions against the destitute, jobless and hungry imprisoned there.

In a statement on July 21, 2014, President Obama took little to no stand:

“Israel has a right to defend itself against rocket and tunnel attacks from Hamas. And as a result of its operations, Israel has already done significant damage to Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure in Gaza. I’ve also said, however, that we have serious concerns about the rising number of Palestinian civilian deaths and the loss of Israeli lives.”

Meanwhile, this from The Guardian on Monday, August 4:

“A hospital near the site of Sunday’s attack [on a UN school], in the southern town of Rafah, was overwhelmed with the dead and injured. Children’s bodies were stored in an ice cream freezer as the morgue ran out of space.”

I don’t mean to ignore Hamas. As every good American knows, Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorists and Hamas’s charter does state the group’s intention of destroying Israel. We all know Hamas fires rockets that sometimes kill noncombatants, and even a cursory investigation of the group turns up a long list of ideological and methodological sins, including the use of human shields.

On the other hand, if I remember my Noam Chomsky right from Hopes and Prospects, Hamas has shown a willingness to negotiate when Israel has not, its rockets are often ineffective, and its attacks show a focus on military targets often ignored by Western politicians and news organizations. Hamas is also part of the democratically elected government of a sovereign state under continuous occupation, siege and military aggression by a neighbor.

Good Americans also know you have the right to bite when tread upon.

For decades, many in America have looked at the historical and political complexities I’ve outlined above and decided, like President Obama, that the fence is a comfortable place to sit, but if anything should have the power to inspire them to climb down, it is the brutality of Israel’s recent invasion of Gaza.

Consider these numbers from The Guardian on August 4:

“Palestinian deaths pass 1,800, while 64 Israeli troops have died.”

Note the numbers, but also the choice of words. “Palestinians” and “Israeli troops”--that’s because overwhelmingly, the ones dying are Palestinian civilians. (chart, article) Not terrorists, not combatants, just kids going to school, parents going to work, couples getting married--everyday folk going about everyday lives and getting bombed while they’re at it.

The horror stories are numerous and you can find plenty of them on any major news site that claims to be objective and takes an honest stab at it. Just today, after international outrage at multiple attacks on schools, Israel declared a “humanitarian window” of decreased attacks, which it then broke by bombing a refugee camp (article). In a recent interview (which I can’t find right now) on Democracy Now!, Noam Chomsky discusses a document from some years back in which the Israeli government explicitly states that it will target everyday people as a matter of strategy: exact such a toll that no one will fight back or support anyone who does.

That is what we have just seen, and what may resume if the ceasefire underway as I write this doesn’t hold.

Surely, there can be no sitting on the fence about the wholesale slaughter of innocents, even in a war against terror. President Obama should grow a spine on this issue (previous blog) and join the rest of the world--save Israel’s government--in strongly condemning Operation Protective Edge. And to the extent you have a voice, you should condemn it, too. On occasion, politicians listen to their electorate, and on occasion, they broker better will between warring states.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommended reading:

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter
“9 questions about the Israel-Palestine conflict you were too embarrassed to ask” on Vox

 

 

 

President Obama Way Behind at the U.N.

President Obama’s approach to foreign policy is often described as “leading from behind.” This style of leadership is unsatisfactory for some who see it as suspiciously like doing very little, but I have generally cut the president some slack when critics express frustration with his reluctance for bold action. This week at the U.N., however, saw him trying to lead from so far behind that he was just plain behind.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s call for U.N. recognition of Palestine is commendable as a bold and peaceful effort toward concrete progress in a old conflict. Israel occupied Palestine in the Six Day War of 1967 (which wasn’t a war with Palestine) and then stayed. To this day, Israel has continued to establish new settlements in Palestinian lands and since 2007 has maintained a blockade of Gaza that has caused widespread poverty, joblessness and hunger. Palestine should have full state status, and apparently most of the world is willing to grant it now—everyone but Israel and the U.S.

When President Obama addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, he used his usual conciliatory rhetoric, accompanied by his this-is-common-sense-folks tone of voice, to reaffirm his support for eventual full statehood for Palestine, while also urging Palestine to delay its call for full membership:

“I am convinced that there is no short-cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the U.N.—if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians who must live side by side.” 

His words must have sounded hollow to everyone in that hall. Abbas is offering him a chance to make real progress—but by no means a final step—toward peace in the Middle East, real progress his previous efforts have failed to produce, and he’s passing it up.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy, meanwhile, has shown admirable leadership. In expectation of this conflict, he opened the General Assembly with an actual constructive suggestion. His comments, while they came before President Obama’s, seem designed as a response to them: 

“True, this peace will be built by the Israelis and the Palestinians. No one else can do it. And no one can claim to impose it on them. But we must help them.” 

Sarkozy proposes upgrading Palestine’s status from observer entity to observer state, with a one-year deadline for Israel and Palestine to reach an agreement. He probably wants to avoid escalating violence and instability in the region that might be instigated by a U.S. veto of Palestinian statehood in the Security Council, but I suspect he also views Obama as a friend, an embarrassing one who is behaving poorly and requires a little help not looking any more foolish than he already does.

Peace in the Middle East will come when the U.S. decides to stop sponsoring Israel’s occupation of Palestine and sends a clear signal that it will brook no more nonsense on this issue. The Obama administration should seize upon the opportunity presented by Abbas’s proposal to stop lagging behind and get caught up with the rest of the world.