Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics

by Marc Lamont Hill

International law conveys refugee status to children of other refugee populations until permanent homes can be found.

Israelis are frustrated that resettlement of Palestinian refugees has not been seriously pursued in the over seven decades of this crisis. One reason for that lack of pursuit is that Palestinians are not seeking resettlement, but repatriation to the land that was taken from their families in 1948 and 1967.

the Palestinian claim to the right of return is not based on the UNRWA definition, nor on that of the UNHCR.64 Rather, it is based on several sources in international law. First of these is Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” This principle was strengthened for Palestinians specifically by UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which stated that “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” 65

Israel’s position has been consistent from the start: the plight of Palestinian refugees must be resolved in the context of a broader peace deal, and primarily through resettlement and compensation.

a protest in Gaza on March 30, 2018, the beginnings of what was called the “Great March of Return,” where Israel shot 773 people, leading to 17 fatalities.6 He wanted to know why Democrats in Congress like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, and former U.S. diplomats such as Samantha Power and Madeleine Albright, were silent about Israel’s overwhelming and unwarranted use of firepower in the incident. He added, “Where are the righteously angry op-eds from Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, or Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, or David Aaronovitch of the Times of London, demanding concrete action against the human rights abusers of the IDF?”

between 1970 and 2001, Israel established twenty-one Jewish-only settlements in the Strip. This not only greatly aggravated the political situation, but also placed pressure on the available land and water resources, which the settlements, whose population never rose above some eight thousand Israeli Jews, used in quantities vastly disproportionate to their demographic representation.15 This was a predictable effect of an occupying power settling its citizens in a territory that it controlled through military rule—and in the midst of some 1.1 million Palestinians.16 It could be similarly anticipated that people living under such conditions would resist occupation, producing tension that would become more pronounced over time.

In Gaza, around one-third of the land housed some six thousand Jewish settlers, several military bases, and a network of roads designed so that settlers avoided contact with the Palestinian residents. The remaining two-thirds of the territory, cut into cantons, was left to 1.1 million Palestinians, which translated to a population density of about 128 Israelis per square mile, compared with 11,702 Palestinians per square mile. The double standard, overcrowding for Palestinians, economic disparity, and resulting resentment and anger were entirely foreseeable.

the Bush administration was struggling to maintain any notion of legitimacy about the Iraq War. With the excuse of weapons of mass destruction no longer viable, the war was now being justified as an effort to spread democracy to the beleaguered Iraqi people.

Israel quickly suspended payments to the PA of the customs taxes it collected on the Palestinians’ behalf, a punishment it has employed frequently over the years and continues to this day.

Hamas was not given the opportunity to do so. Nor was there much political pressure in Israel or the United States for Hamas to at least have that chance. Despite hand-wringing over the impending fate of the people of the Palestinian territories—recall this was all taking place in the wake of increased punitive measures by Israel and an effective boycott by the United States—voices calling to give the newly elected Palestinian government a chance to prove itself were few and far between.

During the fifty days of fighting that summer in 2014, 2,202 Palestinians were killed, of whom 1,371 were not taking part in hostilities. Sixty-eight Israelis, including five civilians, and one foreign national were killed.

Congress was enthusiastic about its defense of Israeli actions, with strong bipartisan statements of support for Israel as well as authorization for $225 million in missile defense aid in addition to the annual aid already allotted to Israel.104 The pro votes in Congress were, again, overwhelming.

the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) issued a grim report on the conditions in Gaza. UNCTAD determined that the Israeli-Egyptian blockade, which had lasted for eight years at the time, and the three major military operations Gaza had endured, had “shattered [Gaza’s] ability to export and produce for the domestic market, ravaged its already debilitated infrastructure, left no time for reconstruction and economic recovery, and accelerated the de-development of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” The report detailed the devastation of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure and the collapse of its economic sector, as revealed by the ballooning of its unemployment rate, to 44 percent in 2014, and the shrinking of its per capita GDP, by 30 percent since 1994. “Food insecurity affects 72 per cent of households, and the number of Palestinian refugees solely reliant on food distribution from United Nations agencies had increased from 72,000 in 2000 to 868,000 by May 2015.” Ninety-five percent of the water in the coastal aquifers on which Gaza relied was not drinkable.106

For Israel, the demand for a Palestinian return en masse poses an existential threat to the state’s Jewish majority.” That characterization by Israel “prepared the way for Israel to use disproportionate force in response.”

As bad as that sounds, the ADL’s characterization severely downplayed the circumstances of that fateful day. The GMR had already been drawing disproportionate responses from the Israeli military, raising tensions. On top of the existing demands, the United States was now unilaterally recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, contravening international law and escalating tensions.

It is undeniable that the United States has a grave responsibility to all of Israel and Palestine, and nowhere does this come into sharper relief than in Gaza. U.S. policy, including unconditional financial and diplomatic support for Israel, and American indifference have contributed greatly to the existing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This involvement has also increased the looming possibility of this crisis devolving into a catastrophic blight, as the United Nations predicted. As we—the people of the United States—do nothing, nearly two million innocent people suffer some of the worst living conditions in the world.

Instead of trying to find a way to spare the people of Gaza, we have used them in our efforts to oust Hamas. By scape-goating Hamas, who is certainly more than worthy of intense criticism, we ignore the long history of U.S. involvement in the region by both Democratic and Republican administrations. In so doing, we lose our sense of collective responsibility for the current crisis.

successive Israeli governments have built new settlements in the West Bank to provide homes for Israeli Jews. These settlements are illegal under international law and, while the United States has routinely tolerated their presence in practice, official U.S. policy prior to November 2019 was that they were “inconsistent” with international law and “an obstacle to peace.”

The partisan divide on Israel is much stronger than it has been historically, but within the Democratic Party there is a clear, strong, and growing movement opposing the United States’ one-sided and unwaveringly pro-Israel policies and actions.

To move beyond the current limits, progressives must embrace a more principled politics, one that begins by recognizing the fundamental humanity of Palestinians. From there, they can appeal to progressive values to assert that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights to freedom, justice, equality, safety, and self-determination as everyone else around the world.

fundamental change needs to take place in the American political discussion. We have illustrated how the United States has been deeply complicit in creating the political crisis that exists today. But it is not the reactionary pro-Israel religious zealots in the Jewish and Christian communities, the conservative, Islamophobic ideologues, or aging cold warriors and War on Terror crusaders who make the Israel-Palestine crisis unique. After all, these groups are acting according to their views and beliefs. Instead, it is the self-titled progressives who contradict their beliefs by justifying or ignoring behavior by Israel that they oppose or at least treat gravely when it is at the hands of other state actors.

The idea of an American “honest broker” in the Middle East has been a joke for decades. Only a real debate over U.S. policy can change that. That debate cannot happen if liberals refuse to critically examine every aspect of U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine to determine whether it is in step with their core political values. No longer can any position be “taken for granted,” nor can any solution be viewed as a non-starter. Rather, we must be willing to critically interrogate our entire approach to the current crisis. We must be willing to embrace, or at least consider, any solution that will yield freedom, justice, safety, and self-determination for everyone. This has been a demand placed on Palestinians and their supporters for a very long time, requiring them to justify the fight for their rights against accusations of bias against Israel and even against Jews in general. In a conflict as fraught with passion and zealotry as this one is, this sort of critical approach must be demanded equally of all sides and key players involved.

American progressives cannot wave a magic wand and solve the Israel-Palestine conflict, but we can certainly take action. We can push Israel to allow the people of Gaza the freedom to rebuild their economy. We can put real pressure on Israel to stop expanding its settlements, and to allow Palestinian towns to grow, as well as allow the free movement of Palestinians in the West Bank. We can make it clear that our democratic values demand that we support Palestinians having the same right to a national existence as Israelis do, and the same right to live in peace and security. We can press Israel to stop blocking the rights that Palestinians are just as entitled to as anyone else. In short, we can act on our principles, which maintain that oppressive conditions diminish life for all but the very few who profit from them.