More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
December 3 - December 12, 2024
We must remember that nearly nothing that Trump did—as ill-advised, cruel, or reckless as it may have been—was an original idea. His decisions were all based on long-held policy positions of various sectors within the pro-Israel community.
If we are to adopt a progressive political outlook—one rooted in anti-racist, anti-imperialist, humanistic, and intersectional values—we must begin to prioritize the freedom, dignity, and self-determination of Palestinians.
The imbalance of power between Israel and the Palestinians, a circumstance reinforced by the overwhelming political, economic, and military influence of the United States, can never be ignored or understated as we develop workable analyses and principled solutions. This means that any hope for a future in which all people of the region can live in peace, security, freedom, and hope requires the involvement of other states.
President Obama’s $38 billion aid package to Israel, finalized in 2016 as he was leaving office, marked the “largest military aid package from one country to another in the annals of human history.”
U.S. policy in Israel-Palestine rests upon decades of decisions that have been supported, either through active endorsement or silent complicity, by the American Left. No American president has been an exception in this regard.
The highly controversial “Nation-State Bill” that Israel passed into law in July 2018 epitomized this attack. The law states plainly that only Jews can exercise national self-determination in Israel, downgrades Arabic from an official language to one of “special status,” and explicitly states that Jewish settlement of the “Land of Israel” (a phrase that includes the West Bank) is to be encouraged.
The United States repeatedly isolates itself on the world stage in order to shield Israel as much as possible from any consequences that it might face as a result of its policies and actions. Questioning this lockstep support in any but the mildest terms has long been seen as a political third rail and is often greeted by charges of bias against the world’s only Jewish state, or even allegations of outright anti-Semitism. Against the backdrop of these realities, the American political left has normalized a world in which it is acceptable, through words and policies, to embrace the ethical and
...more
When the topic turns to Palestine, the same people who consistently advocate for freedom and justice fail to live up to their professed ideals. Through an analysis of key policies and debates directly related to Israel and Palestine, we spotlight these contradictions and offer insights into possible solutions.
a commitment to Palestinian freedom does not, cannot, and must not reflect hatred or harm toward Jewish people. On the contrary, the realization of Palestinian rights cannot be fully attained without the realization of Jewish rights, and vice versa.
if liberal-minded Americans truly believe our foreign and domestic policies should reflect the values of freedom, justice, and equality, it is impossible to be satisfied with the current state of affairs.
we must recognize that we cannot enjoy particular freedoms in the United States if our government is helping to deny those same rights to others around the world.
security is a right for all people but that it cannot be used as a cover for depriving one group of their equal human, civil, legal, and national rights.
Today, however, the “right to exist” discourse serves a vastly different and significantly more powerful function. It is cynically used to justify the rejection of a Palestinian state. It is strategically used to distract from criticism about the deprivation of Palestinian rights. And it is disingenuously used to frame the case for Palestinian rights as the denial of Jewish self-determination or, even worse, as a call for anti-Semitic violence.
Still, the politicization of this seemingly rhetorical question about Israel’s right to exist in particular demands closer examination. Is the “right to exist” a question of sovereignty? Is it a question of the structure of a Jewish state in both theory and practice? Is it a question of the legitimacy of Palestinian resistance to occupation? Is it about attacks by other countries, perhaps ones that do not recognize Israel?
Fundamentally, Zionism is the nationalist ideology of the Jewish people, which constructs Judaism as not only a religion but a nationality. Zionism advances the idea that Jews of all sorts—irrespective of race, ethnicity, cultural identity, or geographic location; regardless of whether they are secular, religious, or atheist—constitute a singular modern nation.
Inevitably, decolonization will cause some pain as Israeli Jews lose power and privilege, but there are few reasons to believe it cannot be a well-managed process.7
“The overwhelming majority of Palestinians have not demanded Jewish-Israelis removal … only a relinquishment of their desire to rule.”
Thus, the question “Does Israel have a right to exist?” is not a question about the physical safety of Jewish citizens. The relevant political question is: Is the dispossession and ongoing denial of rights at various levels to Palestinians justified?
When someone asks if one supports “Israel’s right to exist,” they are tacitly asking if one agrees that Israel’s elevation of Jewish rights above those of Palestinians in the land they all inhabit is acceptable.
I am convinced that we Jews will be found ready to give them satisfactory guarantees, so that both peoples can live together in peace, like good neighbours. But the only way to obtain such an agreement, is the iron wall, which is to say a strong power in Palestine that is not amenable to any Arab pressure. In other words, the only way to reach an agreement in the future is to abandon all idea of seeking an agreement at present.25
this is what is still being demanded when defenders of Israel’s actions and policies call for affirmation of its right to exist. The issue is not Jews’ right to constitute a nation or even to pursue a homeland. Rather, the issue is whether their national identity and historical and cultural connection to the land that has been called Israel, Palestine, Canaan, Judea, etc. justified the dispossession of the Palestinians.
“To ask a Palestinian not to be anti-Zionist is to ask a Palestinian not to be.”26
No one recognizes Iran as an Islamic Republic, Saudi Arabia as an absolute monarchy, Sweden as a constitutional monarchy, or the United States as a federal republic. Other states simply recognize the territorial integrity of those states within internationally recognized borders and acknowledge (or deny) the legitimacy of the current government.
While Jews’ right to decide the definition of their own collective existence is axiomatic, their right to displace another people to lay claim to an historic homeland from many centuries past is not.
However controversial Israel’s self-characterization is, no one is asking the United States, European Union, Arab League, Non-Aligned Movement states, or anyone else to acknowledge it. It is the Palestinians’ seal of approval for this law, and theirs alone, that Israel demands when it calls for Palestinian recognition of Israel’s “right to exist as a Jewish state.” This is not a pragmatic demand, and it is certainly not one that has any connection to progressive values of any sort. On the contrary, it is a demand rooted in a “might makes right” ethos that demands the utter subjugation, even
...more
Can you imagine asking indigenous Americans and indigenous rights activists—fighting for the rights of a population whose languages, societies, culture and possessions were categorically decimated in the process of erecting the United States—whether the United States has a “right to exist”? … It is intellectually dishonest and intended, almost always, to silence critics and criticism of Israeli policies…. [And] anyone who doesn’t answer the question about Israel’s right to exist with an unequivocal “yes” risks being portrayed as an eliminationist radical worthy of labels like “anti-Semite” and
...more
The demand that the character of one state be recognized by anyone outside of that state is unprecedented. The idea that Israel should be treated uniquely in this regard because of its history does not stand up under scrutiny. And the demand being made of only one group, Palestinians, the very same group that was impacted far beyond any other by Israel’s creation and policies since its birth, is ethically indefensible.
it is imperative for those who wish to see a political resolution to this vexing dispute to insist that Israel give up this demand that the Palestinians take steps that are demanded of no other country, let alone a stateless people with little diplomatic power of their own.
the demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel’s “right to exist” is, in fact, a demand that Palestinians legitimize their own dispossession. It is a demand that no nation could possibly acquiesce to. Progressive values, not to mention international law, require such a demand be rejected. It compromises the immediate freedom and self-determination of Palestinians, as well as the long-term stability and safety of all the people living in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
A progressive stance by the United States and other nations would affirm the territorial integrity of whatever state or states exist after an agreement is made. More importantly, any lasting resolution must be based on principles of equal rights, both collective and individual, and must recognize that the imbalance of power between Israel and the Palestinians necessitates that outside actors be involved to counter the disparity in power.
It is an indisputable fact that Israel exists. It is a plain fact that the Palestinian leadership, as recognized throughout the world, has acknowledged and accepted Israel’s existence. Demanding Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is to demand Palestinian admission that their national aspirations are, at best, inferior to those of Israeli Jews, and at worst, thoroughly invalid. This immoral demand is thoroughly incompatible with any possibility of resolving the ongoing struggle over the denial of Palestinian rights and the prevailing sense of insecurity in Israel.
BDS, the international movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel over its ongoing treatment of Palestinian citizens, as well as those living in Gaza and the West Bank.
BDS is a modern, grassroots nonviolent movement inspired by a 2005 call from a long and diverse list of Palestinian civil society organizations. Despite being ignored by world leaders and global media, BDS has been an integral feature of the Palestinian national movement.
each demand was a concrete issue that Palestinians contend with to this very day. These specific grievances included: • Israel’s construction of the wall in the West Bank, in areas well beyond its internationally recognized border • Continued expansion of Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank • Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and the deep concern over potential annexation of large parts or even all of the West Bank16 • The growing global Palestinian refugee population • Israel’s discrimination against its own Arab, largely Palestinian citizens.
The oft-repeated mantra that there is “no military solution” to the conflict in Israel and Palestine logically leads to the search for alternatives to military action, especially on the part of a stateless, occupied people who could never be a true threat to their antagonist. Israel and its supporters could have been relieved, even if grudgingly, that a huge segment of Palestinian society was embarking on an explicitly nonviolent resistance tactic.22 But this was not the case.
it is hard to understand how simply not going anywhere constitutes resistance, but when the objective of your oppressor is to get you to leave your land, staying put is part of the daily struggle.
Where Palestinians see a struggle for their freedom and basic rights, Israelis see an attempt to rob them of their self-determination and homes. To be sure, both sides are prone to such zero-sum thinking.
Most pro-Palestinian groups see themselves as defending Palestinian human and civil rights, calling attention to the harsh conditions Palestinians endure under Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and advocating for the rights of Palestinian refugees. Israelis and many of their supporters, on the other hand, often see the same activities as working against Israel.
A zero-sum approach dictates that any gains for Palestinians must mean a loss for Israelis, and vice versa. Of course, there is some truth to that view. In any situation where one group is privileged or is more powerful than another, a regime of equal rights necessarily means the loss of some power and privilege for one group and a gain of both things for the other group. But where a universalist view would suggest that such a shift in power will lead, in short order, to a more peaceful and productive future for all, the zero-sum view presumes that the newly empowered group would subjugate the
...more
When the rights of Palestinians are defined only in terms of how they affect Israel, the implicit corollary is that Israeli rights are always of superior importance.
BDS is a call of conscience to supporters in civil society around the world to use economic leverage, including lobbying their governments, in order to bring about specific changes in Israeli policies that violate human rights.
The BDS movement is distinct in every meaningful way from the Arab League boycott, and BDS is neither a product of state action and power, nor does it seek to profit monetarily in competition with Israeli firms. These two points have been the difference between boycotts that meet or fail to meet the standard for protected speech under the First Amendment.
“The truth is that BDS isn’t even a movement. Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions are a set of non-violent tactics which are used in many movements but which Palestinian civil society institutions have asked the international community to adopt as part of a nonviolent movement for Palestinian rights, to send Israel a message that it must stop denying them.”
BDS shifted the conversation from a question of states, of territory, and of nationalism, to a question of equal rights.
Perhaps that is why BDS evokes such a viscerally defensive response, even from many ostensible progressives. It reminds us all too clearly that the simple support for equal rights—not in the abstract, but as the only route to a political solution in Israel-Palestine—would be easy enough for us, as citizens, to act upon.
While Israel should never be unfairly isolated or targeted, it also cannot be shielded from principled and organized political pressure through boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. These tactics have always been critical tools for producing peace, freedom, and justice for the vulnerable. Palestine cannot be an exception.
With his statement, Trump undermined the most fundamental international law, which, as stated in the charter of the United Nations, forbids the acquisition of territory by force.2 No other country joined the United States in recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan, but U.S. recognition is still significant.
All it did was give away a potential bargaining chip that future U.S. administrations might have been able to use to leverage an agreement between Syria and Israel when conditions allowed for it. This was a key factor in why no previous president had considered unilateral recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan.
While his decision on the Golan did not directly involve the Palestinians per se, as the non-Jewish people of the Golan are Syrian, not Palestinian, the principle of unilateral recognition without any Israeli concessions set a precedent for what may eventually happen on the West Bank.
moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and cutting aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides crucial food, education, health, and other services to Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. In both cases, unlike the Golan decision, his actions were built on years, even decades, of bipartisan support in Washington.
