Acknowledging the tragedy

Raja Shehadeh, The Electronic Intifada, 21 May 2008


(snip)

I grew up hearing about what my own family lost in Jaffa, the coastal city from which Jewish militias drove them in 1948. There were occasional references to Deir Yassin -- where more than 100 unarmed Palestinian villagers were massacred -- and the role it played in the psychological war against the Palestinians, who fled fearing for their lives.

But, after the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in 1967 I began to block out that earlier tragedy. My energy was consumed by activism against the Israeli settlement project in the West Bank, where I live. It was only after reading the newly published material by Israeli historians -- using the recently-opened Israeli archives -- that a new cycle of confrontation with Palestinian history began for me.

I discovered how much of this history I had been suppressing. How skeptical I had become; how defensive against acknowledging many of these horrors that followed when, in 1948, the emerging state of Israel drove out more than 700,000 Palestinians to make way for a Jewish state. I had relieved myself from the full admission of the war crimes that my family and people had endured when we lost our homes and homeland, and when our previously-flourishing society was destroyed.

That my parents did not tell me more is not surprising. The psychology of the defeated is not to speak out, but rather to blame themselves (not unlike what is now taking place in Palestinian society). In the case of my father, it was also to pick himself up and get on with his life. And I was trying to pursue a similar policy after Israel defeated us in 1967. This is not unlike the children of Holocaust survivors who become silent in the face of the atrocity. It is only those who make an industry of catastrophe who dramatize and sensationalize.

But there is another reason for my new willingness to confront the crimes of the Nakba (Arabic for "catastrophe"), which is how Palestinians refer to the expulsion of 1948. It has to do with the failure of my struggle against the Israeli colonization of the West Bank. I was 16 in 1967 when the occupation began. I spent my adult years witnessing the transformation of my country from an exquisitely beautiful, pristine landscape to one dominated by hundreds of Jewish settlements, perched on hilltops like citadels, and fortified by barbed wire and walls. They fulfilled the promise that former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon had made to his countrymen in the 1980s that "we are going to leave an entirely different map of the country that ... will be impossible to ignore." As I witnessed this transformation I became aware of Israel's attempt at changing the nature of the landscape to make it look more western just as had happened in Israel after the Nakba. The magnitude of the loss is immense and the consequences for our lives are devastating. As Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank we have come to be confined in small enclaves surrounded by high walls and crisscrossed by gleaming black roads that, as non-Israelis, we are barred from using.

Not all Israelis who live in nearby settlements controlling the bulk of Palestinian land have moved there out of ideological commitment. Many, though, would defend their action by arguing that if Israel yields to Palestinian claims to the West Bank, then what would prevent Palestinians from going further and claiming the same right to such Israeli cities as Jaffa and Haifa where they were living not long ago?

It was after being repeatedly confronted with this argument that I became convinced that Israel's unwillingness to recognize the Nakba is integral to its continuation of illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank. The incessant building of more settlements in the 23 percent of Palestine left for us to establish our state can only mean that Israel does not recognize our existence as a nation entitled, like all other nations, to self determination. Otherwise how could they support a settlement policy that deprives us of our right to our land?

(a little) more....
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9557.shtml

I have noticed the resurgence of "1948" thinking in Palestinian circles. His is the first piece I've seen that discusses explicitly why this is so.

The world, unfortunately, is moving more and more towards ethno-nationalism, not away from it. A One State solution would only work if they were the same ethno-nationality which at this time they clearly are not, nor are they moving towards. If Rurope can't make it happen, if India can't make it happen, then it isn't going to happen. The periods following WW I & II saw a huge number of ethnic migrations which created states whose borders held very well defined ethnic groups. What happened in Palestine/Israel in 1947/48 was no greater a sin than what the rest of the world did and saw during the same time period. 15 million Muslims/Hindus and Sikhs were displaced in the partition of India alone.

If they couldn't do it, I don't see any variation of a One State solution involving two competing ethnic groups as working.

L-

You know, for the most part, I get most of the arguments for and against both 'One State' and 'Two State'. But the reality is -- there already is One State. There is a single state in the region, with 2 large reservation camps that the natives have been pushed into. The question is - how to deal with the reality of the situation? Honestly it's just too late for Two States now.

Consider these 3 factors:
1) You have how many people living on opposite sides of the borders - Palestinians living and working in Israel, and Israelis living beyond '67 borders.
2) The process towards some kind of finagled Two State solution is in utter gridlock.
3) Israel continues to expand the settlements deeper and deeper into the West Bank.

The reality on the ground is there is already One State - no matter how much the concept of it may be abhorrent for people. Like it or not, it is what it is. The question now is - what can we do to improve the lives for all the people living in this One State?

First of all, there are over a million Arab-Israelis.

Second, the West Bank and Gaza were previously occupied by Jordan and Egypt up until 1967.

The statement that "there is already one state" is meaningless. There are a lot of states in the region. Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, etc. There are also territories that are not part of any states under international law, namely the West Bank and Gaza.

The question is, should those territories become an independent Palestinian state?

The Geneva Initiative provides a pretty strong foundation towards making that happen.

It is my belief that this would be the most positive pathway towards a peaceful resolution to this conflict.

I'm talking about the region encompassing Israel and the occupied territories the West Bank and Gaza. There is already one state in that region, and that State is Israel. There is not a State called Palestine.

Regarding the Geneva Initiative, there is actually much that I like about it. But, again, I'm just saying - let's be honest about the reality. No deal is going to be achieved at this point. It's too late. We have failure after failure on these so-called peace talks and 'Road Maps'. We can't even get an approval on Jimmy Carter to just talk to Hamas, let alone strike up some kind of mutual agreement resulting in establishment of Palestinian statehood.

The most positive path for me - is to acknowledge these realities and see how best to handle the situation.

One State, two large reservation camps. That's what it is right now. That is the honest assessment. What are we going to do about it? That is the question, looking forward.

A deal can be achieved tomorrow if leaders would only embrace peace and reject violence.

In my view, progressives ought to be making this case loudly and forcefully.

My assessment: One State, and two large reservation areas for the native population.

Your assessment is what? One State and ____________ ?

Which should form the basis for the new Palestinian state.

Which should live side by side at peace with Israel.

There are two states still and will be while there are two populations living in the area. Israel may be such a dominate state at the moment, but it does not govern the Palestinian people for it derives no support from this group. That much is self-evident.

Lithos
DU Moderator

Let me ask you this, if there are two states, where are the borders? How many other states recognize Palestine?

There is only one State. One established, internationally recognized state in the region. There is no "Palestine" as an entity that has international recognition. And the reality is - it's not going to happen either. Two states is not going to be achieved.

It's too late now for two states to happen because we have utter gridlock in the process. Israel isn't going to recognize Right of Return. It isn't going to pull back to '67 borders. And Palestinians will not accept a solution with much less than that. And where are borders going to be drawn? Israel keeps expanding deeper and deeper into the territories.

You are right that Israel does not govern the Palestinian people although there are various forms of direct and indirect control over them. But, I don't know how a claim can be made that there are two states on that basis.

My point is, I think we should face the reality honestly -- like it or not -- and start asking, what to do with the One State and the two large reservation camps with 3.7 million Palestinians living there.

And a final note -- I'm not making an argument in favor of 'One State' over 'Two States'. It's just a blunt assessment of the current situation.

There is only one state: Israel. There is an undeclared state: Gaza. Also, there is disputed territory: the West Bank. Israel is the democratic state, Gaza, the despotic undeclared state, and the West Bank, partially ruled by Israeli military and partly by Palestinian civil/(some military) rule. Eventually, Gaza and the West Bank will combine politically (at least that should be the goal) to be a declared Palestinian state.

military occupation.

It's the inability for address the occupation that results in the initial injustice resurfacing.

And let's face it, the "One state" that we'll end up with won't be democratic. It will be an apartheid state in which the millions of Palestinians are legally 2nd class inhabitants.

...the Poles, Ukranians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Georgians, Armenians, Finns, Irish, Estonians, Slovakians, Croatians, Koreans, Greeks, Kosovans, Vietnamese, and Eritreans that their histories are impossible.

L-

not just the occupation.

The Palestinians have made it clear that they are not giving up their "struggle" or resistance until they have every inch of Israel back.

At least there is some honesty that this violence won't end if the occupation ended.

BEcause it isn't about the occupation and never has been.

I am glad there is some growing honesty among the "moderate" Palestinians.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We are truly sunk, because every single thing you post indicates to me that there isn't an iota of moderation in the Palestinian leadership, (political, religious or academic).

I am for two states. That's the moderate view.

You are for one.

That is hardly the liberal view, because it is the one that encourages an eventual, but absolute, bloodbath.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've seen that before and it's from people who think there's no such thing as moderate Palestinians.

And would it hurt for you to read and hopefully comprehend an OP before you reply? The author said nothing about wanting every inch of Israel back. He was talking about acknowledgment of the past. Do you view everyone who acknowledges that there's been wrong done to the Palestinians back in 1948 to be out to destroy Israel?

"Some Palestinians resentfully foresee a return to the pre-1967 model, when
Gaza was under Egypt's hegemony. But dwelling on the past is a poor
strategy. Instead, Palestinians must seize the opportunity to build a
positive agenda for the future. That means facing their circumstances
squarely as people living under an oppressive occupation, with a weakened
and isolated leadership, a tattered security force, a wrecked economy and
fractured institutions. It also means recognising that the support of the
Arab and Muslim masses cannot and will not solve their problems.

The Palestinians must explore all avenues that may lead to a viable,
contiguous and independent state. It is clear that yesterday's strategies
have not worked. It is time to reflect, reassess and innovate. Violence may
block solutions that are not desired but it will not achieve ones that are.
The Palestinians alone cannot liberate Palestine. No people have sacrificed
more, or for longer, than the Palestinians have for independence. But
sacrifice without a strategy capable of winning is not enough. In a
struggle of this magnitude, more allies who share the vision of a state of
Palestine alongside Israel are indispensable. In particular, allies in the
US and in Israel have to be identified and mobilised. Violence against
civilians alienates these very allies and the Palestinian people must make
the fateful choice between military confrontation and peaceful resistance
and negotiation."
by Ziad Asali
“Arab American of the Year,” Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services (AACCESS) of Ohio, 2006

The Palestinians have suffered and struggled, but the violent strategies haven't worked.

It is definitely time to "reflect, reassess and innovate".

As I said in another post, I think that some on both sides get too bogged down in who did what in 1948, when it would be more productive to work out solutions for the present and future. (It was often the same with the conflicting parties in Northern Ireland- though they often took it back as far as 1690!)

Palestinians aren't monolithic in opinion. Why don't you address the article itself. What do you disagree with, and why?

He is saying that the Israelis' failure to recognize the Nakba is part of the attitude that leads to their continued building of settlements. He is not saying that he expects Israel to disappear or disband; merely that they should recognize the Palestinians' situation more, and stop the settlement-building.

I think that Shehadeh is right about the immorality of the continued settlement-building; and find the article considerably more nuanced and reasonable than many from Electronic Intifada (or many from the other side, for that matter).

In short, I agree with all he has to say about the current situation. However, I would disagree that there is a close link between 'Nakba recognition' and current settlement-building; it's got far more to do IMO with the fact that the settlers and their backers have disproportionate political power through the minority parties that support them and have been holding successive governments to political ransom.

I often think that both sides go a bit too much into who did what in 1948, when it would be more productive to focus more on the here-and-now; and on the best solutions to prevent further suffering and violence.

Israelis do not acknowledge the Nakhba as conceived by the Palestinians. Very few people outside of the far Left and the Arabs do. That doesn't mean that we are blind fools, cruel, or self serving. It means that there is a serious reality gap between us. I would be a fool to deny that there were not refugees from the war. All wars cause refugees, and this one was no different. Nor do I deny that some Arabs were intentionally moved, and lost their homes. But the Palestinian narrative that says that the Jews intended all along to expel all the Arabs, that all of the 750,000 refugees from the 47-49 war were intentionally expelled, and that the Arabs are all 100% innocent victims, simply is not true. Israelis won't accept it, and they won't make peace as if it's reality.

A second problem that's becoming apparent, is that Al Nakhba means more than merely the refugees. The "Catastrophe" that the Arabs are referring to is the creation of Israel. That's why we get statements that the creation of Israel caused the refugee problem. Again it's not true, The refugees were caused by the war started by the Arabs themselves, not merely by Israel's creation as a governing state. So the focus is on Israel's existence.

So is the failure to accept the Palestinian narrative as truth a cause of continued settlement activity? Put another way, has the Palestinian failure to accept reality caused the, to perpetuate a war that has given Israel a reason to occupy the West Bank. Yes it has. Has the long refusal of the Palestinians to accept Israel and make peace strengthened the hand of those who say that Israel might as well take it all? How could it not?

His conclusions, at least to me, are unassailable.

Shehadeh says that:

"Not all Israelis who live in nearby settlements controlling the bulk of Palestinian land have moved there out of ideological commitment. Many, though, would defend their action by arguing that if Israel yields to Palestinian claims to the West Bank, then what would prevent Palestinians from going further and claiming the same right to such Israeli cities as Jaffa and Haifa where they were living not long ago?"

If he is accurate (and for some settlers he probably is), then the settlers are making a pretty silly argument for at least two reasons:

1. The Arabs already make this claim, just as Jews make a similar claim to Judea and Samaria. So how does pulling out of the West Bank cause the Arabs to change their claim?

2. Withdrawing from some land that you claim by right doesn't negate the claim to that land or to any other land you claim by right. Leaving the West Bank is an acceptance of reality, not a denial of Jewish historical claims to the land. Those of us who support a two state solution contend that it has to be done without a full implementation of the Right of Return. Does that mean we are asking the Palestinians to deny that they have a historical attachment to the land? I don't think so.

While I have posted already that the differential perception of Israel's founding is a factor in the current situation, I don't think that it is a basis for the beliefs that that Shehadeh ascribes to the settlers. This is just blind pig-headedness.

reconciled with a multicultural Israel. How does that track in a progressive's mind?

Israel would not be quite so multicultural

A Poll sponsored by the Center for the Campaign Against Racism found that half the Jewish population of Israel believe the state should encourage Arab emigration.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/842641.html

The poll was taken in 12/2006 I doubt that number has shrunken since then

Seriously, that has nothing to do with this discussion. So half of Israel's Jews think Arabs should be encouraged to leave, so what? Does that make Israel any less multi-cultural in any way? No. You're just trying to deflect the conversation by accusing Israelis of racism.

Yet that particular poll means nothing. Even if you found a poll saying that half of all Israelis support mandatory transfer it wouldn't mean much in terms of this argument, nor would it even mean that Israelis are racist. Here, I just found a poll from 07 saying that over half of all Americans think that people who can't read or write in English should NOT be allowed to vote in US elections. How fucked is that? Pretty fucked if you ask me, yet I wouldn't dream of extrapolating on that to insinuate that the legendary melting pot of America is more xenophobic than Israel, (though I doubt you'd find similar numbers there.)

Consider that Israel has been engaged in a war for around the last 100 years that's drawn down ethnic lines, and think about the amount of friction there is between ethnicities within Israel. Isn't the fact that only 50% of Jewish Israelis think that the state should (merely) encourage Arab emigration actually a sign of Israel's tolerance? What would those numbers look like if it a similar thing happened in America? Remember Japanese internment? The US government didn't even apologize for that until 1988. Jeeez.

Personally, I think it would go a long way if Israel passed a non-discrimination law requiring equal treatment for all its citizens. That means that everyone goes to the same schools, towns all get equivalent funding and everyone gets conscripted for mandatory service at age 18. Doesn't have to be the army, it can be civil service. But the Arabs, the Hasidim and everyone else all have to go and do something for the mandatory 2-3 year stint. And if they didn't want to, THEN they would either have to leave or would face punitive measures such as jail time. Once the Arabs serve just like the Druze do we'll start to see far more cohesiveness within Israel proper, and everyone will eventually be celebrating Independence Day. (Except for non-Israeli Palestinians of course.)

It is fine to point that ostensibly Palestinians want a "Jew free" West Bank, but not to point out that these feelings are not exactly a "one way street" and a good portion of Israeli Jews want an Arab free Israel?

Now your last paragraph I find almost humorous, because a while back when I stated that all Israeli citizens no matter what religion or ethnic background should serve at least as civil service, actually I have stated this more than once, you disagreed vehemently, which leads me to ask have you had a change of heart or do you just feel compelled to disagree?.

Now your last paragraph I find almost humorous, because a while back when I stated that all Israeli citizens no matter what religion or ethnic background should serve at least as civil service, actually I have stated this more than once, you disagreed vehemently, which leads me to ask have you had a change of heart or do you just feel compelled to disagree?.


I've always felt this way, are you sure it was me? Perhaps I was describing why Israel doesn't have mandatory conscription across the board or something and you misinterpreted it? Devil's advocate maybe? I seriously doubt that I disagreed vehemently if you really expressed that thought.

and I will admit "vehemently" is a bit strong but you did disagree-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=194144#194172

You misunderstood.

I was arguing against mandatory MILITARY service. I didn't say anything about mandatory civil service.

I was taking issue with the fact that you said you were divided as to whether the service should be military or not. Not the whole idea of service. Service is fine. But mandatory military service for Arabs is insane. You can't mandate that Arabs go serve with the IDF in the territories, it would be a disaster.

It is fine to point that ostensibly Palestinians want a "Jew free" West Bank, but not to point out that these feelings are not exactly a "one way street" and a good portion of Israeli Jews want an Arab free Israel?

When the entire Knesset begins planning the mass Arab expulsion, then you can claim equivalence. But right now, if the army wasn't protecting the settlers then they would be massacred and expelled. The same is not true of Arabs living in Israel.

All sezu said was that he doesn't see how it is progressive to agree with the Jew free WB thing while supporting a multi-cultural Israel. And the two things aren't equivalent anyway. One is a poll showing that Israelis would rather have fewer Arabs. The other is an actual movement to throw out all of the Jews in the WB, which is supported pretty much universally among Palestinians and is very popular among some progressive leftists as well.

of immigrants.

This sort of racism is a problem in many places, unfortunately.

The sort of people who advocate repatriation tend not to distinguish between actual immigrants and the great-grandchildren of immigrants, so long as the latter are non-white/ of a minority religion/ otherwise 'different'.

In any case: racism is racism. In the UK, it's directed mainly against immigrants and their descendants. In Israel, it's directed against Arabs. In the USA, it's directed against African-Americans and Latinos. Different specific targets; same ugly phenomenon.

and apartheid on its borders!

i didnt see the separate bathrooms for "arabs only"....or the restaurants that had a sign: "jews only"....i must have missed the separate entrances to the movie theaters...

if you tell me where exactly this segregation is i promise to go take a look at it....and i doubt the arabs israelis even "feel" segregated given that many are now doing voluntarily national service......

Between segregation mandated by Jim Crow style law, and the fact of segregation arising from cultural forces assisted in some ways by government policy. It is a distinction we here in the United States are wearily familiar with. Here in Chicago, no law mandates there shall be racially segregated neighborhoods, yet the thing exists, and somehow every resource controlled by the local government, from monies for street repair and building code enforcement, maintainance of parks, funding of schools, police patrols, anything you can think of, flows more plentifully to one sort of neighborhood than another, with results that are evident to anyone who goes abroad in the city. Commercial enterprise, credit, and other private items follow the same pattern. The lack of legal mandate requiring segregation and discrimination does not equate to the practical absence of those things in a society. It would surprise me very much to see you maintain this sort of thing was absent from Israeli society.

While you're at it: What is to be the basis of the country's laws? Muslim values? Jewish values? Someone else's values? What will be the animating culture of the state? Jewish? Arab? Something else? Do you expect Arab antisemitism to simply disappear? Do you expect Jewish fear of Arab violence to just not get in the way?

Have you thought any of this through? Does anyone on the Left think any of this through?