War declared, Israel v Palestine...

[PsB]

A more eloquent repudiation of a two state solution, and a more honest assessment of Hamas, you are unlikely to read this week.

Alberto Toscano, Undoing Oslo — Sidecar

Visions of decolonization.

newleftreview.org

Having now read this article a couple of times, I agree it is eloquent, but the ideas in Eid's book (as summarized by Toscano) seem fundamentally flawed. He has reasons not to like the Oslo accords and the two-state solution they tried to implement, but thinking that the time has come to reopen the one-state approach preferred by Edward Said is not just romantic, but delusional. The Oslo accords, imperfect though they were, were just about the closest the Palestinians have ever got to some sort of independent statehood. I don't see in this article either a convincing repudiation of the two-state approach, an account of the role extremists on both sides played in undermining the Oslo accords, or a convincing roadmap for establishing the one-state solution he dreams of. The one-state solution was already a dream when Edward Said was promoting it 20 years ago. It hasn't become more viable since then.

It's easy to complain about what Hamas, Fatah, the PLA, the comprador class, NGOs, the US, the UN and other insiders and outsiders have attempted in the last half century, so what does Eid suggest? Hmm: break with Hamas and Fatah, dismantle the PA... okay, piece of cake. Hope that a notional Left will spring up from the 'grassroots' to unite a majority of all Palestinians around a revitalized Palestinian National Council: aspirational, to put it politely. Eid recognizes the difficulty, indirectly, in the way he calls for 'different politics' and a 'new cognitive mapping' in the region to roll back the 'so-called new Middle East' of the Abraham accords. Integrating 'lessons from both the Latin American left and the South African anti-apartheid struggle' is unlikely to help much with achieving a ‘secular-democratic Palestine in the heart of a democratic Arab world’. The Arab Spring is long gone, religious and/or authoritarian rulers are firmly in place across the Middle East: the last thing they want is a secular-democratic Palestine next door.

The PNC (not to be confused with the PLC) was supposed to meet every year or two to set policies and strategy. It has expanded to 700-800 members, almost like the HoL, but it last met in 2018, 21 years after its previous full meeting (or 27 years, if one considers 1991 was the last legitimate meeting, the way some do). Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PFLP stayed away or dialed in. If this is the body that will carry the responsibility of moving the one-state solution to a favourable conclusion (whatever that is), it will need to step up the pace and include Hamas, IJ and other hardliners, who may have other ideas about grassroots movements.

 

[gavreid]

The Oslo accords, imperfect though they were, were just about the closest the Palestinians have ever got to some sort of independent statehood.

The Israeli State never agreed to a Palestinian state in terms of the territory or the timeline - it was full on BS

 

[ks.234]

The Israeli State never agreed to a Palestinian state in terms of the territory or the timeline - it was full on BS

Yes, israel is the block to a two state solution.

 

[Finnegan]

thinking that the time has come to reopen the one-state approach preferred by Edward Said is not just romantic, but delusional.

No more delusional than a two-state solution. Netenyahu has both stated openly, and demonstrated by his actions, that a two-state solution will not be countenanced. We can imagine that his removal would dispense with the impediment, but that too is equally delusional.

Hope that a notional Left will spring up from the 'grassroots' to unite a majority of all Palestinians around a revitalized Palestinian National Council: aspirational, to put it politely.

Again, without minimising the difficulties the process will entail, I point to Ireland. Where was in the recent past a repressive Catholic theocracy now has gay marriage and until very recently, an openly gay Taoiseach. And where, until very recently, existed a gerrymandered, apartheid statelet, now has a Roman Catholic, Republican, Sinn Fein First Minister, and a demographic that is inching toward reunification. I’m sure both those eventualities, from the perspective pertaining thirty years ago, looked equally as unobtainable. I prefer to remain optimistic.

 

[Avinunca]

It's totally sickening what the US has allowed Israel to do before finally allowing a UN resolution to pass. I absolutely detest Trump but I am disgusted by Biden on this.

 

[PaulMB]

Having now read this article a couple of times, I agree it is eloquent, but the ideas in Eid's book (as summarized by Toscano) seem fundamentally flawed. He has reasons not to like the Oslo accords and the two-state solution they tried to implement, but thinking that the time has come to reopen the one-state approach preferred by Edward Said is not just romantic, but delusional. The Oslo accords, imperfect though they were, were just about the closest the Palestinians have ever got to some sort of independent statehood. I don't see in this article either a convincing repudiation of the two-state approach, an account of the role extremists on both sides played in undermining the Oslo accords, or a convincing roadmap for establishing the one-state solution he dreams of. The one-state solution was already a dream when Edward Said was promoting it 20 years ago. It hasn't become more viable since then.

It's easy to complain about what Hamas, Fatah, the PLA, the comprador class, NGOs, the US, the UN and other insiders and outsiders have attempted in the last half century, so what does Eid suggest? Hmm: break with Hamas and Fatah, dismantle the PA... okay, piece of cake. Hope that a notional Left will spring up from the 'grassroots' to unite a majority of all Palestinians around a revitalized Palestinian National Council: aspirational, to put it politely. Eid recognizes the difficulty, indirectly, in the way he calls for 'different politics' and a 'new cognitive mapping' in the region to roll back the 'so-called new Middle East' of the Abraham accords. Integrating 'lessons from both the Latin American left and the South African anti-apartheid struggle' is unlikely to help much with achieving a ‘secular-democratic Palestine in the heart of a democratic Arab world’. The Arab Spring is long gone, religious and/or authoritarian rulers are firmly in place across the Middle East: the last thing they want is a secular-democratic Palestine next door.

The PNC (not to be confused with the PLC) was supposed to meet every year or two to set policies and strategy. It has expanded to 700-800 members, almost like the HoL, but it last met in 2018, 21 years after its previous full meeting (or 27 years, if one considers 1991 was the last legitimate meeting, the way some do). Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PFLP stayed away or dialed in. If this is the body that will carry the responsibility of moving the one-state solution to a favourable conclusion (whatever that is), it will need to step up the pace and include Hamas, IJ and other hardliners, who may have other ideas about grassroots movements.

Thank you for a very well thought-out and enlightening post!

 

[Seanm]

I don't think our viewpoints are really that far apart, in that we agree that the Israeli response has been horrendously excessive. Ignoring for the moments the political machinations of Netanyahu to retain power (and avoid a potential stint in jail), there surely has to be some degree of balance, in that Israel couldn't simply ignore the monstrous attack of Hamas. The question is, what to do? They are faced with an enemy not interested in sharing, only in destruction of the other side. In this, Netanyahu's Israel and Hamas are very much alike - Hamas wants Israel's total destruction, while Netanyahu wants the same for any possibility of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu's more extreme Cabinet colleagues probably would be happy with Nakba, Mk.II, or even with Holocaust Mk.II. There even have been Israeli references to the Palestinians as "Amalekites", the perpetual enemies of OT Israel, who were wiped out.

But to return to the article, I see it as a reasonable discussion as to how best (least worst?) to react to the attack of Hamas. Hamas will obviously never be content with a Palestine state that shares with Israel what it sees as its land. And to a certain extent it's right - as Moshe Dayan said at the funeral of a settler, he understood "the bitter hatred they have for us, when they see us building their country on the land on which they and their fathers lived for generations". But that's all effluent under the bridge now - eventually, the two sides will have to share Palestine in a peace that hopefully isn't the peace of the graveyard.

This is not at all an accurate assessment of Hamas or its aims. In fact it’s an absolutely deadly misrepresentation of the situation, designed not just to justify the genocide but to render it inevitable, a kind of natural disaster. That so many are so misinformed on such an important matter really is an indictment of the liberal media. Shocking, sorry.

 

[tones]

This is not at all an accurate assessment of Hamas or its aims. In fact it’s an absolutely deadly misrepresentation of the situation, designed not just to justify the genocide but to render it inevitable, a kind of natural disaster. That so many are so misinformed on such an important matter really is an indictment of the liberal media. Shocking, sorry.

Understanding Hamas’s Genocidal Ideology

A close read of Hamas’s founding documents clearly shows its intentions.

www.theatlantic.com

"The most relevant of the document’s 36 articles can be summarized as falling within four main themes:

1. The complete destruction of Israel as an essential condition for the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of a theocratic state based on Islamic law (Sharia),
2. The need for both unrestrained and unceasing holy war (jihad) to attain the above objective,
3. The deliberate disdain for, and dismissal of, any negotiated resolution or political settlement of Jewish and Muslim claims to the Holy Land, and
4. The reinforcement of historical anti-Semitic tropes and calumnies married to sinister conspiracy theories."

 

[Seanm]

Understanding Hamas’s Genocidal Ideology

A close read of Hamas’s founding documents clearly shows its intentions.

www.theatlantic.com

"The most relevant of the document’s 36 articles can be summarized as falling within four main themes:

1. The complete destruction of Israel as an essential condition for the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of a theocratic state based on Islamic law (Sharia),
2. The need for both unrestrained and unceasing holy war (jihad) to attain the above objective,
3. The deliberate disdain for, and dismissal of, any negotiated resolution or political settlement of Jewish and Muslim claims to the Holy Land, and
4. The reinforcement of historical anti-Semitic tropes and calumnies married to sinister conspiracy theories."

We’ve been over this - I mean you and I personally, pretty sure. Months ago. Less excuse now for such complacency and incuriosity.

 

[tones]

We’ve been over this - I mean you and I personally, pretty sure. Months ago. Less excuse now for such complacency and incuriosity.

Perhaps, but does it make it any the less true? Has there been a change in Hamas's position of which I'm unaware? And, no, it does not justify what the Israelis are doing in Gaza - it's only proving that they are every bit as monstrous as Hamas.

 

[ff1d1l]

Perhaps, but does it make it any the less true? Has there been a change in Hamas's position of which I'm unaware? And, no, it does not justify what the Israelis are doing in Gaza - it's only proving that they are every bit as monstrous as Hamas.

I think they've comprehensively out monstered Hamas. What metrics are you judging them by?

 

[Somafunk]

When you have Israeli snipers boasting of 50 kneecapping shots on innocent civilians I think I have a fair idea of who’s coming out of this worse

 

[Seanm]

Perhaps, but does it make it any the less true? Has there been a change in Hamas's position of which I'm unaware? And, no, it does not justify what the Israelis are doing in Gaza - it's only proving that they are every bit as monstrous as Hamas.

I can honestly say that it is no less true now than it was on publication. How could it be?

Of course it justifies Israel’s atrocities, it’s the only thing that could: if your enemy cannot be reasoned with, is bent on your extermination, will murder and maim as long as he exists, then what can you do, except destroy him at all costs? How can there be a ceasefire? How can one hold back when he hides in hospitals and schools?

Baldly, this is pro-genocide propaganda. You shouldn’t be sharing it.

 

[PsB]

Finnegan,

You wrote "No more delusional than a two-state solution. Netenyahu has both stated openly, and demonstrated by his actions, that a two-state solution will not be countenanced. We can imagine that his removal would dispense with the impediment, but that too is equally delusional."

Any type of solution is far away at the moment, even a limited ceasefire, but on the scale of improbable outcomes the two-state solution seems less far-fetched than a single state. As the longest serving PM, Netanyahu has had devastating influence, but even he'll be gone sooner rather than later, so what he says and does won't carry much weight a year or two from now. Chances that Israel will be able to muddle through with its current system and coalitions are fading. (I accept this may be an optimistic view, but it seems at least possible.)

And "Again, without minimising the difficulties the process will entail, I point to Ireland. (...) I’m sure both those eventualities, from the perspective pertaining thirty years ago, looked equally as unobtainable. I prefer to remain optimistic."

Not sure it's a useful comparison: the Republic of Ireland has been independent for over a century and is becoming prosperous, while Palestine is still struggling for independence and statehood, not to mention poor and partly destroyed. Ulster and Ireland haven't fought several full scale wars backed by foreign powers plus Intifadas (not to minimize the Troubles, but totally different scale). Even there, despite all the newly accumulated goodwill, economic ties, common framework, shared language and even religion, nobody seems to be seriously pursuing unification yet, either in the South or the North. It will take ages. The single-state solution is the hardest to achieve because it requires either massive mutual trust or equally massive and sustained force/oppression. Israel is finding out the limits of that last approach; the Palestinians don't have the means to even consider it in the foreseeable future, as recognized by Hezbollah and their Iranian backers.

Even optimists have to prefer what may work one day in a distant future to something that will remain a total non-starter for decades to come. Alberto Toscano writes, in the penultimate paragraph of his generally sympathetic review, about the necessity of 'transitional arrangements'. He quotes Moroccan antizionist Abraham Serfaty, who envisages these as a revised form of two-state solution. I wonder if Dr Eid accepts the need for 'transitional arrangements' like these.

 

[wacko]

Perhaps, but does it make it any the less true? Has there been a change in Hamas's position of which I'm unaware? And, no, it does not justify what the Israelis are doing in Gaza - it's only proving that they are every bit as monstrous as Hamas.

There is no comparison.
Hamas are defending their homeland. Or the little that is left of it. IDF is an attack force aiding settlers murder and steal more land every day.
Israel is a regional superpower supported with money, weapons and politically by global superpower. Hamas is a ragtag resistance with a militia.
Israel controls every detail of Palestinian life from what/how much they eat, their water, everything that goes in/out from medical to fuel to cement.
Israel is the aggressor and Hamas the defender.
Yes I am 100% anti-zionist.

 

[ks.234]

Only one UK newspaper has the UN Ceasefire vote on it’s front page.

 

[tones]

I can honestly say that it is no less true now than it was on publication. How could it be?

Of course it justifies Israel’s atrocities, it’s the only thing that could: if your enemy cannot be reasoned with, is bent on your extermination, will murder and maim as long as he exists, then what can you do, except destroy him at all costs? How can there be a ceasefire? How can one hold back when he hides in hospitals and schools?

Baldly, this is pro-genocide propaganda. You shouldn’t be sharing it.

Respectfully disagree. The ultimate truism in any conflict is, know your enemy. Know what is driving him, know what they want. This, in my opinion, does NOT make such knowledge and recognition pro-genocide propaganda. If anything, it would (or should) make any reasonable, humane party start to think how they could separate ordinary Palestinians from complete wingnuts - and that means offering them a lot of what they want. Problem is, Israel has shown itself to be neither reasonable nor humane - in fact, a sort of larger version of Hamas.

 

[Barrymagrec]

Only one UK newspaper has the UN Ceasefire vote on it’s front page.

When there`s still plenty of the blessed Kate crap about what do you expect?

 

[gavreid]

How about the same standard of living as experienced in "Israel" and the full protection for a State of Palestine of NATO? That'll smoke anyone out. Yeah, but , no , but...

 

[gavreid]

Staff at Australia’s national broadcaster warned that its coverage of the war in Gaza relied too much on Israeli sources and used language that “favoured the Israeli narrative over objective reporting”, internal communications reveal, shedding new light on bias claims that convulsed the outlet.

In a summary of a meeting on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)’s coverage of the war, staff detailed concerns that coverage displayed pro-Israel bias, such as by accepting “Israeli facts and figures with no ifs or buts” while questioning Palestinian viewpoints and avoiding the word “Palestine” itself.

ABC Australia staff’s concerns over pro-Israel bias revealed

Staff warned that language in national broadcaster’s coverage ‘favoured the Israeli narrative over objective reporting’.

www.aljazeera.com