Jerusalem, Jerusalem how could we e’er forget thee
That’s been the chant of Jewish people century after century
In every corner of the globe wherever Jews were living
They kept the faith that some day to that place they’d be returning
Now Jews control Jerusalem, it is their nation’s capital
They’re not about to yield on this; on this they are fanatical
The Arabs, meanwhile, claim it’s theirs because of prior conquest
Their Koran teaches once land’s theirs, it always is, no contest
What Israel calls “The Temple Mount”, the site of David’s Temple
Now houses the Al Aqsa Mosque, revered by Islam’s people
They never will capitulate historic sovereignty
This sets the stage for outcomes, most of which we can’t foresee
And into this quagmire came the UN resolution
Which labeled Israel lawless for their West Bank occupation
Including, too, The Temple Mount, with Jewish anger vast
And when the US vote abstained, the resolution passed
This resolution has no teeth nor has it much persuasion
For years the Arab states have been against the Jewish nation
The Jews had counted in the past on vetoes from the States
So what went wrong this time around; what happened here of late?
It’s not a secret Bibi and Obama shared no love
But our support of Israel’s needs were over and above
All past administrations, aiding militarily
To abstain thus, might seem to be an inconsistency
The US has for years supported a two-state solution
It views the West-Bank settlements as counter to that notion
That Bibi keeps pursuing them has been a great frustration
To those before, but mostly so to this administration
The message the non-veto, to the world, meant to convey
The US had grown tired of these Israeli games at play
To say they favored separate states while acting to oppose it
Has brought about Obama’s doubt and Netanyahu knows it
It seems the US makes its case all based on the presumption
That absent West-Bank settlements both sides would have the gumption
To come to terms agreeable with peace throughout both nations
I have my doubts! True peace may take another generation
1/14/17
Dear Sabba Rabba,
Glad you appreciate my challenge – somebody’s gotta keep you in line! 😉
In all seriousness, I love the back & forth as well. It’s always a fruitful exchange.
You made a number of points, some directly rebutting mine, others not, all valuable. Let me highlight a few for further comment or re-rebuttal. I’ll make some digressions too.
“During the earlier negotiations, most Arab states did not support the negotiation efforts. Now, because of fear of Iran, the Arab states would not be so opposed to negotiations.”
– I realize that the history of Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab negotiations is very complex, but what you describe above is something of a simplification. During the high tide of Arab nationalism in the 1950s and 1960’s (climaxing in 67 but living on in reduced form until supplanted by Islamist ideologies), there was a highly aggressive attitude towards Israel at both the public and elite/state levels of the Arab world, especially in states geographically closer to the conflict. However, after the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, attitudes changed at the elite / heads-of-state level among many Arab nations, who realized that they had no military avenue to defeat Israel. But the linkage between Arab support for the peace process and fear of Iran is mistaken, I believe. Many Gulf states have a quiet, pragmatic relationship with Israel out of mutual concern for Iran, but I just don’t see a relationship between this and attitudes on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In fact, I think it’s more on target to say that for many Sunni Arab states, Iran is a bigger concern than resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and while many of these states pay lip service to the Palestinians, and may float some peace initiatives here and there, there’s not much real weight invested by other Arab states in resolving this issue.
“Eventually, the Palestinians will realize that Israel is there to stay and that they will have to negotiate seriously while they have some territory left.”
– I think the vast majority of Palestinians realize this quite viscerally, as do the Israeli settlers who intend on making their presence in the W. Bank (or for them, Judea) a permanent one. You put the burden / onus on the Palestinians but from their point of view, the cessation of settlement activity is a natural precondition for a two-state solution, but that (i.e., the cessation of settlement activity) is something that Netanyahu / the Israeli government appears either unable or unwilling to do. Perhaps Netanyahu lacks the political capital to put a stop to the settlements, who with each year, amass more people, infrastructure, political power. Or perhaps he’s fine with letting the status quo continue. But you’re right to point out that absence of negotiations also perpetuates the status quo, and there’s nothing preventing Palestinians from inviting Israelis to the table to begin talks.
“More recently, under Abbas, the Palestinians now have their own government with its agencies that handle most of the day-to-day Palestinian affairs. There is controlled communication of goods and people between Israel and the West Bank to the benefit of both. Ultimately Israel has control and the Palestinian government is ultimately subject to the Israeli government. I don’t know the details, but it has worked much better than in the past. ”
– This is where I believe you are most wrong, or perhaps better put, most misinformed. My understanding from the [admittedly limited] reading I’ve done and talks I have with Palestinian students and others who follow the conflict more closely suggests the opposite, that in fact the situation on the ground now is much worse than your description would have you believe. The increasing penetration of the settlements, the wall, the expanding network of checkpoints and the fact of continuing military occupation have an enormously constricting effect on many aspects of Palestinian economy, politics, and society. I will get back to you with some recommended reading after consulting with some friends who know Palestinian perspectives far better than I do.
– This is where I think the essence of my challenge comes in. Because it’s deeper than challenging you specifically to read a specific book. It goes to the fact that we, moderate center-left American Jews, know that Israel isn’t always right, and sure we can point out mistakes of Israeli policy here or there, we read our Tom Friedman, but I don’t think we seriously grapple with the direct human perspectives of Palestinians living in that situation. We may hear sound-bites, talking heads on cable news, various forms of pre-digested information from think tanks, lobbies, NGO’s, etc. but we rarely genuinely reach out in an attempt to understand Palestinian perspectives. I know you aren’t one of them, but I’ve encountered American Jews who are so incredibly hyper-sensitive to the most minor criticism of Israel, it’d be comically transparent if it weren’t so tragic for the prospect of a real dialogue. I’ve been guilty of this as well in the past, where one “researches” merely to buttress the weak points in one’s intellectual castle and to gather cannon fodder to attack a threatening point of view. How often do we seriously uncover and contemplate not individual mistakes but deeper, structural problems and their long-term implications in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
– This is where I need to do more homework as well. I stay away from getting involved in most discussions of the conflict because, much of the time, people aren’t really looking to listen, they’re looking to confirm and defend their own view and attack others’. The degree of close-mindedness, of incredible insecurity on this issue is astounding.
– I’m not a policy guy on Israel or Palestine. I’m not here to insist that Israel should or shouldn’t do X, Y, or Z, and likewise with the Palestinians. Because really, it’s not my responsibility as an American, to resolve that issue. It ultimately falls on the people and politicians of both Israeli and Palestinian societies to do this. In other words, my ego is not invested in Israeli politics – I’m an American and my perception of Israel’s security interests plays 0 role in my voting as an American. If I have a final point, it’s really more about the way in which we talk about this issue as American Jews – and to my observation, that process could be so much better.
– That said, I really appreciate this kind of exchange because it gives me a chance to share my views and helps me challenge myself to learn and listen more.
Love,
Michael
Dear Michael
Thanks, again, for your comments. I will not reply on your discussion in detail except for a few observations. In general your insights are informed and thoughtful. My comments are simplifications attempting to get at the core, which often passes over the subtleties. The comment on Arab support for the peace process and linkage to fear of Iran is not a mistake. Netanyahu has made positive progress with a number of Arab states primarily due to their fear of Iranian aggression. This has made them more positively disposed toward the peace process. I agree that these states are more interested in the Sunni, Shia animosity, Iran being Shia, which fuels their softening attitude toward Israel.
The Palestinians do feel the effects of the settlements viscerally but that has not yet moved them toward a negotiated settlement with Israel.
With respect to Palestinian well-being before, under Israeli governors, or after, largely under their own government, I am pretty familiar with the impact of the military occupation, constricting Palestinian freedom and it’s choking effects on Palestinian society. Earlier, much of this also existed even without the wall and increased Israeli settlements, but added to that were the often capricious and corrupt rulings of the governors. Also they did not have their own institutions of commerce and government. The bottom line is that even as their earlier existence was untenable, so is today’s but in different ways. I admit that it is difficult to judge the worse of bad situations. It is human nature to feel that today’s problems are worse.
Your discussion of the deeper challenge I believe is most relevant. I suggest that those who read and contribute to the blog’s Comments give it special attention.
Dear Sabba Rabba,
Thanks for your latest poem “Jerusalem”.
First, it’s a really good poem. I like the rhymes and the meter, and I’d like to make a few points about the messages contained in it:
– I don’t think the Obama administration or the US foreign policy establishment are so naïve as to think that the sheer absence of settlements is the missing ingredient for a peaceful resolution. I think they recognize that there are many obstacles to peace, not all of them political. However, the continuation of settlements does have a negative impact on the viability for a two-state solution. That’s their assumption, if you want to call it, and it’s really hard to argue otherwise. One can argue that the two-state solution is itself flawed or not the best goal, but that’s another discussion. So I reject your claim that somehow the whole assumption here is that absent the settlements, there’d be peace.
– I think the whole affair over the UN resolution, and to some extent your poem, misses the point. Arguments over the legitimacy and legality of Israeli settlements will be contested for a long time, and it’s not like one side is about to convince the other that it’s arguments are more sound. How many Jews would accept the putatively “Koranic” argument that once-conquered Islamic lands are forever Islamic? How many Muslims would accept that Jewish historical ties to Israel legitimize their presence their and in the West Bank? These sorts of justifications seek to ground a particular claim in something more certain-seeming, more eternal, than mere politics, i.e., history or religion. And they’re something of a distraction, because these sorts of justifications are always going to be contested, and moreover, they have little persuasive power beyond their own communities. What isn’t, what cannot, be contested is that millions of Jewish Israelis aren’t going to leave Israel, nor are millions of Palestinian Arabs going to [willingly] pack up and leave their homes in the W. Bank or Gaza.
– I think the real issue isn’t a toothless UN resolution of condemnation, but rather the actual experience and implications of Israeli occupation of the West Bank – what are its ultimate designs? How do Palestinian populations fit into them? Who defines their rights and who is accountable for upholding them? What does a just resolution look like and by what process is it achieved? If one were to ask Palestinians why the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegitimate, my guess is they wouldn’t refer primarily to legal arguments or UN resolutions but to experiences of abuse, maltreatment, prejudice, and indignity.
– But the voices of the actual people living there are hard to find in most media coverage. What is like living as an Israeli settler? What are their motivations, goals, aspirations and views of the conflict? What is like living as, say, a Palestinian villager with the steady encroachment of Israeli settlements? What sort of interactions do they have? What do these say about the prospects for peace, but also for justice and dignity? All too often, we hear voices of leaders, diplomats, think tank analysts and NGO’s that claim to represent “the people”, but it’s rarer, in my experience, to hear directly the voices without the mediation of various interest groups with their own agendas.
– At your house I believe you have a book, Palestinian Walks, by a Palestinian human-rights advocate and attorney Raja Shahada. I say this because I remember giving it to you. This is one such example of a human voice directly from the conflict. It is also an educated and articulate voice. If you haven’t already, I challenge you to read it.
Love,
Michael
PS I read the text of the resolution (see link below) and nowhere is the Temple Mount mentioned directly by name. The resolution doesn’t say that Israel has no right to the Temple Mount, but rather that the signatories of the resolution affirm that “it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;” I’m not a diplomat, and I may be off here, but I think this isn’t about denying Jewish claims to the Temple Mount so much as saying, “Both parties need to come to an agreement about the status of the Temple Mount and Jerusalem.”
http://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-unsc-resolution-approved-dec-23-demanding-israel-stop-all-settlement-activity/
Dear Michael
I love it when you challenge what I write. Others write comments but no one else has challenged me. So Keep it up.
So let me rebut where I can.
Regarding settlements:
Clearly the US, the Palestinians and the Israelis know that many obstacles to peace exist in addition to the settlements problem. In past negotiations most of these issues have been addressed and if not actually agreed to, have come reasonably close to agreement. At one point it was reported that they were ~90% in agreement. That was with Yassir Arafat. These “agreements” have since grown stale but the fact of having been there gives reason to believe that they can be renegotiated. During the earlier negotiations, most Arab states did not support the negotiation efforts. Now, because of fear of Iran, the Arab states would not be so opposed to negotiations. As I recall the earlier talks failed primarily over Jerusalem being united and the capital of Israel, over Palestinians having the right of return, and over the details of the new map, i.e. what settlements to include within Israel. On this last point, Bibi has become more pro-settlements than the prior administrations. As such, the Palestinian line has become more strident in response.
The expanding settlements problem has been central (not counting the Iran nuclear agreement) to the dispute between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations. The Palestinians have used it as their excuse to refuse negotiations. Also, I believe that Netanyahu also uses it to keep the Palestinians from wanting to negotiate (I doubt that he truly supports a two-state solution, or any solution. I think he likes the status quo), while claiming publicly that he favors negotiations and a two-state solution. That’s what I meant in the poem by these Israeli games. So from outward appearances it is the settlements problem that is the primary impediment to negotiation, absent which no solution is possible. I believe that Kerry believes that a solution could be reached, if, in fact, they could get to the negotiation table without either side doing something deliberately to obviate them as has happened in the past. Ultimately, I have my doubts that either side at this time wants a negotiated two-state solution as opposed to the current status quo; however, Palestinian territory continues to be gobbled up settlement by settlement as the Israelis work toward a Greater Israel. Eventually, the Palestinians will realize that Israel is there to stay and that they will have to negotiate seriously while they have some territory left.
Your points about the actual experience and implications of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory are good. Initially the Israeli military (I believe) appointed governors of the various regions under Israeli control. These governors had nearly dictatorial control and established the rights and privileges of the Palestinians under their control. Much of the earlier Palestinian unrest stemmed from the ruling of these governors. More recently, under Abbas, the Palestinians now have their own government with its agencies that handle most of the day-to-day Palestinian affairs. There is controlled communication of goods and people between Israel and the West Bank to the benefit of both. Ultimately Israel has control and the Palestinian government is ultimately subject to the Israeli government. I don’t know the details, but it has worked much better than in the past.
The UN’s active roles of providing or organizing aid and of monitoring peace with peace-keeping troops plus other activities do impact local events. However; resolutions similar to the one I referred to are used for moral persuasion where those morals are accepted but have little influence on nation-state behaviors. Of course, this is my opinion.
Concerning historical ties and arguments. It has been my observation that among the more orthodox of both religions, they are very passionate about their historical rights to territory. To the extent that they are able to influence their governments, their predilections are relevant.
Regarding your P. S., you are correct in what the resolution says. I talked with Lee about this and he said that the orthodox have interpreted this to refer in addition to other regions, to the region around the Temple Mount. The reason for their interpretation is that in prior related resolutions Jerusalem and the Temple Mount region were specifically excluded from the resolution. Certainly, sans a negotiated agreement to changes, the June, 1967 lines obtain.
I have read most of Palestinian Walks. I have read a number of other accounts of Palestinian life under Israeli occupation, particularly under military governors. However, it’s been a while, so I’m left with impressions rather than detailed facts.
One final point, you being a poet will relate to this. In drafting such political poetry, I often start things more starkly. It is not meant to say that that is the whole story or even the only story but the intent is to bring out what I believe is the central issue. Most of my audience, like you, are aware of the subtleties of these political situations. My objective is to be a catalyst for their own contemplation of political events and situation, granted, from my perspective.