Dear America,
Spain, Ireland and Norway have just announced their recognition of Palestine as a state. With the alacritous recalcitrance he eagerly demonstrates whenever he doesn't hear what he wants to hear, Benjamin Netanyahu condemned their actions and recalled the Israeli ambassadors to those countries. Netanyahu's public pronouncements on the subject were as predictable as the acrimony in which the middle east, especially the region formerly known as the Levant (Palestine before Israel created itself as a state) is inundated. He declaimed that the creation of a separate state of Palestine would be the creation of a "terrorist nation," ignoring the implicit irony implicated when you consider the events preceding Israeli independence. For example, there is the bombing of the King David hotel with its death toll of British soldiers in July 1946, which was perpetrated by Israel's own terrorist organization, the Irgun. The leader of the Irgun, Menachim Begin, became a prime minister of Israel under the banner of the Herut party, one of a series of ultra-conservative, ultra-nationalist parties for which the Irgun was arguably the foundation. Then there is the continued occupation of the area populated by the Palestinian people know as the West Bank (of the Jordan River) by Israel after the 1967 war and its settlement by Israeli zealots in increments since then, all in support of a claim I first heard Begin invoke half a century ago; that the areas formerly known as Samaria and Judea (the West Bank) belonged to Israel by dint of recognition bestowed in the bible. Apparently it never occurred to Began that under such a theory the United States belonged to the autochthonous peoples of this continent, as do all the countries of the continent of South America, not to mention the Levant itself. Similarly, he never considered that Israel was created in strife over coexistence between Israel and the Palestinians already resident in the Levant.
All this is not to say that the Palestinians bare no blame for the fog of belligerence that hovers over the region 'til this very day. The Palestinians were ardently averse to the creation of a Jewish state of Israel in the area and strife has continually broken out since UN resolution 181 in 1947, which partitioned the territory into two states, 56% of the land designated to be Israel, the rest Palestine. What ensued was denominated an expulsion by the Palestinians whereas Israel has always considered the events by which Jews supplanted Palestinians to be some kind of acquisition of a legal and just nature. Since the 1967 war in which the Israelis prevailed over an alliance of Arab states, Israel has gradually populated the West Bank with Israeli settlers totaling something on the order of 750,000 to date. Those settlers tyrannize the Palestinian indigenous population to the extent of murder, and the Palestinians in turn institute "intifada," a euphemism for rebellion, and thus the bellicosity that continues today.
Given all that has transpired in the Levant, it is tempting to yield to the opinion that the situation is immutable and impossible to peacefully resolve. Frankly, I often descend into that kind of pessimism as I have evinced by some of what I have written here. But I cling to the supervening belief that something can be done, and I have even written a proposal for how to do so, which I submitted to you years ago now, and here is my rationale. If Palestine is granted statehood, it is bound by the rules of international relations that bind all nations of the world, whether they obey them or not. Russia can call its invasion of Ukraine a "special military operation" all Putin wants, but it is an imperialistic war for territory, and it violates international law. Similarly, if a State of Palestine engaged...or even allowed...warlike activities against its neighbor, Israel, it would be in violation of international law, and retaliation...including invasion...by Israel would be understood to be in consequence thereof. Put another way, legitimization of Palestine also entails onerous duties, such as controlling the population and addressing violence across borders, whether they are with Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria or whomever else. Statehood would be not just a privilege but an onerous duty as well; it could be enforced by permanent peace keeping forces or by an alliance of nations of the region dedicated to world peace, even if at the price of limited war to prevent cross-border incursion.
Likud and Netanyahu have persisted in their "river to the sea" aspirations, and as long as they, and for that matter the Palestinians as well, cleave to such a self-serving proposition as an absolute sine qua non for peace, there will be none, which brings me back to where I started. If both parities refuse to abandon extirpation of one another as a goal, there is nothing we in the rest of the world can do, so why try.
Your friend,
Mike
Spain, Ireland and Norway have just announced their recognition of Palestine as a state. With the alacritous recalcitrance he eagerly demonstrates whenever he doesn't hear what he wants to hear, Benjamin Netanyahu condemned their actions and recalled the Israeli ambassadors to those countries. Netanyahu's public pronouncements on the subject were as predictable as the acrimony in which the middle east, especially the region formerly known as the Levant (Palestine before Israel created itself as a state) is inundated. He declaimed that the creation of a separate state of Palestine would be the creation of a "terrorist nation," ignoring the implicit irony implicated when you consider the events preceding Israeli independence. For example, there is the bombing of the King David hotel with its death toll of British soldiers in July 1946, which was perpetrated by Israel's own terrorist organization, the Irgun. The leader of the Irgun, Menachim Begin, became a prime minister of Israel under the banner of the Herut party, one of a series of ultra-conservative, ultra-nationalist parties for which the Irgun was arguably the foundation. Then there is the continued occupation of the area populated by the Palestinian people know as the West Bank (of the Jordan River) by Israel after the 1967 war and its settlement by Israeli zealots in increments since then, all in support of a claim I first heard Begin invoke half a century ago; that the areas formerly known as Samaria and Judea (the West Bank) belonged to Israel by dint of recognition bestowed in the bible. Apparently it never occurred to Began that under such a theory the United States belonged to the autochthonous peoples of this continent, as do all the countries of the continent of South America, not to mention the Levant itself. Similarly, he never considered that Israel was created in strife over coexistence between Israel and the Palestinians already resident in the Levant.
All this is not to say that the Palestinians bare no blame for the fog of belligerence that hovers over the region 'til this very day. The Palestinians were ardently averse to the creation of a Jewish state of Israel in the area and strife has continually broken out since UN resolution 181 in 1947, which partitioned the territory into two states, 56% of the land designated to be Israel, the rest Palestine. What ensued was denominated an expulsion by the Palestinians whereas Israel has always considered the events by which Jews supplanted Palestinians to be some kind of acquisition of a legal and just nature. Since the 1967 war in which the Israelis prevailed over an alliance of Arab states, Israel has gradually populated the West Bank with Israeli settlers totaling something on the order of 750,000 to date. Those settlers tyrannize the Palestinian indigenous population to the extent of murder, and the Palestinians in turn institute "intifada," a euphemism for rebellion, and thus the bellicosity that continues today.
Given all that has transpired in the Levant, it is tempting to yield to the opinion that the situation is immutable and impossible to peacefully resolve. Frankly, I often descend into that kind of pessimism as I have evinced by some of what I have written here. But I cling to the supervening belief that something can be done, and I have even written a proposal for how to do so, which I submitted to you years ago now, and here is my rationale. If Palestine is granted statehood, it is bound by the rules of international relations that bind all nations of the world, whether they obey them or not. Russia can call its invasion of Ukraine a "special military operation" all Putin wants, but it is an imperialistic war for territory, and it violates international law. Similarly, if a State of Palestine engaged...or even allowed...warlike activities against its neighbor, Israel, it would be in violation of international law, and retaliation...including invasion...by Israel would be understood to be in consequence thereof. Put another way, legitimization of Palestine also entails onerous duties, such as controlling the population and addressing violence across borders, whether they are with Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria or whomever else. Statehood would be not just a privilege but an onerous duty as well; it could be enforced by permanent peace keeping forces or by an alliance of nations of the region dedicated to world peace, even if at the price of limited war to prevent cross-border incursion.
Likud and Netanyahu have persisted in their "river to the sea" aspirations, and as long as they, and for that matter the Palestinians as well, cleave to such a self-serving proposition as an absolute sine qua non for peace, there will be none, which brings me back to where I started. If both parities refuse to abandon extirpation of one another as a goal, there is nothing we in the rest of the world can do, so why try.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment