I do not know C.R. Lawn, who wrote to the Summer PEACE TALK complaining of an “anti-Israeli diatribe” by William Slavick in a previous issue. I do know Bill Slavick, with whom I have worked in Maine Peace and Justice in Israel and Palestine (Maine PJIP) for more than 4 years. I know no more dedicated and passionate advocate of justice and peace. It is his very passion and intensity which, I think, sometimes lead Bill into what I would call rhetorical and argumentative excess. There is much to criticize in Israeli policy and behavior. I am not sure that Bill’s tone does not in his review of the Carter and Ilan Pappe books get in the way of conveying the valid points both he and the authors present.
I therefore find myself at least able to understand C.R. Lawn’s upset, and I agree with some of his points. I concur that a “Manichean” good-versus-evil conception of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle is neither valid nor useful. There is indeed “ample blame to go around on both sides”—and perhaps a good deal to be apportioned to an American governing class which, apparently more for reasons of domestic political advantage than for concern for a just peace and our own country’s true interests, has consistently pursued a one-sided pro-Israeli policy.
C.R. Lawn is not wholly wrong. However, I would not be writing unless I had some key differences with him, and if I were not keenly aware that there is in the United States a long history of presenting an indeed black and white version of the Middle East conflict, in which wholly innocent Israelis are victimized by ruthless and incorrigible Palestinian terrorists. Bill Slavick, however stridently, offers a corrective to this long dominant, and highly questionable, narrative.
C. R. Lawn says that the Palestinian territories are not “occupied” but rather “disputed.” That they are not under occupation will come as a surprise to the many Palestinians who have to stand for hours at Israeli checkpoints, or who suffer the violent effects of Israeli incursions. Only the Israelis themselves hold the West Bank and Gaza not to be occupied territory. Israel’s Army is still in effective control of Gaza, and thus according to international law retains the responsibilities which go with being an Occupying Power—responsibilities Israel to a great extent does not live up to. Virtually all the rest of the world accepts that interpretation of UN Security Resolutions 242 and 338 which hold Israel indeed to be in occupation, and under an obligation to end that occupation as soon as possible. Israel’s “right” to be in the territories is the right of the stronger, and no more than that. In terms of international law, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is simply illegal—as are many of the tactics it uses to enforce that occupation, including its notorious “security fence.”
C. R. Lawn casts the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “age-old” and going back “thousands of years.” The usual implication of this formulation is that the conflict is insoluble and that we neither should nor need to give it any priority. The Palestinians are to be left to the Israeli occupiers’ wise and tender ministrations. Such a conception is neither true nor useful. Most knowledgeable observers trace the roots of the current situation no further back than the advent of the Zionist movement in the late 19th century. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not present a “dilemma” unless we and the parties ensure that it does. There are potential solutions fair to both sides, and they need to be pursued. They do not include President Bush’s scheme to give cooperative Sunni Arab regimes $20 billion, and the Israelis another $30 billion in military aid, and to have a conference which excludes Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. This is a formula for fomenting conflict, not peace, in the region, and for encouraging Israel’s worst tendencies toward violent retaliation to every offense. It is irresponsible, it is anti-peace, and it is not likely to work. Mideast peace may in fact require money, but money for arms is not the answer.
C. R. Lawn makes a main point of arguing that bringing up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict distracts from getting out of Iraq and avoiding similar embroilment with Iran. Among the Iraq Study Group’s several recommendations is one calling urgently for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even in the Bush Administration and Congress, however unrealistic the current approaches may be, there is a recognition of the importance of reaching a viable Middle East outcome. To let the problem fester is to generate regional instability and potential terrorism and, to paraphrase what was said in another era, to risk “two, three, many” Iraqs and Afghanistans.
But this is to speak mainly of American self-interest. It says little about the basic obligation to do what is just, to recognize that, having made Israel the foremost beneficiary of our political, financial and military support, the United States has a special obligation to do all that it can to end the Middle East conflict on a basis fair both to that country and the Palestinians.
C. R. Lawn recommends that we reject Slavick, Carter, and Ilan Pappe in favor of the perspectives offered by Rabbi Michael Lerner and Tikkun. Frankly, I am not up to date on Rabbi Lerner’s views. I do know that in the past he has in most respects been on the side of good sense and the angels with regard to Israel-Palestine, if also with a certain history of shrinking from taking a hard line toward Israel, even when a substantial case could be made for doing so. We should heed Rabbi Lerner but also the many others who honestly seek a just and lasting peace in the Middle East—and that includes Ilan Pappe, President Carter and Bill Slavick. It does not include a Bush Administration determined not to learn from experience, and unrealistically fixated on “victory” over those we dislike.
The important thing is not to relegate the crucial Israel-Palestine issue to a back burner where perhaps the short-term interests of the Israeli State and its backers, as well as the American political class, may be served, but neither peace nor justice will be. Studied avoidance of the subject, of which the peace community has not been wholly free, is an unaffordable luxury, and a form of moral cowardice. Time to get on to a lasting resolution.
Ed McCarthy (Maine Peace and Justice in Israel and Palestine)
