Bernard Chazelle on Palestine-Israel
Long-time JWN commenter Bernard Chazelle has written and web-published a thoughtful description of, and reflection upon, a recent substantial trip he made to Israel and Palestine. (Or to Palestine/Israel? Or to Pal-sreal, or Is-lestine, or whatever you want to call, um, you know, that chunk of land that the British ruled for a while as "Mandate Palestine".)
Chazelle's description is first-class, and definitely well worth reading by anyone who wants to understand the deadening effect all those Israeli roadblocks have on the lives of the West Bank Palestinians. He didn't even get in to Gaza to give us a description of life there...
After re-reading the reflective "Essay" that occupies the second portion of the web-page, I have to say that I disagree with some of his analysis and conclusions. Specifically, I'm not sure that the game-theoretical approach he uses to the "problem" of the negotiations works very well since it seems to generally assume that each of the two political leaders is a monolithic actor.
Also, I think he is simply not accurate when he writes this:
- To blame the lobby [for the dysfunctional nature of the US-Israeli relationship], however, one needs to make the case that US policy would be notably different in its absence. The evidence is thin. [I dispute that.] Israel has been the linchpin of Pax Americana in the Middle East since June 1967: Cold War then; Carter Doctrine now. The lobby may rejoice in this but can't take credit for it.[I dispute that, too. I think the pro-Israel lobby can take a great deal of credit for it.]
Helena:
I call it the future Republic of Israel and Palestine. I don't mind giving the Izzies top billing. The Pallies need the basics, not ego strokes.
Regarding AIPAC, I used to take the Chomksy line that they have a quantitative rather than qualitative influence on US policy in the ME: Ie that US policy in the region would be essentially the same absent AIPAC, though perhaps not as extreme in nature.
Now, I've adopted what might be called the "Finkelstein theory", which is that AIPAC profoundly influences US policy in some areas, but has limited influence in others. I'm not convinced that Israel lobbyists were largely responsible for the decision to go to war with Iraq, or that they are dictating US policy towards Iran - although they do of course have some influence. However, absent AIPAC, it's hard to see just why American politicians would support the building of illegal Jewish squats on occupied territory, or why they would insist that Israel retains its hold on Palestinian territories. Particularly as the more astute US politicos at least must know that such blind support for Israel may well cost them dear,if it hasn't already done so.
How very difficult to produce the usual views of bien-pensant Western academe, with a twist. Palestinian and Lebanese militants--unlike Egypt and Jordan--have never shown any reaction to Israeli concessions other than a sharpening of their appetite for dead and expelled Jews, so this article is just another "Israel delenda est."
Israel may have to plan on prevailing in the type of apocalyptic conflict its current enemies' theology envisions as a desirable end-game.
A remarkable, if harrowing essay. How could the situation in the West Bank be described as anything but a variant of apartheid? I suppose the situation there is marginally better than the Gaza Strip, at least.
It is hard not to agree with Mr. Chazelle’s conclusion which echoes what William Pfaff recently described as “Israel’s Self-destruction as a Jewish state”. Of course, that would be neither here nor there to non-Zionists if not for the terrible human costs being borne by the Palestinians as Israel dithers over losing the peace…