Q&A Correspondence on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Regarding the question of Palestinian nonviolence, and the question of a one-state solution versus the popular two-state solution, reader "fayruzz" in London writes:

Dear Sleeper Cell,

I've found that some of the best analysis and explanation of the conflict comes from open dialogues. Even e-mail dialogues. Here is a recent exchange between me and an American Kenyan friend of mine. He is learning about the conflict, is trying to be partial to the Palestinian point of view, but is sceptical of Palestinians as a whole. You might say he tends to buy too much into the American media's version of things (which we both know is insane).

Here's his letter, followed by my longish reply. This is a slapdash e-mail, of course, and perhaps with a little editing it could be a proper essay. I didn't double-check the statistics, so they may not be exact. Like I said, with proper editing and footnoting and cross-checking, this could be a real essay. Nonetheless, I think in its present form it still covers a lot of relevant ground, and your readers may find it useful.

=====

Kenyan American's message regarding Jeff Halpern's recent article [fedster's note: see two blog posts below for highlights of Halpern's article, not that you need it to understand this correspondence]:

Interesting. I'll admit I don't hear Palestinians saying they're being unfair to Israelis. The question that is still unanswered for me is what to do to get a one or two state solution. I'll admit I don't know of a solution. I do think armed resistance is counterproductive. Even if you can get over moral qualms, the disparity of arms is too great. You told me that there are multitudes of Moderate palestian intellectuals who are not being heard. Why is that? I knew of Desmond Tutu and the 60's knew Martin Luther king and SNIC. Is it all on the western media or does some of the blame rest on Palestinians for not championing such leaders enough. I really want to know.

=====

Reader fayruzz's "longish" reply [let me, the fedster, know if this correspondence is useful after all]:

k-man, i hope you read this and think it through. you might have to read it in sections over two to three sitting. if it's too boring to read, lemme know, and i'll do it in person when i come to america next month. don't be afraid to ask tough questions.

the best thing, i think, is to work for a one-state solution. israel is accidentally doing more than anyone else to make this a reality: they are gobbling up so much palestinian land, leaving it in such non-contiguous chunks, that an independent palestinian state is impossible now.

israel has already carved the west bank up into over 140 separate island cantons. these 140 separate cantons can never be united into a state for the main reason that israel won't let them: they insist on jewish-only bypass roads and israeli settlements to remain in between palestinian towns and neighbourhoods. thus territorial contiguity is an impossibility.

i first heard of this theory way back in 1997 - it was obvious even then - from the dean of jerusalem university, sari nusseibeh. and this brings me to your second question: who are the pali intellectuals opposing violence? dr. sari nusseibeh is but one of hundreds. he has a ph.d in philosophy from oxford and has lived in jerusalem his whole life (but for a handful years studying in england).

dr. nusseibeh is a lifelong member of the PLO. the new yorker did a big feature on him in 2002 called "why is nobody listening to the PLO's voice of reason?" detailing his pacifist platform (he calls for "christlike response and restraint" to israeli violence), his tremendous support and respect among the palestinians, and israel's refusal to deal with him. israel has jailed him several times on ridiculous charges - he's never been convicted of anything - and he's always eventually let go from prison after a few weeks and no trial.

the big three among the palis: nusseibeh, hanan ashrawi (a woman, and a christian, and a ph.d from university of virginia), and dr. haider abdel-shafi (a physician from gaza), are all famous (nonviolent) intellectuals whom the palis chose as their negotiating team to deal directly with the israelis at the madrid peace conference in 1991.

george bush, sr. accepted this team of famous (nonviolent) pali intellectuals, as did secretary of state james baker. however, israel made the absurd condition that they would only attend the madrid peace conference if the palestinians were not represented. bush and baker relented.

so, the 1991 madrid peace conference had the jordanians negotiating on behalf of the palestinians, as per israeli demands. ultimately, no deal was reached because israel's government was conducting secret back-door negotiations with arafat and his cronies in norway (these became the famous "oslo accords").

probably the most famous pali (nonviolent) intellectual was edward said, professor of literature at columbia university till his death in 2003. he was new york's most famous pali, america's most famous pali; when he died on 25 sept '03 (i had just finished day shift, i remember), the new york times wrote nearly a full-page obituary for him. he published more than a dozen books during his lifetime on the question of palestine and is recommended reading in every university class dealing with the history of the conflict.

additionally, there are literally hundreds of other nonviolent palestinian movements. rachel corrie, a white american chick from washington state, was a member of one of these when she was crushed to death by an isaeli bulldozer during a nonviolent protest in 2003. (this cold-blooded murder, witnessed by at least 10 europeans and north americans, got almost no coverage in the u.s. media, though alan rickman, the british jewish actor who played the villain in die hard and kevin costner's robin hood, directed a play about rachel corrie that toured the u.s. and even was performing in peru while we were there for dylan's wedding.)

for more info on the literally dozens of palestinian nonviolent movements, go to the blog: http://www.sleepercellayearehcue.blogspot.com/ and look on the left-hand sidebar for links to several of them.

some of the other palestinian nonviolent political parties include those run by mustafa barghouti, a famous west bank intellectual well-known in europe (but somehow totally invisible in the u.s.). also, azmi bishara, a palestinian with israeli citizenship who served several terms in the knesset (israel's parliament).

i suppose a foreigner could ask: where are the american voices championing withdrawal from iraq? where are those american leaders denouncing the war crimes and rapes our soldiers have committed in iraq? neither pelosi nor obama have raised a voice against any of these atrocities. are we then to conclude that americans condone, or are happy with, these crimes?

second, hamas is, paradoxically, the only palestinian political party to have wrenched any concessions from israel. this has been the subject of countless israeli commentaries appearing in their newspapers, as well as in the new york review of books and the london review of books. it's nearly 1:30 in the morning, so i'll not bore you with those details. my point is, the only group that really supports armed struggle is surprisingly the only one getting israel to alter its policies.

i know you don't believe this - and again, let me stress that i have never supported hamas ideologically or otherwise - but i'll give you a short (half-page) article from a recent london review of books, written by an israeli political analyst, that describes this in more detail.

so: i don't believe that armed struggle will work, and neither do a huge majority (i almost wrote "99%") of palestinians. the number carrying out attacks against israel is incredibly small. there have been no attacks against israel since the hamas-israeli ceasefire of june. (yet israel has continued to murder palestinians, but that's another story.) how many suicide bombings have occurred in the last 2-3 years? i think only one, maybe two. in that time, israel has bombed the hell out of a lot of the gaza strip, killing over 100 people in june 2006 alone.

remember: when israel kills palestinians and the palis don't respond, the american newspapers call it "a lull in violence in the region". when one or two palis fire a rocket into empty desert land in israel, or when there is a suicide bombing that actually kills someone, then suddenly "the region is unstable", and israel "grudgingly retaliates to the flareup in violence".

but once again, nonviolence is the answer, and palis clearly know this and practise this in overwhelming numbers. read the jeff halper article again.

and lastly, i find it interesting that you demand such tremendous christlike behaviour and perfection of the palestinians and make no such demands on israel. as norman finkelstein (son of holocaust survivors, ph.d in poli sci from princeton) asks, why does the world ask only that palestinians take the moral high ground?

=====