Submitted by Brodsky on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 20:42
An Interview with Dr. Asher Susser
By: Matt Gordner
Egypt’s failure to broker an effective reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah makes it a strong probability that the January elections will be considered illegitimate by the Palestinian people – that is, if they happen at all. Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) recently declared that the elections will be postponed pending more suitable national conditions. This, of course, renders the possibility of a virtual three state arrangement a viable reality for Israelis and Palestinians in the near future.
For a number of reasons, the speeches delivered this summer by Obama, Netanyahu, and Fayyad promised to bear fruit. Instead, they withered on the vine.
Submitted by Brodsky on Sun, 02/01/2009 - 17:58
Reviewed Book: Jonathan Garfinkel, Ambivalence: Adventures in Israel and Palestine. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008, 352 pages, $25.95
Few places can stir such deep emotions as the New Jersey-sized state of Israel. Whether or not one has visited the Jewish homeland, all have strong opinions on how it should behave. For many in the West, Israel is a country that exists in either dreams or nightmares so the state is either above rapprochement or is evil.
Many Jews come from abroad to visit the land they read about in the Torah; the city of Jerusalem to which they face in prayer; where for centuries the Passover meal concludes with the phrase, “Next year in Jerusalem.” They stay in fancy West Jerusalem hotels, tour the Old City, kiss the Wailing Wall, and walk through Mea Sharim and marvel at the near replica of a nineteenth century Polish shtetl recreated in a Jerusalem suburb. They return home with hundreds of pictures testifying to their visits, secure that Israel and the Jewish people are thriving and need think no further.
Few places can stir such deep emotions as the New Jersey-sized state of Israel. Whether or not one has visited the Jewish homeland, all have strong opinions on how it should behave. For many in the West, Israel is a country that exists in either dreams or nightmares so the state is either above rapprochement or is evil. Many Jews come from abroad to visit the land they read about in the Torah; the city of Jerusalem to which they face in prayer; where for centuries the Passover meal concludes with the phrase, “Next year in Jerusalem.” They stay in fancy West Jerusalem hotels, tour the Old City, kiss the Wailing Wall, and walk through Mea Sharim and marvel at the near replica of a nineteenth century Polish shtetl recreated in a Jerusalem suburb. They return home with hundreds of pictures testifying to their visits, secure that Israel and the Jewish people are thriving and need think no further.
Submitted by Brodsky on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 18:35
Israel faces several challenges today including a stalled peace process with an increasing worldwide call for a bi-national state solution; Iran’s nuclear program; and the growing social divide in Israeli society between religious and secular Jews. A two-state solution should remain the only acceptable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the calls for one state for Jews and Palestinians alike will continue to gather steam in the future. Given the current demographic situation and problems in Israeli society, maintaining the status quo does not benefit Israel.
Israel faces several challenges today including a stalled peace process with an increasing worldwide call for a bi-national state solution; Iran’s nuclear program; and the growing social divide in Israeli society between religious and secular Jews. A two-state solution should remain the only acceptable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the calls for one state for Jews and Palestinians alike will continue to gather steam in the future. Given the current demographic situation and problems in Israeli society, maintaining the status quo does not benefit Israel.
Submitted by Brodsky on Tue, 06/17/2008 - 09:01
What links together the conflicts in the Middle East? Isn't it, afterall, possible to feel especially fascinated by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, feel obligated to resolve it, believe that it should not be difficult to solve given the public parameters, and not believe it is linked to all other conflicts in the Middle East?
What links together the conflicts in the Middle East? Isn't it, afterall, possible to feel especially fascinated by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, feel obligated to resolve it, believe that it should not be difficult to solve given the public parameters, and not believe it is linked to all other conflicts in the Middle East?
Submitted by Brodsky on Mon, 06/16/2008 - 11:42
For some reason when the West discusses the Middle East all conflicts are seen as linked together so that the resolution of one will ease the prospects for reconciliation for another. Conversely, one conflict that remains unresolved inhibits the solution of another. This thinking gave birth to the 1990s idea of "Comprehensive Peace." That is an all-encompassing peace that satisfies all parties.
Of course, each Middle Eastern state or actor has a different set of interests so the theory of a comprehensive peace means that specific people or governments will be representing the "greater interest." This is problematic because what is good for the Syrians is not necessarily good for the Palestinians, and the Iranians share a different worldview from Iraq, and so on.
For some reason when the West discusses the Middle East all conflicts are seen as linked together so that the resolution of one will ease the prospects for reconciliation for another. Conversely, one conflict that remains unresolved inhibits the solution of another. This thinking gave birth to the 1990s idea of "Comprehensive Peace." That is an all-encompassing peace that satisfies all parties. Of course, each Middle Eastern state or actor has a different set of interests so the theory of a comprehensive peace means that specific people or governments will be representing the "greater interest." This is problematic because what is good for the Syrians is not necessarily good for the Palestinians, and the Iranians share a different worldview from Iraq, and so on.
Submitted by Brodsky on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 11:49
The May 26, 2008 edition of "The Nation" dedicates the cover to "Reflections on the 60th Anniversary of the Founding of Israel." Here, again, one of the masters of selective focus, Avi Shlaim, penned his article, "A Somber Anniversary."
Like Benny Morris, Shlaim became famous as one of the founding fathers of the New Historians and Revisionist authors. However, their journeys of late have been mirror opposites. Morris began on the left and has now fallen off the deep end on the right with his political views; Shlaim began on the left and has continued his race to the margins of the left.
The May 26, 2008 edition of "The Nation" dedicates the cover to "Reflections on the 60th Anniversary of the Founding of Israel." Here, again, one of the masters of selective focus, Avi Shlaim, penned his article, "A Somber Anniversary."Like Benny Morris, Shlaim became famous as one of the founding fathers of the New Historians and Revisionist authors. However, their journeys of late have been mirror opposites. Morris began on the left and has now fallen off the deep end on the right with his political views; Shlaim began on the left and has continued his race to the margins of the left.
Submitted by Brodsky on Sun, 05/11/2008 - 21:08
This article is in response to Fedwa Wazwaz's Op-Ed piece, "Israel's 60th is not a reason for celebration," published in Minneapolis's Star Tribune on Saturday, May 10, 2008.
Wazwaz began her piece on why Israelis and Jews should not celebrate Israel’s 60th year of existence by quoting a letter published by British Jews in the Guardian. The small group who are wracked with guilt over the plight of the Palestinians turn to the writing of the late, Edward Said, who emphasized that “what the Holocaust is to the Jews, the Naqba [Catastrophe] is to the Palestinians.” True, Said delighted in this comparison and while there can be no doubt that Palestinians have suffered by the hands of Israelis and Arabs alike, such a statement requires no deep analysis to reveal its absurdity.
This article is in response to Fedwa Wazwaz's Op-Ed piece, "Israel's 60th is not a reason for celebration," published in Minneapolis's Star Tribune on Saturday, May 10, 2008. With great sadness I read Fedwa Wazwaz’s opinion piece on Saturday, May 10 entitled “Israel’s 60th is not a reason for celebration.” Sadder still is that she leads a program to foster dialogue and understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims. Her article moves the Palestinian cause backwards, not forwards.
Wazwaz began her piece on why Israelis and Jews should not celebrate Israel’s 60th year of existence by quoting a letter published by British Jews in the Guardian. The small group who are wracked with guilt over the plight of the Palestinians turn to the writing of the late, Edward Said, who emphasized that “what the Holocaust is to the Jews, the Naqba [Catastrophe] is to the Palestinians.” True, Said delighted in this comparison and while there can be no doubt that Palestinians have suffered by the hands of Israelis and Arabs alike, such a statement requires no deep analysis to reveal its absurdity.
The Revisionists and New Historians
The central failing of the new historians is the removal of historical context and their selective focus. It's easy to look back on 1948 in 1988 and claim that Jewish victory was assured; however, at the time, the future was far from clear and neither the Israelis, nor the Arabs held a crystal ball. Avi Shlaim presented a similar view in his 1988 book, Collusion Across the Jordan, where there was a war in 1948 between the Yishuv, the British, and the Jordanians.[17] There were no other actors. Israel and Jordan colluded with one another with British help - never mind the fact that the most difficult and protracted battles of the war that yielded the most military casualties occurred between the Israelis and Jordan's Arab Legion.
Unlike Morris who demonstrated a consistent internal identity struggle, Shlaim is a master of context removal and selective focus - the only villains are Israel and the West. In the introduction to Collusion, Shlaim explains (p. 4), "Jewish immigration and settlement could not take place without the consent of the country's Arab owners, and this consent was emphatically denied." Yet, in Palestinian Identity, Rashid Khalidi quotes Kenneth Stein, and comes to the following conclusion: "There can be little doubt that under the kind of economic pressure combined with financial inducements that Stein describes, Palestinian landlords, both absentee and resident as well as fellahin cultivators, often sold land."[18] Shlaim simply ignores the fact that the Arab land owners sold land to Zionists, which accounted for the bulk of Zionist land purchases prior to 1948.
The Revisionists and New Historians
The Birth Revisited is nearly twice as long as the original and had the additional benefit of new documents made available in the Israel Defense Forces Archives. Like his first book, The Birth Revisited lays out an impressive indictment against Israel and once again, in the conclusions, one wonders if they were guided by the preceding hundreds of pages of evidence he offered.
In the introduction to The Birth, Morris clearly states: "It cannot be stressed too strongly that, while this is not a military history, the events it describes - cumulatively amounting to the Palestinian Arab exodus - occurred in wartime and were a product, direct and indirect, of that war."[14] From that point forward, the book concentrates on Israeli actions, loses the context of war, and proceeds to quote and misquote Ben Gurion enough to give the reader the belief that Ben Gurion was a cold-hearted, deliberate, and life-long planner of ethnic cleansing.[15] In his conclusions, he begins by restating that the refugee problem was a product of war and not by design. However, there are some subtle and important differences between the two sets of conclusions. The following are the two opening paragraphs:
From Camp David to Taba, 2000-01: Narratives, Red Lines, Justice, and Mythology
Itamar Rabinovich offers a new paradigm by separating the accounts of what happened into four categories: orthodox, revisionist, deterministic, and eclectic.[18] The "orthodox" group is detail-oriented and lays the blame squarely on Arafat's shoulders. This was the most widely propagated version of events in the wake of the peace process. It holds that Barak made an unprecedented offer, Arafat rejected it and instead opted for violence. Ehud Barak, Bill Clinton, Dennis Ross, and Shlomo Ben-Ami are his examples. This group was later joined by Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan who revealed in a 2003 interview that Arafat's decision not to accept the 23 December Clinton Parameters was not only a tragedy for the Palestinians and the region, but a crime.[19]
