David Remnick seems insightful here on the 40th anniversary of the 6 Days War.
« At Last | Main | Leslie Southwick »
40 Years Later
05 Jun 2007 07:51 am
Comments (13)
Tony Karon's article on the "Six-Day War" over at his site is a brilliant piece of history, analysis, and personal narrative.
Yeah, Matt, your HTML is missing an 'f'. Usually your typos don't take links as casualties.
Sigh.
I see many continue to chase the "peace process" in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis meme. To that, I have only three questions.
1) Do you know what the Dome of the Rock is?
2) Do you know where it is?
3) Do you know what used to be there?
Sarcasm is not the intent of the preceding, starkness is.
The religious aspect of their quarrel renders conventional means of negotiating (when that doesn't kill those who try) all but impotent.
In this post, I reluctantly conclude that the problem is intractable given religion... unless Israel consents to the end of its nationhood.
To that end, the Six Day War ensured the continuation of Israeli sovereignty. If other Arab states conducted themselves better and genuinely provided some real positives to the world for the first time in several hundred years, maybe then Israel is not necessary.
The solution will inevitably result in the dismemberment of Israel, whether this takes a long time or a short one is the only point of doubt.
I think we could have a reasoned debate as to whether the existence of Israel inhibits US national security and whether we should renounce the firmness of the long dead Missourian.
Yet this persistence in believing a "solution" is possible has grated on my nerves. Once enough Palestinians are housed within Israeli borders, they will eventually vote to end anything resembling the Jewish state. In this sense, unlike '67, the act to defeat Israel would prove carried out in a legal manner.
But we should not delude ourselves into believing that a true "peace" is possible without near-full Israeli capitulation.
To that end, the Six Day War ensured the continuation of Israeli sovereignty.
As Karon points out, it did so at the cost of the creation of a de facto apartheid state. Palestine's economy could not possibly handle the waves of refugees and being pushed off almost all the best land in the region, and then Israel made the continuing annexation of nominally Palestinian land into national policy - the settler program puts the lie to the notion that the West Bank is any more sovereign than a colony.
Israeli sovereignty, due the inescapable facts on the ground, is built on the backs of mass deportation of Arabs and apartheid segregation of Arabs following hte deportation. It's a formula for unending war until the Israelis accept that the status quo is morally unacceptable. I don't know if that will ever happen, and I don't have any clue how to make it happen, but the facts as they are now are facts of mass injustice and mass human suffering.
I agree the present situation is morally unacceptable, though, again, Palestinian leaders and their benefactors could do no more valuable service for their cause then finding a way of ONLY acting out in the UN or other international organizations. Their credibility would not come into question; they would begin to get what they wanted.
I would also agree continuing annexation made the problem worse. Yet, I still submit the chief problem revolves around the city of Jerusalem, and what it means to persons of each faith.
I agree with Remnick that blowing up the Dome of the Rock would've been a terrible idea, but for this "peace" to take hold, wouldn't Israelis have to forget about Solomon's Temple?
I agree the present situation is morally unacceptable, though, again, Palestinian leaders and their benefactors could do no more valuable service for their cause then finding a way of ONLY acting out in the UN or other international organizations. Their credibility would not come into question; they would begin to get what they wanted.
Would they? Would the settlers be forcibly removed from legally Palestinian lands? I can't blame the Palestinians for being deeply skeptical that the Israelis would choose to honor the sovereignty of the West Bank if the Arabs simply stopped fighting. There wasn't much fighting in between the intifadas, and the settler program was inexorable, never rolled back. Israel does not view the West Bank or Gaza as sovereign. They view them as quasi-colonies or quasi-bantustans.
The problem is that the only way to change this is to either remove the settlers or place them under the sovereign control of Palestinian authorities.
I guess I'd like to believe that the Palestinians would get their state back if they stopped fighting, and I'd like to believe that Israel would end their de facto apartheid rule of Palestinian territory, but I don't see how any of it happens. Asking the Palestinians to withdraw the first stone doesn't seem particularly realistic.
Ending their own civil war might help along the cause. No one is seen as a greater underdog in all the world than a Palestinian, one would think they could easily take advantage of that. The pressure on Israel would become very intense, even perhaps from the US. In other words, don't merely withdraw the first stone, launch an intensive PR campaign (they're quite good at that) which puts unrelenting pressure on the Israeli government.
In any event, I would expect to see the collapse of Israel in my lifetime; whether its Palestinian successor could operate better is an open question.
I agree with Remnick that blowing up the Dome of the Rock would've been a terrible idea, but for this "peace" to take hold, wouldn't Israelis have to forget about Solomon's Temple?
The movement to build the 3rd Temple has and will remain fringe in Israel. (The more troublesome phenomena is that of fundamentalist Christians seeking to speed the Second Coming - there are even cattle ranchers in Texas attempting to breed the perfect red heifer for renewed sacrificies.)
While vast majorities of Israelis support retaining the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall as the historical and spiritual epicenter of the Jewish people, they also support preserving the status quo of the Islamic holy sites on the Temple Mount.
Compromise on Jerusalem is difficult, but not impossible if all of the other issues - borders, refugees and control of Palestinian rejectionist violence are settled.
Would they? Would the settlers be forcibly removed from legally Palestinian lands?
Settlers were already forcibly removed from Gaza and 4 West Bank settlements. Olmert and Kadima were elected on a platform of removing additional settlements. Support for continuing this program evaporated last summer in the wake of the Qassam and Katyusha barrages launched from lands Israel voluntarily withdrew from. There is still a constituency for further dismantlement of settlements - but there needs to be reassurance that the vacated settlements won't become new launching pads.
"If other Arab states conducted themselves better and genuinely provided some real positives to the world for the first time in several hundred years, maybe then Israel is not necessary."
Huh? What does this mean?
America should cut off foreign aid to Egypt (a not insubstantial amount) they democratize. We should cut off foreign aid to Israel (a not insubstantial amount) until it makes real strides towards a two-state solution.
First off it's the right thing to do. Secondly, it would make the U.S. look more fair and just to the Arab world.
We should tell the Iranian mullahs that if they nuke Israel - or rather if they appear to be getting ready to - it is they who will be wiped off the map a la Hiroshima/Nagasaki, i.e. we've done it before.
I'm tired of my taxes going to Zionist religious nuts.
"If other Arab states conducted themselves better and genuinely provided some real positives to the world for the first time in several hundred years, maybe then Israel is not necessary."
Huh? What does this mean?
America should cut off foreign aid to Egypt (a not insubstantial amount) they democratize. We should cut off foreign aid to Israel (a not insubstantial amount) until it makes real strides towards a two-state solution.
First off it's the right thing to do. Secondly, it would make the U.S. look more fair and just to the Arab world.
We should tell the Iranian mullahs that if they nuke Israel - or rather if they appear to be getting ready to - it is they who will be wiped off the map a la Hiroshima/Nagasaki, i.e. we've done it before.
I'm tired of my taxes going to Zionist religious nuts.
Um...no. Segev--a journalist, not a historian--didn't use ANY Arabic sources, and it prevented him from seeing the intentions of the Arab states. Segev's attempt at heterodox showmanship is shallow. Remnick is usually sharper.
Comments closed June 19, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
THE LINK TO THE REMNICK ARTICLE IS BROKEN.
Posted by LINK NOT WORKING | June 5, 2007 8:30 AM