It’s time to shift gears, obey rule of international law, and move on
By David Cohen
thespec.com
January 19 2012
http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/656981–the-arab-israeli-dispute-can-be-settled
“Genug shoin!”
Roughly translated from the Yiddish: “Enough already!”
Depending on one’s point of view, the Arab-Israeli conflict has been going on since 1967, or 1948, or the 1930s. Or, some might argue, back to the late 19th Century.
“Genug!”
There is a way to end the conflict. Let’s do it. Time to move on.
Norman Finkelstein, a scholar and author, spoke Jan. 11 at the University of Toronto to an overflow audience of about 300 people. His theme: moving the conflict “from current events to the history books.”
We have to “shift mental gears,” Finkelstein believes. Recent developments make this more than possible:
- The Arab Spring: Israel’s neighbours, notably Egypt, can be expected to take a more critical stance on Israel and its relations with the Palestinians.
- Israel’s stock in world opinion has dropped “precipitately” over the past 10 years.
- Turkey, once Israel’s solid ally, has turned sharply critical of the Jewish state in the wake of the 2010 Mavi Marmara ship incident and other conflicts between the two counties.
- U.S. Jews remain overwhelmingly liberal and thus support the rule of law. Young American Jews, especially, have been increasingly critical of Israel.
The two-state solution remains viable because it is the law — international law. It has the solid support of the UN, the International Court of Justice, the Quartet, the United States and virtually all democracies worldwide (including Canada). It’s also supported by the Palestinian authority, Hamas and even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Contrary to what we often hear, there is nothing controversial about how to settle the main items in the dispute: borders, Jerusalem, settlers, refugees.
But how can it be done? Surely it is not possible to move some 500,000 settlers from the West Bank?
Answer: It can be done. A large majority of the settlers migrated to the West Bank for cheap housing. They will return to Israel proper if equal-quality housing is offered, Finkelstein says.
As for the settlements, they pose no real problem. They represent only about 1 per cent of the territory in the West Bank. A problem will arise, however, if Israel insists on keeping “settlement blocs.” They represent about 9 per cent of the territory. Crucial to a viable Palestinian state is the “triangle” of East Jerusalem, Ramalla and Bethlehem, which represents about 30 per cent of the Palestinian economy.
Which leaves the vexed question of refugees. Again, international law informs: “Palestinian refugees from 1948 and 1967 and succeeding generations have the right of return under international law as well as succeeding generations have the right to land,” says Finkelstein.
In sum, he says, there is no dispute about borders, Jerusalem, settlements and refugees under international law… “no controversy whatsoever.”
And it’s international law that should provide the starting point in the settling of the Arab-Israeli dispute. “People understand the language of the law,” Finkelstein says. “You can’t reach them if you cast the law aside.”
Which brings us to the “Mahatma.” Mahatma Gandhi.
Finkelstein is fascinated by the Indian leader who led his country to independence by standing up to the vaunted British Empire in the 1940s. A few years ago he made his way through the 100 volumes of the late Indian leader’s collected works.
Gandi was a curious combination: unbending correctness in his personal habits (no reading on the toilet!) and relations, but at the same time capable of compromise when it came to making difficult political decisions.
To achieve his political goal of ejecting the British from India he accepted the creation of Pakistan — in spite of the fact that he had long fought against partition of India.
“Gandhi understood the difference between a cult and a political movement,” says Finkelstein. “You can’t set the moral bar so high that it causes you to lose the larger public.”
There are some who say: Why focus on ’67 borders and the two-state solution? Why not go back to 1947 when the UN created a Palestinian state that would have had a greater amount of territory?
Answer: “That’s what the world agrees on…. That’s where politics is at now,” says Finkelstein. “You’ve go to start where people are at.”
“People understand the language of law. You can’t reach them if you cast the law aside.”
“Genug shoin!”
David Cohen is a Hamilton freelance writer and a member of the Hamilton Chapter of Independent Jewish Voices (Canada).
Thanks for your article, David.
I remain profoundly skeptical about the possibility of a two-state solution. Not only are the barriers to its realization enormous (something that Finkelstein simply ignores when repeats his call to invoke international law and enforce Palestinians’ right to return); in addition, there is no force on the Israeli political scene that’s even remotely interested in taking concrete steps in this direction. (I commend to you the following article on this very subject; see link.) Furthermore, the fact that there is what F refers to as an “international
consensus” means exactly what? Does this somehow confer ideological legitimacy on the idea or make the creation of two states a matter of pursuing international law?
I gather that you, yourself, are opposed to BDS. What concrete means do you think can and should be employed to realize the two-state solution (putting aside for the moment the practical difficulties in undoing the damage that Israel has done to the
West Bank and Gaza over the decades of its occupation)? And who is going to employ them?
Cheers,
Sid Shniad
http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/01/waiting-for-false-prophets-the-puzzling-matter-of-the-israeli-liberals/
Sid: Look, the barriers to the realization of any kind of change in Israel-Palestine ARE enormous. What Finkelstein is saying is that the various international legal provisions are in place. They need to be invoked and enforced. Like all laws — local, national or international. It will require political will heretofore not seen to make peace — real meaningful peace — break out. It will require above all leadership.
It seems to me what you are really saying is that you have no faith in international law. That’s a defensible position. But in this case, we are dealing with a situation that has been in the international arena since the late 1940s. All kinds of international bodies have weighed in on Is-Pal and they all conclude that the way forward is a 2-state solution, ’67 borders, repatriation of refugees, etc. What has been missing is enforcement.
Should we shrug and say … oh well, international law. So what? Or should we be focusing on ways and means of enforcement?
And should we shug off the changes occurring in Israel’s very midst? Especially, a new regime in Egypt? Turkey’s recent diplomatic offensive against Israel? Etc.
BDS: I am not opposed to BDS. But is it having the impact you hoped for? Has BDS brought the Israeli economy to its knees? Will it? When? By all means, BDS. But, equally by all means, the enforcement of international law.
NF does not invoke Ghandhi for the the fun of it. Ghandhi was great because he knew when compromise was needed. He was detested and he paid with his life political decisions. But he ended British rule of India. That’s political courage, and it’s needed now in the ME.
d
Hi, David. It seems to me that the relevance of international law to the conflict in Israel and Palestine lies in the fact that Israel and its supporters are disdainful of it as relevant to Israel and its behaviour. Far from embracing international law, aggressive defenders of Israel-right-or-wrong like Irwin Cotler have coined the term “lawfare” to characterize what they deem to be a misguided or bad faith attempt to “delegitimize” Israel. Some have gone so far as to argue that the very attempt to characterize Israeli actions as criminal are anti-Semitic.
Rather than invoking the motherhood argument about international law and what Finkelstein describes as the international consensus behind it, I believe we must be looking at facts on the ground. There we see the international community studiously refusing to take action in response to Israel’s never-ending flaunting of international law through its ceaseless expansion of settlements, collective punishment of Palestinians, attacks on civilians, etc.
Israel’s continuing actions have created such a negative situation that the European Union recently took the extraordinary step of declaring that it is losing faith in the possibility of creating a Palestinian state. In a recent report, the EU argues that the unceasing growth of Israeli settlement in the West Bank, together with limits on Palestinian freedom of movement and ever-expanding barriers to Palestinian construction are eroding any possibility of creating a Palestinian state.
In the words of the EU report, “The window for a two-state solution is rapidly closing with the continued expansion of Israeli settlements and access restrictions for Palestinians in Area C.”
This follows the release of an unprecedented report by the EU ambassadors to Israel from Britain, France, Germany and Portugal which voiced concern about Israel’s treatment of its Palestinian minority.
Rather than respond to the substance of this criticism, the Israeli foreign ministry released an angry statement saying that those European states risked making themselves “irrelevant.” Going even further, an unnamed Israeli official declared that the ambassadors’ criticism amounted to “plac[ing] themselves at the service of the Palestinian political and propaganda struggle.”
In my view, the invocation of international law under such circumstances amounts to a pipe dream. What is needed in this situation is serious action on the part of the EU, the US and the UN designed to alter Israel behaviour.