well yes matt i do think you’re being a little naive with your suggestion that israel should relax its security measures and completely open up its borders with gaza and the west bank – not incidentally becaue i enjoy seeing ordinary palestinians suffer as a result as i certainly dont! But because im sure that in no time at all hamas would re-commence its policy of sending suicide bombers into israel to kill more innocent peoplel. Cue more retaliatory measures from israel and more innocent palestinian deaths as a consequence!

Aside from its fascistic ideology that is one of my chief criticisms of hamas – it does not care one iota for the sufferings of ordinary palestinians that result from its actions! Hopefully in time palestinians in gaza will come to realise that hamas are a nihilistic dead end and seek an alternative political leadership – that’s why of course hamas is doing its level best to exterminate any opposition to it in gaza!

But i think you make a good point with regard to the constructive role played by the Truth and reconcilliation committees in south africa – in that they probablly helped avert a horrific civil war in south africa! Of course to be effective there had to be an awful lot of forgivenes on all sides, and if truth be told there probably isnt a lot of that between israelis and the palestinians right now. But yes of course in the long run people will have to talk to one another if there is to be lasting peace between israel and what i hope would be a viable sovereign palestinian state.But im afraid i just dont see it happening while hamas are around to wreak their murderous havoc..

I’ve not read Kovel, but are you saying that Derek Wall doesn’t have the right to air Kovel’s views? (note that Derek is sympathetic to Kovel due to their strong agreement on ecosocialist principles, and Derek notes that he doesn’t necessarily agree with all Kovel says).

From what I can see from a quick reading of his arguments (http://www.joelkovel.org/newreadings.html#ttwz), most of what Kovel raises seems within the bounds of fair debate, even if you don’t agree with what he says; the problem comes with his rhetoric, which is bound to inflame things. He takes the argument very personally, having been raised to believe in Zionism. It seems to me that he fails to distinguish between Jewish nationalism per se (aka Zionism) and *exclusive* Jewish nationalism (which is racist). This distinction is important – it is the difference that makes the SNP and Plaid Cymru acceptable, and the BNP not (*exclusive* British nationalism, i.e. racist). He is prone to hyperbole, but he doesn’t seem to be so beyond the pale that he deserves censoring or banning (as did happen).

I don’t like Kovel suggesting that Zionism equates to anti-semitism (something I think Atzom also argues?). I can see the point about extreme Zionism and external anti-semitism both leading to the concentration of the Diaspora in Israel, but I don’t think the point is really correct, or that the suggestion is at all helpful.

Mira, you’re definitely right about the need to pursue joint processes. This is certainly preferable to a boycott. With regard to boycotts, I was just reading about the boycott of South Africa and the apartheid era. The Wikipedia article seems quite comprehensive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa_in_the_apartheid_era

I realise that comparisons to South Africa tend to polarise things, but let me try to draw what I hope are some helpful analogies.

The boycott of South Africa was one of the contributing factors in leading the NP to negotiate with the ANC, with the value of the Rand collapsing. What was more notable was the ANC’s campaign to make the townships ungovernable. This wasn’t peaceful – it was brutal. The ANC and the Pan-African Congress also carried out bombings; today the ANC is viewed as being freedom fighters. Following the South African example isn’t quite as rosy as it may seem to some. Do we really want to provoke economic collapse and major unrest?

What I think is instructive is how the end of apartheid came about. White South Africa was incredibly concerned at being over-run by the Black majority, and they had even gone to the extent of gaining nuclear technology from Israel. Nevertheless, in 1990 De Klerk unilaterally withdrew apartheid laws, unbanned the ANC etc., freed Mandela from jail and dismantled their nuclear weapons. This was an amazingly brave move, and it paid off. There was violence, rioting, bombings, massacres, but a democratic and united South Africa did result. Unilateral actions from Israel, such as opening settler-only roads and removing the blockade of Gaza, could achieve a similar result. Hell, throw open the borders with Gaza and the West Bank – I don’t imagine that there would be a bed of roses, but the sea of popular support in which Hamas swims would surely surge away from them. Cue Leigh attacking me for fantasies again…

There is another parallel, namely the involvement in cross-border military actions. South Africa had invaded Namibia, but by 1988 had been basically defeated by the Cuban-backed army. Nelson Mandela recognised the importance of this defeat in the dismantling of apartheid. A similar loss of confidence in the military of Israel has been seen after the Lebanon war – the war failed to accomplish either of its objectives (recover the hostages, and remove Hizbollah from southern Lebanon), and probably only strengthened Hizbollah.

Something else to take from the South African experience would be Truth and Reconciliation committees – these could be started now by civil groups and NGOs (maybe some already exist?), without needing to wait for a negotiated settlement.

Israel’s status as a flawed democracy relates to its occupation rather than what is going on within its borders. Occupied Palestinians are non-citizens of the country which controls so much of their existence – the difference between the OPTs and the situation for ethnically similar Arab (or Palestinian – however they wish to self-define) Israelis within Israel’s borders is stark, but it is significant to how we perceive Israel. Within Israel’s borders, Freedom House says Israel’s citizens (all social groups) are free. Incredibly Israel (again, excluding the OPTs) is less of a surveillance society than the UK according to a recent Privacy International report, too. So we have a society whose admirable human rights aspirations (as ratified in its Declaration of Independence and in its laws) have been partly subordinated to a security-minded occupation. There are certainly some supremacist and expansionist voices amongst Israeli Jews. But yes, thankfully the Kahanists (of Kach) are relegated to the fringes. Moledet is miniscule, long may that last. They don’t have any other policies than ultra-nationalist ones. The fact that they have never had more than 3 seats in the Knesset is a clear indication that they are marginal (not to take this for granted – the far right is always a threat, witness the London elections).

There is plenty of work ongoing to support Palestinian rights, and maintream British parties should be supporting this in turn. For example, there’s a joint Palestinian-Israeli report on the impact of movement restrictions between Israel and the Palestinian authority, with recommendations for the immediate dismantlement of key checkpoints which are disrupting the Palestinian economy. I can’t assess the report, but surely this is the kind of progressive and – importantly – joint process we should be supporting. It’s not as easy or populist as a boycott campaign, sure – it requires some stamina to follow and evaluate this stuff. But if a political party doesn’t have stamina, or expertise, to undertake responsible involvement in the conflicts it has policy on, maybe it should have some humility and bow out.

Yes, Israel does seem like Italy – as ever I’m no expert but the recent Economist special report on Israel at 60 was a good balance against the vehement and selective anti-Zionist stuff which dominates (at least in my circles – e.g. Derek Wall airing the views of Joel Kovel on Socialist Unity) at the moment. Israel’s simple proportional representation system pushes politicians to undertake coalition building, cultivating the support of other politicians instead of engaging with their electorate. There are many parties in the Israeli government, and the most extreme members of each coalition wield disproportionate power. This is how Shas came to muscle through a resumption of settlement activity after the Mercaz HaRav bombing.

Matt, it is also the responsibility of the people I am debating with to recognise that I am not a mere shill for Israel. That people who are thought or known to be Jewish are assumed to have secret allegiance to universal Jewry or, latterly, Israel, is an age-old antisemitic trope. That is a proper ad hominem and I do not have to take responsibility for it.

You say that Israel is ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’. This is stated quite often, but I think it would be fair to include Turkey and Lebanon as democracies, however flawed they might be.

The Economist’s Democracy Index ranked countries thus for 2007
(the score is out of 10, I’ve included some countries for comparison):
#1 Sweden 9.88 Functioning democracy
#17 United States 8.22 Functioning democracy
#23 United Kingdom 8.08 Functioning democracy
#24 France 8.07 Functioning democracy
#25 Mauritius 8.04 Functioning democracy
#30 South Africa 7.91 Flawed democracy
#34 Italy 7.73 Flawed democracy
#35 India 7.68 Flawed democracy
#36 Botswana 7.60 Flawed democracy
#36 Cyprus 7.60 Flawed democracy
#45 Jamaica 7.34 Flawed democracy
#46 Poland 7.30 Flawed democracy
#47 Israel 7.28 Flawed democracy
#48 Trinidad & Tobago 7.18 Flawed democracy
#79 Palestine 6.01 Flawed democracy
#85 Lebanon 5.82 Hybrid regime
#88 Turkey 5.70 Hybrid regime
#102 Russia 5.02 Hybrid regime

Israel is not so far up the rankings, and certainly isn’t in the hailed ‘Western democracy club’. Looking at this plethora of political parties, it does seem quite like Italy!
http://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionListAll_eng.asp

Of course, plenty of the other countries in the Middle East are authoritarian; only Lebanon and Turkey make into into the democracies (i.e. Functioning democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime). You can see more comparisons here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indices_of_freedom

I think that this article from the Guardian is quite well balanced, and captures the difficulties with the present state of Israel: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/20/israelandthepalestinians

I’m sure some Palestinians, especially those in Hamas, would love to drive the Jewish state into the sea. There are those in Israel who would equally love to carry out Transfer: moving the populations of Gaza and the West Bank into Egypt and Jordan, respectively.

For example, “This study examined the extent to which Israeli-Jews’ beliefs about ingroup vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness are linked to extreme policy preferences in the context of the intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a phone survey of a representative sample (N = 504), stronger beliefs in all domains except for helplessness predicted greater support for the morally problematic transfer of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza to neighboring Arab countries compared to alternative policies highlighting territorial compromise.” Maoz and Eidelson: American Behavioral Scientist 2007, 50: 1476-1497

And the right-wing party Moledet says:
* Israel should forever retain control of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District. Furthermore, there should be a complete annexation of these areas to Israel.
* The State of Israel will relocate the Arab refugees of Judea, Samaria and Gaza under an international agreement and/or in accordance with their wishes, to other Arab countries and toany other country that will accept them.
* Moledet firmly believes in promoting settlement activity. Furthermore, Moledet strongly believes in the exercise of full Israeli control over these areas and a complete cessation of Arab rule.
* Work permits for palestinian Arabs within Israel should be ceased. This is entirely due to security reasons. Additionally, this will encourage them to immigrate to other countries.

Fortunately Kach, who proposed transfer by force and carried out bombings, was banned in the 1990s, and is now listed as a terrorist group by the US.

Also, Green Party policies don’t have to focus on being ‘environmentally friendly’. We’re not just the single-issue party we’re painted as. Tzimisces, please read our policies on our website.

Mira, of course you get fed up of people saying “Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you?”. As this is such a common response, you need to take care to ensure that you aren’t seen as a mere shill for Israel – and you’ve been doing a fairly good job in this thread! Tiresome, but necessary.

To highlight a point I raised in my last (tl;dr) comment, the fact that this post strays from the purpose of this blog risks alienating people who would otherwise be supportive. There may be a place for criticising associating with the BMI, but I don’t think this is it. Otherwise, you’d best change the title to “Greens Against Critics of Israel”, and that’s not your intention at all.

I need to add a caveat to my opposition to a boycott – I oppose an academic and cultural boycott. I will still avoid buying agricultural produce labelled ‘Israel’, because this can include produce grown in illegal settlements in the West Bank and on land seized by the building of the separation wall. Is there a fair trade scheme in Israel that takes account of this concern?

Mira, you note that the debate is “often in a historical near-vacuum”. To judge by the tennis match with Ian above, an ahistorical approach concentrating on the current situation might be better than digging up quotes from people long-dead. Godwin’s Law, which I mentioned above, is that “as a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one”. We’re racking up the comparisons at quite a rate on this thread.

Raphael, I stayed clear of contributing to the previous email debate because it spiralled out of control too quickly. I’m not obsessed with Israel/Palestine, and didn’t fancy getting sucked into that morass. Against my better judgement, I stuck my oar in this time.

Perhaps this will help him discover what a deeply loathesome murderous organisation he is cheerleading for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Further the independent organisation human rights watch has stated that since coming to power in gaza in 2006 hamas has conducted a campaign of murder, torture and intimidation of political opponents and journalists.

Iit has condoned the deplorable murders of women in gaza taking place under the guise of so called ‘honour killings. It has abused funds desperately needed by the people of gaza to purchase rockets from iran – which it fires at residential areas of israel on a daily basis! Of course when carrying out these acts of terror the ‘brave’ hamas fighters fire from heavily populated areas of gaza so hoping a response from israeli forces will bring about civilian casualties among the civilian palestinian population, such is the contempt hamas has for ordinary palestinians!

Further he is living in a political cloud cuckoo land if he imagines that hamas would be willing to live side by side with israel’s jews in what he calls a ‘bi-national’ state’. The intentions of the holocaust denying hamas – and its iranian financiers – are crystal clear to anyone who takes the time to read any of their pronouncements or study any of their murderous actions – it wishes to bring about the physical destruction of the state of israel and its replacement with a fundamentalist islamic state. It’s aims are genocidal or does the physical obliteration of israel’s jews not count as genocide?

And Ian seriously expects the only democratic state in the middle east to ‘negotiate’ with a gang of thugs and murderers like this like this?

In the word of one of wimbledon’s greatest champions ‘you cannot be serious?’

But to address Tzimisces question. 1:10pm

The quote used was from Matt’s contribution.

“think that the best solution to the whole mess would be one state with Jews living side-by-side with Arabs, Christians etc.”

However, he does go on to say:

“I have enough of a grasp on reality to know that the only real viable option now is a two state solution.”

Sometimes “best” gets in the way of “better” and to his credit Matt has recognised that.

It could be resolved by negotiation, but only if the Israeli side abandoned the idea of a Jewish state in favour of a bi-national state, one where Jews and Palestininan Arabs could freely intermingle and the state would be committed to uphold the rights of both peoples to live there with equal rights, practice their religion (or none) and all that implies.

It would not be a massive leap for Palestinians, either of the secular or even Islamist persuasion, to accept that – there are considerable elements of Islamic thought and history that could countenance/support such a compromise, despite some of the fiery rhetoric one gets from Hamas people (and once upon a time, secular radicals) in response usually to the latest piece of belligerence (or worse) from Israeli governments. But it would be a massive change for Israel, from the ideology of the ‘Jewish state’ – I don’t see that change coming easily or soon and that is the real obstacle to a negotiated solution.