I reject the idea that this is a conflict between simply Arabs and Jews, Jews and Muslims, Israelis and Palestinians, or Israelis and Arabs. It puts an infinitely diverse array of opinions into two simplistic camps. But this is natural because it's really easy to immediately label Khalidi and Rubin as members of different groups. But Arab and Jew are not opposites.
With this in mind, I do identify Khalidi and Rubin with certain political or religious groups with different conceptual frameworks of complicated topics. It's only natural, as soon as you look at the names "Rubin" and "Khalidi" you think Jew and Muslim. It's also only natural for me to be completely pissed off with Khalidi's article because of my own biases and inclinations. He brings up a lot of ideas and explains them within his own viewpoints. Case in point: Resolution 242. Khalidi says that Israel must withdraw from East Jerusalem, pursuant to this Security Council resolution "stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." This basically paints Israel as the aggressor in the War of 1967. I don't see this as historically accurate, you can disagree, let's talk about it.
What Khalidi does NOT include in his analysis of Res. 242 is that it also demands the "termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." In my eyes, the war was started by Israel because she was facing an existential threat from all of her neighbors who refused to accept her existence for almost 20 years. The bellicose rhetoric of Egyptian and Syrian leaders about the destruction of Israel are in the public record. Why doesn't any pro-Palestinian author, like Khalidi, cite this piece of Resolution 242? For the same reasons that Israeli supporters never quote the clause about the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war: because they do not fit either of the other groups' agendas.
I honestly can't say I learned much from either the Dumper, Khalidi, or Rubin articles. I'm not going to sit here and claim I know everything, but I also cannot say that I'm completely ignorant about Jerusalem because Israel is a part of who I am. I've been forced to obsessively study her history in order to effectively advocate. I'm not close minded, I read all sorts of crap. These types of articles, like I said in class, frustrate me because they try to be about EVERYTHING while succeeding at explaining NOTHING. C'est la vie.
2 comments:
I also read the person's blog with the Arab vs. Jew comparison, however, I pretty much overlooked what this represents as I was reading it. I think you make a good point about people pitting one side against the other when really that's not what it's all about.
I think you identify some fundamental elements, often absent from debate in this conflict: context and due explanation. Opinions formed in a vaccuum are necessarily myopic and are dangerous and immoral. We can nuance the discussion by probing further and making our best attempt
to reconcile ostensibly conflicting ideas.
A paradigmatic example is the issue - one of many pertaining to Resolution 242 - that Ben discusses. I categorically disagree with the claim that
the Six Day War was "started by Israel." In fact, it was not.
Ben aptly notes that Israel faced an existential threat in late May 1967 - 250,000 Arab troops along its borders make this conclusion inevitable. Public declarations and calls for the destruction of Israel by neighboring Arab nations made this threat all the more palpable and realistic. However, the casus belli and first act of war in 1967 was committed by Nasser when he closed the Straits of Tiran, preventing peaceful Israeli maritime passage through the waterway. Any doubt as to the illegality of the blockade is dispelled by this actions' violation of the 1957 UN agreement affirming Israel's right to transit through the area as well as the 1958 UN Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone.
This information is integral in examining Resolution 242. As a supporter of Israel, I will refuse to acquiesce in Ben's assumption that I would not quote the clause of 242, which cites the inadmissability of acquiring territory by war. International law makes a clear distinction between land acquired by force and that which is controlled as a result of a defensive war, the latter - the type of war waged by Israel - being permissible.
Despite the legal basis for the "occupation" of Arab lands post-bellum, Israel was willing to relinquish territory in return for a lasting peace. In accordance with the clause cited by Ben, Israel clearly desired the "termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." And further, Israel, as opposed to the Arab belligerents, accepted 242, which also required the return of territories acquired during the war.
Conspicuously, and understandably absent is the word "all," which, as the UN powers recognized, would preclude Israel from securing boundaries free from threats or acts of force. But with the armed forces of its vanquished Arab neighbors decimated, was it unreasonable for Israel to retain land acquired during the war? No, it was not. The August 1967 summit of Arab nations in Khartoum,
at which Israel's existence was unanimously opposed should suffice in substantiating this answer.
Post a Comment