FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Myth of Impasse

“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains at in impasse.” However weary this phrase has become over the years, it often seems to be the only incontestable claim we can assert in a context where all claims are intensely and passionately contested. Progress toward peace in the region, we are told routinely, has been yet again stymied by the actions (or inactions) of one or the other of the opposing sides, by a rocket launch from Gaza, a bombing raid from Israel, a roadside shooting in the West Bank, a house demolition in Jerusalem. For each step forward, a step back: stalemate. While we may react with outrage or empathy to such events, their overall effect is to deepen our sense of a region in stasis, trapped in a vicious circle of violence and counter violence.

Yet there is something profoundly distorted about the vision of Israel-Palestine seen through this lens. For while each action or reaction may be viewed as yet another obstacle in the way of an eventual accord between the opposing sides, they have nonetheless contributed to unmistakable and unwavering progress in at least one sense: the continuous and unabated transfer of land from one community to the other. Granted, there remains intense disagreement about how to characterize this process: its legality, the ethical claims marshaled in its defense or rejection, the morality of the methods and tactics employed along the way. But the process itself—the flow of land away from the control of one group and into the hands of the other—is uncontestable, a simple fact on the ground. This process has continued over the course of many decades, undeterred by stalemates or shifting political currents, under the Labor party as under Likud, under Arafat as under Mahmoud Abbas, before Hamas and after. While each new event on its own may appear contentious and indeterminate, add them up over the years—the legal and the illegal, the gentle and the brutal, the justified and the unjustified—and the result is a one-dimensional history of territorial expansion.

So last week, as has occurred on countless prior occasions, the municipal authorities in Jerusalem announced that they planned to raze 22 Palestinian homes, constructed illegally according to official statements, in order to build an archaeological theme park for tourists. How do we interpret such an announcement? Well, the defense minister, Ehud Barak, did criticize the timing of its release, and a spokesperson from the State Department did express concern that “this is expressly the kind of step that we think undermines trust.” Moreover, the Palestinians, at least a few of them, were not exactly working for peace: sporadic rocket-fire was still coming from Gaza into Israel, and just a couple of weeks earlier the Israeli Defense Forces had intercepted and killed “four Palestinian militants who were suspected by Israel of planning an attack by sea.” Seen in this context of these claims and counter-claims, violence and counter-violence, the announcement to raze the Palestinian homes falls off the radar, becoming one more gesture in the paralyzed world of Israeli-Palestinian political theater. However, relocate the announcement against the backdrop of the smooth and ceaseless process of land expropriation that has taken place over decades, and all ambiguity and paralysis dissolves.

When political analysts of the region have insisted on the importance of stepping back from the tit for tat of daily events in order to bring into the discussion this broader, more historical view, defenders of Israeli expansionist policies have usually responded in two ways. First, they have argued that the Palestinians themselves, by their refusal to accept the existence of Israel and give up violence, are to blame for whatever dispossession of lands they have suffered. By sabotaging each opportunity for peace put on the table by Israel, they argue, Palestinians bear the responsibility for their ever shrinking homeland. The claim that the victims of territorial expropriation deserve their plight due to their own treachery and aggression has a long historical pedigree. The dispossession of Native American lands by white colonists, for example, was justified on many occasions as an unavoidable consequence of the Natives’ refusal to remain within the generous territorial divisions allotted them, and by their continual recourse to violence and acts of terror against peaceful colonists. Today, from the vantage point of history, such claims appear only as window-dressing for brazen territorial conquest, and it is hard to think of any example where, with the hindsight of historical distance, we would not be led to a similar conclusion.

When pushed on this issue, defenders of Israeli settlement polices have often played what they see as their trump card: namely, that following the Holocaust, Jewish claims to a homeland have acquired the status of a moral absolute against which all other claims—those of the displaced Palestinians—are to be relegated to a backseat. While Palestinian loss and suffering, in accord with this vision, may be recognized, its cause is to be found not in the policies of the Israeli state but in the tragic structure of history, one which at times requires the sacrifice of one people to compensate for historical wrongs suffered by another. Needless to say, this argument takes us far from the nitty-gritty of political contestation and onto the smooth plane of historical determinisms, much as the notion of manifest destiny did in 19th century America and with similarly brutal consequences for those whose moral claims were made unrecognizable.

If we are to open up a space for a reasonable conversation on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then we cannot afford to ignore the single-most consequential event in the region since the foundation of Israel in 1948: the ceaseless and undisturbed expansion of Israeli territories, the relentless disappearance of Palestinian lands, houses, and fields. The problem is not impasse, but this endless, uni-directional passage of territory from community to the other.

CHARLES HIRSCHKIND is an associate professor of Anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley.

 

WORDS THAT STICK

?

 

More articles by:

January 16, 2019
Patrick Bond
Jim Yong Kim’s Mixed Messages to the World Bank and the World
John Grant
Joe Biden, Crime Fighter from Hell
Alvaro Huerta
Brief History Notes on Mexican Immigration to the U.S.
Kenneth Surin
A Great Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons
Elizabeth Henderson
Why Sustainable Agriculture Should Support a Green New Deal
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, Bolton and the Syrian Confusion
Jeff Mackler
Trump’s Syria Exit Tweet Provokes Washington Panic
Barbara Nimri Aziz
How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: When Just One Man Says, “No”
Cesar Chelala
Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden
Kim C. Domenico
To Make a Vineyard of the Curse: Fate, Fatalism and Freedom
Dave Lindorff
Criminalizing BDS Trashes Free Speech & Association
Thomas Knapp
Now More Than Ever, It’s Clear the FBI Must Go
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: The Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party: Part Two
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
Robert Fisk
The US Media has Lost One of Its Sanest Voices on Military Matters
Vijay Prashad
5.5 Million Women Build Their Wall
Nicky Reid
Lessons From Rojava
Ted Rall
Here is the Progressive Agenda
Robert Koehler
A Green Future is One Without War
Gary Leupp
The Chickens Come Home to Roost….in Northern Syria
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: “The Country Is Watching”
Sam Gordon
Who Are Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists?
Weekend Edition
January 11, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Richard Moser
Neoliberalism: Free Market Fundamentalism or Corporate Power?
Paul Street
Bordering on Fascism: Scholars Reflect on Dangerous Times
Joseph Majerle III – Matthew Stevenson
Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
How Tre Arrow Became America’s Most Wanted Environmental “Terrorist”
Andrew Levine
Dealbreakers: The Democrats, Trump and His Wall
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail