This “Alert” from the NY Times on the subject of Israel lists the following:
Hamas Turns Back 37 Gaza War Orphans From a Bridge-Building Trip to Israel
By ISABEL KERSHNER and MAJD AL WAHEIDI
Israeli and Palestinian officials had organized the visit for 37 children from Gaza as a way to promote peace and reconciliation, but the Hamas authorities turned them back at a border crossing.
Given the damage inflicted on Gaza by Israel last summer, and in past operations, this effort at a gesture by Israeli peace activists may be viewed as “too little, too late.” But the individual Israelis of the Kibbutz Movement were not responsible for the war. It says something about Hamas that it would reject a project that Gazans themselves were willing to participate in.
I will comment somewhat less stridently this time because my earlier comment on this was not posted.
Does Partners truly believe this single source of information, a NYT article, is sufficient to judge this initiative? Did Partners consider investigating any Palestinian sources or perspectives before pronouncing judgement? It seems not.
Can Partners please explain what larger useful purpose it would serve for 30 orphans to go on a brief Israeli-government approved tour of Israel while the Israeli government continues to lock 1.8 million Palestinians in the impoverished prison of the Gaza Strip? Will the trip by 30 orphans somehow contribute to freedom for Palestinians, or rather perhaps to Israeli self-congratulations and hasbara about what a humane, and morally superior country it is, helping to combat pressure for policy change? Does Partners feel any shame that the innocent children of those killed by the Israeli military would be used in this way?
When prisoners strike over their unjust imprisonment, is it “Partners” role to criticize them for not accepting a minor, temporary respite for a tiny group of prisoners?
Thank you,
Ted
Nobody can reasonably doubt that this story has been truthfully reported by two NY Times reporters, one each on the Israeli and Gaza sides of the line. What Ted complains about, as he does constantly, is that we don’t totally share his views.
What he ignores is that we do share many of his concerns. All he’d need to do is to go back and read our words in this post: “Given the damage inflicted on Gaza by Israel last summer, and in past operations, this effort at a gesture by Israeli peace activists may be viewed as ‘too little, too late’.”
Occasionally, Ted makes some valid points that enrich our discussions; more often, however, he simply vents his hostility against us. We probably tolerate his rants more than anyone else with our views would. But our patience is not endless.
Sadly Partners accepts NYT reporting at face value, seemingly lacking a willingness to critically examine it. And I guess Partners actually believes the NYT’s Palestinian stringer in Gaza is an equal “partner” in the reporting relationship. If you have one Israeli and one Palestinian things are fine, no need to look further at power relationships. Troubling what this may imply about “Partners” own conception of “Partnership” with Palestinians.
It is disturbing that Partners seems unaware of other very basic dynamics that should be taken into account by social justice movements, like skepticism of corporate media like the NYT that have too often shown themselves to be too close to, supportive of and reflective of the viewpoints of the powerful.
More specifically in this particular instance, Partners seems entirely unaware of research done by the Electronic Intifada about this planned trip. You may not agree with all the conclusions and analysis, but it is hard to deny that EI raised some very good questions: http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/revealed-gaza-orphans-israel-trip-was-government-backed-pr-stunt
Marshak did really say in Hebrew:
“There is only profit in this visit: the innocent children, who are rescued for a week from the closure and stress and get some days of holiday and a trip, and the State of Israel, which happens upon the opportunity to show the children against who and what their parents were fighting, and to gain points in the hostile world opinion,” Marshak told the Israeli publication Ynet.
“The trip was meant to show a positive face of Israel,” Haaretz also reported, citing Marshak.
Marshak has also supported Israeli settlement projects, and his Palestinian partners include very rare Palestinian supporters of Likud!
Again, Partners may not agree with EI entirely, but what is disturbing is that Partners shows no skepticism of NYT reporting or of the story as a whole, no interest in researching alternative sources to mainstream corporate media, and appears to be totally unaware of EI’s research that has been all over the internet! My point here is not to cite EI as a model or sole alternative source, as there could be many possible alternative sources on a story like this, but Partners has not sought them out before pronouncing a position. Since when do groups that consider themselves to be “left” and claim to be offering alternative solutions simply swallow and regurgitate uncritically mainstream corporate reporting on issues that are supposed to be their area of expertise?
Ted
While I applaud the gesture by the Israelis and deplore Hamas’s attitude, I think we have to understand it in its political context. Would Israel have okayed such a trip, even without security considerations? Of course not. Hamas – and virtually all Palestinians nowadays – insist that first there must be a political settlement and then ‘normalization” (tatbiyah). When I worked on peace projects at the Truman Institute of Hebrew University (1996-2002), especially during the latter period when the Intifada was going on, we often ran into that attitude. This is the Palestinian expression of “sumud” (steadfastness) and of course now, in the wake of the Gaza Wars and given the ubiquity of BDS among Palestinians, it is almost disingenuous to propose something like this. I am amazed that anyone in Hamas ever consented to it.
I want to make clear I am not defending the specific act or the general attitude I describe. But I think I do understand it – and I think we on the left need to assimilate that understanding into our support of a realistic peace process.
Dear Paul,
Why would you “not defend” the fact that Palestinians felt exploited by the ubiquitous dialogue/normalization projects. They believe, not without a lot of justification, that Israelis got to feel better about themselves, got to feel “normal” and to present themselves as normal to the world, but then did not what was needed as the more powerful party to end their oppression of Palestinians. In short, many Israelis started and ended with “normalization.”
Palestinians concluded they needed to reverse the order of things because Israelis were exploiting normalization. What about that general Palestinian attitude do you wish not to defend? Are you denying that many Palestinians had good reason to feel that way?
On the specific issue of this visit, do you recognize also how, as Marshak said, the visit would “gain points in the hostile world opinion,” and “was meant to show a positive face of Israel.” Can you provide a justification for why Palestinians in Gaza should allow themselves to be exploited in that way?
Ted
Ted,
You have reduced the conflict to bad Israelis and good Palestinians, which is simplistic and not helpful. There are personal, humanitarian, and political dimensions – and many more. You’re absolutely right that this would be a propaganda win for Israel; it would also show Israelis a human side of Hamas, which most don’t believe exists, and show a human side of Israel as well.
Ralph is right that there is no reasonable doubt that the incident was reported more or less factually – what is being added is the spin from different sides. Some of the Israeli supporters (like me) are sick of the slaughter and think the war was absolutely unnecessary. Others are scoring political points. There is not a contradiction. I think if you want to understand this – and many other aspects of the conflict – the multi-dimensionality has to be recognized. Otherwise it’s just a rant.
BTW, “Partners” is not monolithic with a single point of view. We have general political perspectives in common, but often disagree on specifics, as do Ralph and I on this. So there’s no point in seeing everything as a “Partner’s” point of view
Paul
Thanks Paul,
I did not know Ralph was the “Blogmaster.”
I just assumed that the Partners Blogmaster posts on behalf of Partners and not as an individual expressing individual views. Seems not an unreasonable assumption.
I don’t see the conflict in terms of good Palestinians and bad Israelis. I know quite a large number of good Israelis. They express views that are quite often similar to mine, and not similar to those frequently expressed on the Partners blog.
I do know quite a lot of Palestinians who felt exploited by the normalization and dialogue projects of the late 90s, early 2000s.
I note that you avoided these questions that I posed:
Why would you “not defend” the fact that Palestinians felt exploited by the ubiquitous dialogue/normalization projects. They believe, not without a lot of justification, that Israelis got to feel better about themselves, got to feel “normal” and to present themselves as normal to the world, but then did not what was needed as the more powerful party to end their oppression of Palestinians. In short, many Israelis started and ended with “normalization.”
Palestinians concluded they needed to reverse the order of things because Israelis were exploiting normalization. What about that general Palestinian attitude do you wish not to defend? Are you denying that many Palestinians had good reason to feel that way?
Thanks,
Ted
I wish to clarify that I am one of a couple of people authorized to post as the Blogmaster. Paul assumed that this post was physically mine because he knows that I inform the PPI board about most of our blog posts.
I post in my own name when I cannot assume that I’m speaking for PPI with the views expressed.
Ted might consider what is achieved by Palestinians who disdain peaceful gestures from Israelis — especially if they happen to be left-wing activists who support Palestinian sovereignty. How does such blanket Palestinian hostility advance their agenda? Might it not simply convince many Israelis that peaceful coexistence is impossible?
Ted,
I thought my answers were obvious. As I said, I understand why the Palestinians feel that way but think it’s counter-productive. That attitude serves to convince Israelis and others that they reject peace and normal interactions, now and forever. I think the anger is understandable but I don’t think it does them any good – and much harm.
Paul
I’ve just called Avshalom “Abu” Vilan, a former Meretz MK who was also a former national kibbutz movement leader. He knows Yoel Marshak, who was mentioned in both the NY Times and Electronic Intifada articles.
Abu says that Marshak was a co-founder of Peace Now and should be regarded as a leftist. Marshak was, but is no longer, active in the leadership of the Kibbutz Movement, and acted on his own initiative. He also indicated that Marshak is known for this kind of freelancing and a tendency for self-promotion.
Dear Ralph and Paul,
A few points:
1) Ralph, you seem to be suggesting that Yoel Marshak supports “Palestinian sovereignty.” Obviously you still didn’t bother to read the Electronic Intifada article, and I’m not sure Paul did either. If you read it you would have found that Marshak supports sending demobilized Israeli soldiers to live in the Jordan Valley as reported by Akiva Eldar: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/kibbutz-movement-urging-ex-soldiers-to-settle-in-west-bank-1.288291
A simple google search for Marshak would also find this information on Marshak on Arutz Sheva: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/164574#.VKXBrSfDEt8
The idea of relocating Israelis from Judea and Samaria is no longer relevant, says Kibbutz movement head Yoel Marshak, a left-wing activist.
“I believe the topic of two states for two peoples will come up, but I don’t think there’s any way that hundreds of thousands will be moved from their homes to inside the green line,” he told Arutz Sheva, referring to the 1949 armistice line that split Judea and Samaria from the rest of the country.
“There will be agreements, or an autonomy, that will allow two nations to live side by side,” he determined.
“The struggle today is not to remove settlements, but to find creative solutions,” he concluded.
Yet you remain lazily content with your NYT report and claims that the organizers of the visit are sincere supporters of Palestinian rights and Palestinian sovereignty. Ralph, so if Marshak supports sending settlers to the Jordan Valley and says that the settlements will not be removed, how will that Palestinian sovereignty?
2) Paul, you wrote this: “That attitude serves to convince Israelis and others that they reject peace and normal interactions, now and forever. I think the anger is understandable but I don’t think it does them any good – and much harm.”
But you’ve missed an important part of the point. Palestinians are not just angry about being exploited by normalization, they concluded that it was a failure and will not work, and they will just be used again because Israelis exploit the power imbalance, get what they want out of it and fail to effect change. Palestinians decided that they need to use the levers that they have in a different way, and this is one of the levers. Because Israelis are desperate to be accepted as “normal” Palestinians will not grant that to them until they show a commitment to working for their rights, not before.
Why Paul would you portray this as a product of anger, as opposed to analysis and strategy?
And why Paul do you think Palestinians should just repeat a failed approach where they were exploited and expect a different outcome?
Ted
Ted,
Your article by Eldar is 5 years old. I personally don’t know Marshak at all and I haven’t been arguing about him. But it seems clear from what Ralph wrote he doesn’t represent the kibbutz movement. But, so what? The Israeli left is fragmented and very far from monolithic. I identify with Meretz, which does support an end to the occupation, but my opinions are determined by me, not by them. having participated in many joint projects, I’m familiar with the syndrome.
In answer to your 2d question, I don’t have a good strategy for the Palestinians. But I can’t see how alienating most Israelis, most of whom do accept 2 states in principle, is going to bring about a Palestinian state. Having talked with numerous Palestinians, I agree there’s a strategy, but as a human being I know there’s an immense anger as well-which I’m not condemning, but anger is rarely a good guide. Palestinians have a long history of NOT engaging Zionists, and thus misjudging the strategic situation, going back to the 1920s. Since you assume that Israelis are absolutely and forever dead set against a Pal. state, then of course you think that’s a dead end. Since it’s the only solution I think is viable, I disagree. Unlike Bibi I don’t think Israel’s hand is stretched out in peace currently, but I think it can be, and this doesn’t help.
Paul
Hi Paul,
So the “Israeli left” from your perspective encompasses someone who works to build up settlements in the Jordan Valley and who refuse to move settlers out of the West Bank? And Marshak, with his Palestinian Likud allies, should be accepted as someone who is working in good faith to further Palestinians rights?
Your statement that most Israelis support two states lacks any nuance, and is in fact deceptive. As you know, if you try to pin down what two states mean to many of those Israelis who say they support two states their definition does not coincide in any way with something that is acceptable to Palestinians. So repeating words like peace and two states as vague concepts with no definition is without value.
You said that I “assume that Israelis are absolutely and forever dead set against a Pal. state.” No, I see from both polls and actions that the percentage of Israelis who support something that Palestinians can live with is quite small. I also see, as someone whose been all over the West Bank, that anyway it is too late for two states due to settlement expansion.
You seem not to recognize, Palestinians in the current situation lack power, and they have found that in situations where they lack power in the past they’ve been exploited by Israelis. So they do not want to employ the same failed approach. Instead they are employing approaches to build and equalize power so they can engage more effectively, as equals. The boycott movement is one approach to building their power.
It sure seems very troubling to you, but many Palestinians seem to feel it’s worth it nonetheless. Maybe something for you to consider. And it’s also good to bear in mind that Palestinian activists are engaging with Israelis, but the Israelis they are engaging with are those who support their on-the-ground protest movements and/or BDS. Finally, it does not seem that their has been any lack of engagement by the PA with the Israeli government.
Thanks again,
Ted
Ted, stop distorting our position!
Together with Colette Avital, Abu Vilan has campaigned for several years for the Knesset to pass legislation to buy back the homes of settlers who want to return to Israel proper. They found that tens of thousands would return if they were not tied down financially by their homes in the West Bank.
If Yoel Marshak believes in an ongoing occupation and annexation of the Jordan Valley, this is not what Vilan advocates. But this doesn’t mean that even Marshak opposes a negotiated 2-state solution; just that his terms for an agreement are unrealistic — as are those of many Israelis.
I also think that Palestinians and their supporters are unrealistic in expecting that Israel, as the more powerful party, will succumb to BDS or otherwise be forced to agree to all terms that Palestinians desire. This has been a path of failure for the maximalists to this day.