While I was occupied with the thanksgiving holiday (or more accurately while I was occupied at work instead of having a thanksgiving holiday) the usual suspects went at it over Gaza. Better bloggers than I have already addressed this in more or less the same way I would have; check out my blogroll if you’re curious. VastLeft and Chris Floyd would be good places to start. Even so, I feel it necessary to chime in. Criticizing Israeli policy is not for the weak of stomach in the US, where the slightest suggestion that maybe Israel shouldn’t be bulldozing Palestinian homes or might want to consider not defying world opinion and UN resolutions regarding illegal settlements can get one branded an anti-Semite. I, however, have been shacking up with one of the chosen people for 12 years and fear no reprisal. To anyone gearing up to play the “Israel has a right to defend itself” card, I present this map:
There are two possibilities here: Either offense really is the best defense, or this isn’t ‘defense’ at all. If the Palestinians are as dangerous to the integrity of Israel as Netanyahu suggests, then they clearly aren’t very good at it. HuffPost (Yeah, I’m not a fan either, but they have the most recent count I could find) claims the following as of 11/19: 87 Palestinians killed (50 of them civilians), 720 wounded vs. 3 Israelis killed and “dozens” wounded. Seriously, who holds the power here? Since when does the right to self defense encompass this kind of aggression against a densely populated, blockaded region? The recent UN decision to recognize Palestine as a state, opposed by only nine nations including the US, obviously, seems to show the direction of world opinion. Apparently, I’m not the only one noticing this stuff. Whether it actually changes the behavior of the Israeli right on the ground is another question. To be clear, I’m not trying to sweep the significance of Hamas rocket attacks under the rug here, but responsibility is not a zero sum game. There’s plenty to go around, and the vast disparity in power and influence between Israel and Hamas suggests that the bulk of it ought not be placed on the weaker party.
Professor Sergio Pergola over at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has done some work on Israeli and Palestinian demographics that addresses one of the more common views of the whole mess. He breaks it down like this: Israel has three major objectives: First, be a democratic society, second, remain a Jewish society and third, retain the occupied territories. Here’s the issue: they can only really have two. In order to keep the occupied territories (West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza), Israel must give up either democracy or its Jewish character. At the moment, it appears to have opted to off democracy, as in order to protect its traditional Jewish character it must operate in the manner of an apartheid system by excluding – and often confining – Palestinians. Were it to include them, it could no longer claim to be a ‘Jewish’ society due to the resulting demographic shift. Pergola doesn’t take a strong position regarding what should be done, but I think it’s pretty clear that releasing the occupied territories is the way to go, now that everyone seems to have abandoned the one state solution. The Israeli right, however, has opted to keep up the apartheid model.
One final note: Pergola, deep in demographer mode, appears to have missed something ominous: the central issue he’s identified is remarkably similar to the racist paranoia of certain American pundits. Remember the O’Reillys of the world bemoaning the alleged loss of “white America” after the election? (Relax, Bill. It’s right where you left it, on the right hand counter next to the kill list and the predator drone owner’s manual). Is this not reminiscent of retrograde blood and soil nationalism? We really ought to have left this behind by now, yes?