This essay was first published in the Palestine Chronicle 2009 08 07.
One State, Two States – Resolving the Israel/Palestine
Conflict. Benny Morris. Yale University Press, New Haven, NJ. 2009
This is a rather oily work to
deal with, operating under the pretence of academic objectivity that “does not
flatter anyone’s prejudices.” And while Benny Morris obviously knows his
historical facts, One State, Two States reveals more of a prejudice than
the original reviewers seemed capable of understanding.
The main theme – resolving the
Israeli/Palestine conflict - is poorly introduced without a lot of contextual
information that could change the reader’s perspective on the situation. What Morris arrives at through implication
and cherry picking information is that the Israelis are the good guys
(generally, with only one mention of the “grinding, stifling Israeli occupation
of the territories” near the end of the book) and the Palestinians are the
reluctant, recalcitrant, demagogic perpetrators of evil. Okay, that is
overstated, but it is an overstatement as an example of the kind of language
used occasionally by Morris that seriously erodes his academic pretensions of
neutrality.
There are several faults with
the development of his arguments that should be noted, some being omissions of
information, others being a working of the information to fit the author’s
preconceptions.
Unequal
Partners
One of the more subtle
misinformation themes is that of the ongoing dialogue of whatever form, through
negotiations, written tracts, informal talks or whatever, that leaves the implication
that the two sides – Israelis and Palestinians – are equal partners in the
negotiations, with an occasional underlying motive of the adaptations the
Israelis have to make in order to accommodate the Palestinians’ demands. An
informed reader will understand that the two sides are far from equal and even
from the very beginning with the support of the Balfour Declaration (never an
official government policy) and the British rule of Mandatory Palestine, the Jewish settlers had a bias in their favor.
The continual complaints of
the Israelis that the Palestinians have no leaders needs to be put beside the
information that the Israelis assassinate as many of the Palestinian leaders as
they deem necessary or possible. Historically this also occurred during the
Arab revolt in the 1930s. After the recent democratic elections of Hamas in
2006, Morris’ argument is that Hamas set up government then took over Gaza.
What is not mentioned is that the U.S., the EU, and a few others never
recognized the democratic process that they had so long advocated in the
region, stopped their already minimal funding to the Palestinian government and
did everything in their power to alienate and eliminate Hamas from the
Palestinian government. Thus the democratically elected partners were not ever
accepted as anyone worth negotiating with, yet in contradiction to Morris’ own
suggestions, successful negotiations with terrorists have occurred elsewhere
(South Africa, Ireland).
Palestinian
Terror
Anyone reading this as their
first history book on the Israeli/Palestine situation would receive this bias
along with the associated bias of the Palestinians being the terrorists, the
Israelis the victims of that terror. Yet as much as the British assisted the
Jewish settlers to a degree, the settlers were also considered terrorists in
their own fight as in later years they fought with the British in order to
establish their own dominance of the territory. As for later terrorism, the
only terrorism mentioned by Morris is that perpetrated by Hamas and Fatah,
without any mention of the Israeli tactics in the occupied territories that
could also be fully considered as terror.
Arab
Ethnic Cleaning
Much of the history of the
conflict elucidated by Morris is that of the 1920s and 1930s with very short
shrift given to the actual war of independence/nakba
of 1947-8 and the subsequent developments through to the Clinton-Arafat-Barak
negotiations whose failure Morris places squarely and completely on Arafat.
Most of the quotes throughout his development are chosen to highlight the
single minded non-democratic desire of the Arabs to push the Zionists back into
the ocean (his definition of their one state solution), and the benign nature
of the Jewish response in accommodating and accepting a two state solution
(demonstrating how peaceful and practical the Israelis are by contrast).
Again for the informed reader,
this one state, two state polarity is nonsense. The
Zionist plans have always accounted for a monolithic Jewish state from the
Mediterranean to the Jordan River, although earlier versions included the east
bank of the Jordan as well. The means used and posited to establish that have
varied from outright expulsion, to murder and assassination, to transfer of
populations. The latter, the transfer of people, is strangely enough part of
Morris’ solution to the problem of the one state, two state argument. Ethnic cleansing is very much a part of the
Israeli unstated belief system, ready to raise its ugly head if a convenient
opportunity arises. Morris also ignores the current Liebermann-Netanyahu
coalition and its rather overt witness to this underlying theme. Admittedly
this is a very recent work, but several other less recent works have at least
included this in their discussions in light of the 2006 Hezbollah war and the
2008 Christmas attack on Gaza.
At the same time, in spite of
Morris’ arguments that the charter of the PLO and of Hamas
have never been changed, both groups have demonstrated their ability to
accommodate and be flexible towards the idea of a two state solution. Morris
defines the Camp David agreement as being one of concessions from Israel –
without considering that for the Palestinians to accept a nominal sovereignty
they had already conceded eighty per cent of their original territory to the
Jewish people and would have to accept less with that accord (notwithstanding
the offer of land elsewhere, land certainly of much less value than that stolen
by the settlers in the West Bank).
Arab
Terror and the Holocaust
A rather transparent attempt
is made by Morris to conflate the Holocaust with many of the incidents
perpetrated by the Arabs before the Second World War. There is no direct
connection, but the juxtaposition and wording of his writing would leave a
reader with the impression that the acts of aggression against the Jewish
settlers were of the same calibre and intent of the
Holocaust under Nazi Germany. This not so subtle connection only serves to make
the whole argument one not of fact and historical record, but one of emotion
and sentiment based on the justified grievances of Jewish genocide in the
Second World War. Its intent is of course to create a sympathetic response in
the reader to the plight of the Jewish people, a response that is only
justifiable if it is not used an excuse for Jewish excesses (which are not
elucidated by Morris at all) and the Zionist desire for a pure theocratic
Jewish state in Eretz Israel.
Christianity
Christianity is mentioned in
the book as being oppressed by the Arabs as well. The argument ignores much
more fully developed information that indicates that the Israeli government is
an equal opportunity oppressor, as convenient, and the exodus of Christians is
as much if not more about Israeli policies towards Christians as towards any
other group that could interfere with their desired Jewish state.
A recent National Geographic
article (a magazine that bends over backwards to achieve balance) indicates the
Christian population began its long decline from the time of the Crusades as
during that time (1095-1291) Arab Christians were slaughtered along with the
Muslims. Currently, the economic situation and the ID pass regimen between
Israeli and Palestinian sectors interfere with the lives of Arab Christians:
You're surrounded by this
giant wall, and there are no jobs," [Mark] says. "It's like a science
experiment. If you keep rats in an enclosed space and make it smaller and
smaller every day and introduce new obstacles and constantly change the rules,
after a while the rats go crazy and start eating each other. It's like that.
The U.S. receives its due
share of the blame for the Christian situation in Israel as well:
"It's because of what
Christians in the West, led by the U.S., have been doing in the East," [Razek Siriani] says, ticking off
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. support for Israel, and the threats of
"regime change" by the Bush Administration. [1]
Zionism
and the Amorphous Arab
Another implication of the
work is that Zionism is the dominant strain of Jewish philosophy without taking
into consideration the ideas of a secular Jewish state or of the religious
beliefs that a Jewish homeland will not arrive until the Messiah returns, and
until that time, the Jews will remain in exile. The differing positions within
the Jewish faith are not elucidated or clarified. For that matter, little is elucidated or
clarified in the work as it is too short to accommodate all the parameters of
the arguments that need to be considered for any one state, two state argument,
whether discussing the various Arab positions or the various Jewish
positions.
On the other side, Morris
accepts the Orientalist perspective of the Arab as
developed by Western writers generally ignorant of Arab culture (I don’t know
if Morris is ignorant of Arab culture, but the manner of his writing about
Arabs in this book would indicate yes to a degree). In this view, the Arabs are
an “amorphous” uniform lot spread throughout the Middle East and Northern
Africa (and the text would not make it clear if the author is aware of the
boundaries of various Muslim beliefs and the overlaps of the Arab world with
other Muslim nations), yet at the same time he indicates they are a tribal,
clan and family based society – so if they are all so amorphous how does one
differentiate the different clans and groups within their societies?
Questions
One technique of arguing and
avoiding making any commitments to an argument or advocating a position yet
still conveying one’s bias and suggesting the ‘proper’ response is to ask
questions such as I did above. While discussing the Hamas charter Morris asks
“What Muslim Arab society in the modern age has treated Christians, Jews,
pagans, Buddhists, and Hindus with tolerance and as equals?” Apart from being a
bit of a stretch to include the Hindus and Buddhists, my response is I simply
do not know, but I will not accept the implication from the question that none
of them do. Further, the same question could be phrased “What Jewish
country….?” with the same implications and a similar response.
The following question adds
emphasis to this implication as Morris asks, “Why should anyone believe that
Palestinian Muslim Arabs would behave any differently?” Perhaps because the
majority of Muslims are not fanatics and like many other members of the human
species are able and willing to accommodate their neighbors in order to live
peacefully. Would the Zionists do the same? Oh my gosh,
another question with implications.
His final question concerning
the nastiness of the Palestinian Muslim Arabs is “Why…have black Africans, who
over the centuries have suffered infinitely more at Western…hands than the
Arabs ever did, never resort to international terrorism and suicide bombings
against Western targets.” Perhaps because the black Africans never achieved the
societal status that the Arabs achieved (although from Morris’ description one
would never know this); or perhaps because the extreme poverty in Africa
necessitates a purely survival regimen for the peoples of the area; or perhaps
because there are no actual occupiers of the land at the moment with no biased
religious interpretations creating a dominant elite who are determined to mine
the wealth of the region for their own exclusive purposes. That is without
arguing Morris’ usage of “infinity” and “never”, absolutes that work poorly in
any academic argument.
Where
To?
All those questions arise at
the beginning of his final chapter “Where to?” in which he reiterates the
nastiness of the Muslim Arabs and the reasonableness of the Zionists while
leading to his own solution. Part of his argument, one that always accompanies
the reasonableness of the Israelis in negotiating with a “partner” is that as
well as being reasonable in the face of their victim hood, they are also weak
and vulnerable against the armed Arab hordes who wish to do them in. Morris
argues rather fancifully that the “attritional contest between the two”, being
“primitive Qassam rockets” against the overwhelming
U.S. supported regular military might of the IDF and the covert activities of
the Shin Bet “could impoverish Israel and render the defensive systems
ultimately inoperative.” That argument hardly deserves rebuttal, but if the
recent vicious attack on Gaza is any indication, Israel is fully capable of
destroying any Palestinian resistance fully if it chose to do so,
notwithstanding international verbal disapproval or sanctions.
The clear nuclear dominance of
the region is never mentioned in any of the arguments but needs to be
considered with his own answer to the problem, one
that neatly sidesteps some of his own arguments. Morris’ answer is that of
union between the West Bank, Gaza, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In the
manner in which it is phrased, little weight is given to the democracy values
that he advocates so strongly, and he also includes population transfer (ethnic
cleansing in any other language) as a means of achieving this final status.
Other than this vague outline, there is no definition of the terms that this
would occur under, if the area would truly be sovereign or simply be a line on
a map still under Israeli control.
The latter is very likely, as
Morris also entertains the idea of a region of federated states with all
boundaries guaranteed and accepted by everyone else. Here the nuclear dominance
re-enters the picture. Ironically, nuclear weapons are useless against the
Palestinians as that would render useless land that the Israelis wish to control
(or to ask another Morris style question, how could they bomb the Arabs out of
Haifa or Jerusalem?).
The purpose of the nuclear
weapons is twofold. The first purpose is to guarantee that the surrounding Arab
states will always be subservient to Israeli goals (Jordan, Saudi Arabia and
Egypt are already very compliant). The second purpose is so that other nuclear
nations would think twice about attacking and using nuclear weapons in
retaliation against Israel for any of its nuclear aggression in the Arab/Muslim
world.
Any Solution?
The reality of a final answer
to the problem of one state, two state or whatever is currently highly
intractable. With ongoing U.S. support, with ongoing Israeli influence in
Congress through AIPAC, with ongoing U.S. intentions for geopolitical control
over the Middle East, any solution, although perhaps easy to conceive would be
very difficult to implement. That is not because the solution is difficult; it
is because the humans that are dealing with the situation carry heavily
weighted biases and strategic interests to render them (the humans, the
government elites) intractable. Morris denies both the one state and the two
state solution; his own solution is poorly developed
and leaves the region clearly under the influence of a dominant Israeli nuclear
power supported by the U.S.
This book then is essentially
a standard apologia for the Israeli centric view of its own goodness, its own
justifications, and its own victim hood and vulnerability, the latter being
myths created for public consumption wherever it would be accepted. So read the
book, but also read it in conjunction with the following list of works that
provide ample information to rebut much of what Morris writes.
Bibliography (author, title
only – all books have been reviewed in Palestine Chronicle):
Abunimah, Ali : One Country
Baroud, Ramzy: The Second Palestinian Intifada
Cook, Jonathan: Blood and
Religion
Cook, William
: The Rape of Palestine
Dunsky, Marda: Pens and Swords
Friel and
Falk: Israel-Palestine on Record
Gordon, Neve:
Israel’s Occupation
Gregory, Derek: The Colonial
Present
Haddad and Honig-Parmass:
Between the Lines
Kanaaneh, Hatime: A Doctor in Galilee
Makdisi, Saree : Palestine Inside out
Mishal and
Sela: The Palestinian Hamas
Pappe, Ilan: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine; A
History of Modern Palestine; The Israel Palestine Question
Rabkin, Yakov M.: A Threat From Within
Reinhart, Tanya: The Roadmap
to Nowhere; Israel/Palestine
Schanzer, Jonathan: Hamas vs Fatah
Simons, Geoffrey: The Ethnic
Cleansing of Palestine
Sorkin,
Michael: Against the Wall
Tamimi, Azzam: Hamas – A History From Within
Thomas, Amelia: The Zoo on the
Road to Nablus
Wolf, Robert: Violence in the Holy Land
Zertal and
Eldar: Lords of the Land
For a Christian perspective:
Fleming, Eileen: Keep Hope
Alive; Third Intifada Uprising
Notes:
[1] See “Arab Christians” National
Geographic Magazine, June 2009; and also Eileen Fleming’s work at
www.wearewideawake.org/
and her writings are on various alternate web media.