Matthew Duss

This Talk Is Not Straight

John McCain was asked by Jeffrey Goldberg, "Is the Zionist cause just, and has it succeeded?"

John McCain: I think so. I’m a student of history and anybody who is familiar with the history of the Jewish people and with the Zionist idea can’t help but admire those who established the Jewish homeland. I think it’s remarkable that Zionism has been in the middle of wars and great trials and it has held fast to the ideals of democracy and social justice and human rights. I think that the State of Israel remains under significant threat from terrorist organizations as well as the continued advocacy of the Iranians to wipe Israel off the map.

Nice, safe Washington answer. I suppose if you squint your eyes and ignore Israel's forty-years long military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the ongoing illegal settlement enterprise which it facilitates, you could even defend the bit about "democracy and social justice and human rights." Unfortunately, when asked the very same question about the Palestinian cause, McCain gets really shifty:

JM: In respect to people like Mahmoud Abbas, who want to have a peaceful settlement with the government of Israel, to settle their differences in a peaceful and amicable fashion. If you are talking about Hamas or Hezbollah, which are dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel, then no. It depends on who you’re talking about.

No, it really doesn't, John. Either the Palestinians deserve their own state or they don't. Either you believe that both Jews and Arabs have legitimate claims on the land that must be resolved through negotiation, or you don't.

It's interesting that, when answering the first question, McCain defines Zionism in the most charitable way possible, ignoring the extreme forms of Zionism which continue to exacerbate and perpetuate the conflict, both in the Israeli government and on the ground in the occupied territories. It's shameful that he couldn't frame his second answer as charitably.

Unfortunately, in American politics there is virtually no cost to punting on the profoundly important question of Palestinian national rights.

Bottom-Up Reconciliation

Ha'aretz has this story on a potentially significant meeting between Palestinians and Israelis in Hebron:

The heads of the largest Palestinian clans in Hebron met with the Kiryat Arba local council chief and prominent leaders of the Jewish community in Hebron on Wednesday in what both sides described as a meeting of reconciliation, Army Radio reported.

Sheikh Abu-Hader Ja'abri, the head of a prominent Palestinian clan and a relative of a former mayor of Hebron, and the head of the Abu Sneinah clan, Haj Akram Abu-Sneinah met with the head of the Kiryat Arba settlement council, Zvi K'tzubar, and the heads of Jewish settlers in Hebron.

The two sides declared their goal was to restore peace and security to the city, known to Jews as Hebron and to Palestinians as Al-Halil.

"We don't see you as settlers but as residents," Sheikh Ja'abri, the head of a prominent clan in Hebron, is quoted as telling his Jewish interolocutors. "Hebron is ours just as it is yours."

This is encouraging, and necessary. Considering the great significance of Hebron in Jewish history, it's unthinkable that Hebron should be prohibited for Jews, as it was under the Jordanian occupation, in the event of any settlement pull-out.

It must be noted that this sort of rapprochement, based on a mutual recognition of claims, is opposed by extremist elements on both sides of the conflict, neither of whom recognize the others' historic ties to the land, both of whom relentlessly appeal to the memory of the fallen to refuse any accommodation and to discredit moderates. An important difference, however, especially in regard to Hebron, as I reported last December, is that Palestinian extremism is condemned by Americans, whereas Israeli extremism is often praised and funded by them.

Concern-Trolling the Well

Given how widespread Mitchell Cohen seems to think the problem of "de-legitimizing Israel" is on the left, you'd think that he might have been able to produce a single example of this, and perhaps even include it in his essay. Alas, non.

Underwriting The Conflict in Hebron

I have a new article up at The American Prospect.

Dark Hope

Via Philip Weiss, Avishai Margalit reviews a new book by Israeli peace activist David Shulmam, who works among the fanatical Jewish settlers of Hebron.

Not So Much "Cackling" As "Snorting In Derision"

Responding to Ezra's and my posts yesterday about Marty Peretz's attack on Desmond Tutu, James Kirchick assists his editor-in-chief:

“Duss's and Klein's criticism consists mostly of ad hominem attacks and a defense of Tutu based primarily, if not entirely, on the fact that he's...well...Desmond Tutu.”

No: Marty Peretz claimed that Desmond Tutu, in a speech last Saturday, “actually threatened Israel -- and not just the State but the whole People.” I responded that this was not true, that it was not a remotely defensible interpretation of anything Tutu said, and linked to Tutu’s remarks (PDF) as proof. If calling Marty Peretz a a liar and a defamer because he lied about and defamed Desmond Tutu qualifies as “an ad hominem attack,” well, then you can bill me.

As for my defense of "Tutu for being Tutu," I suggested neither that he was perfect, nor above reproach. I merely meant (and, frankly, I think this was clear) that the man's career-long commitment to non-violence and reconciliation might serve as something of a rebuttal to the idea that he might suddenly transform into a snarling, violence-threatening anti-Semite one fall afternoon in Boston. That is, I think Desmond Tutu has earned the benefit of the doubt. Conversely, Marty Peretz, who screams “Israel-basher!” every time someone cuts him off in traffic, has not, in my view.

Finally, Kirchick asserts that Tutu “unwittingly slanders the history of the anti-apartheid movement... by comparing it to Palestinian nationalism.” While I realize that Kirchick’s generally dim view of Arabs and Palestinians prohibits him from understanding Palestinian nationalism as anything other than an expression of Jew-hatred, and while I think it’s adorably precocious of him to attempt to instruct Desmond Tutu as to “the history of the anti-apartheid movement,” I feel I’m on safe ground here deferring to Tutu on whether or not the comparison is an appropriate one.