Mitchell

JTA is reporting that Benjamin Netanyahu is prepared to recognize the Palestinian claim to the land alongside the Jewish one.

Bibi

That’s JTA’s headline, anyway. The article itself indicates something rather different. It cites Bibi’s speech today, where he said “…we recognize that another people share this land with us. And I came here to find an historic compromise that will enable both peoples to live in peace, security and dignity.”

That’s recognizing the simple reality that the Palestinians are there, not the legitimacy of their claim to the land.

Still, this certainly does strike a far more conciliatory tone than Bibi has in the past. It might reflect the effect of American pressure, and if it does, that gives pro-peace activists both in Israel and the Diaspora something to work toward.

That’s the positive spin. The negative, of course, is that Bibi and his right-wing government is as intransigent as ever and is merely posturing so he can lay all blame for the failure of talks at the feet of the Palestinians. We can’t really know, but sometimes even such plans can be thwarted by active politics.

The other development of note was Ehud Barak getting his vision of a two-state solution reiterated in Ha’aretz. If, as he says, Bibi is willing to split Jerusalem along the lines he suggests, that could be a promising start to talks.

Ehud Barak

But there was something else in what he said that was telling in a much grimmer way. His description of the two-state solution sounds almost whole cloth like the same offer he made to Yasir Arafat in 2000:

“Two states for two nations; an end to the conflict and the end of all future demands; the demarcation of a border that will run inside the Land of Israel, and within that border will lie a solid Jewish majority for generations and on the other side will be a demilitarized Palestinian state but one that will be viable politically, economically, and territorially; keeping the settlement blocs in our hands; retrieving and relocating the isolated settlements into the settlement blocs or within Israel; a solution to the refugee problem [whereby refugees return to] the Palestinian state or are rehabilitated by international aid; comprehensive security arrangements and a solution to the Jerusalem problem.”

Much of this is the typical two-state formulation. What we need to pay attention to is the two words: settlement blocs.

In general, that phrase refers to three settlement areas: Gush Etzion, Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim. The Etzion bloc is generally expected to be part of Israel, with appropriate one-to-one land swaps to make up the difference. It doesn’t intrude overly into the West Bank so it presents less of a problem.

But the other two are extremely problematic. Indeed, the maps, like this one, which show a largely divided and unviable West Bank, reflect the problem of contiguity that is created if Israel keeps these two settlement blocs.

Barak apparently hasn’t changed his view in the past ten years, and it seems highly unlikely he’s come up with some way to deal with the fact that Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim will hopelessly compromise Palestinian territorial contiguity.

Moreover, Barak seems to be on a very different page from Bibi. Barak seems most concerned with the settlement blocs. Bibi has shown himself to be most concerned with maintaining an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley, which would effectively give Israel permanent control over the nascent Palestine’s borders.

Either of those ideas are non-starters for the Palestinians.

So, while the talk on Opening Day of Direct Talks was lofty, the details that we see even at the beginning don’t give a lot of cause for hope.

But that condemnation would be an awful lot more meaningful, to myself and to many others I’m sure, if we saw similar outrage in Washington when Israel killed over 700 Palestinian non-combatants in Operation Cast Lead. Or when a

Obama looking sad. But can he also shed tears for Arabs?

border policeman killed Bassem Abu Rahmeh by firing a gas cannister directly and intentionally at him. Or for any of the 100 Palestinians killed since the end of Operation Cast Lead (many of whom were killed as combatants, to be sure, but 32 of whom were not taking part in hostilities nor were counted as “targeted assassinations”).

Or even just raise some questions or concerns at least for Americans killed by Israeli forces or injured because they were exercising their right to protest as American Jews in Israel?

Where, Mr. President, is the outrage for them? You were right to condemn yesterday’s murders, but why does that outrage disappear when the victims are Palestinians or those who sympathize with them? How do you expect to be seen as an honest broker if you won’t even show equal sympathy to innocents of both sides? Doesn’t seem like much to ask.

Today, Hamas claimed responsibility for the murders of four Israeli settlers along a West Bank road. One good friend of mine questioned why I use the term “murder” rather than killing. Another good friend spoke of the need to put the killings in “context” of occupation and the ongoing crimes attached thereto.

The car that was shot up in the West Bank today

And so, I was motivated to write, because when I hear these things from good people I start to wonder about our moral compass.

Why is this murder? Well, it seems to me when gunmen ambush a car full of civilians (yes, even if the civilians are criminals) and shoot them to death in cold blood, outside of anything that could remotely be called a combat situation, that’s murder.

Settlements are criminal; they are impediments to peace and encroachments on land that does not belong to Israel. They cause enormous human rights violations to Palestinians. But those who live in them have not thereby forfeited or in any way diminished their right to keep their lives.

I don’t see, quite frankly, what is so complicated about this. Hamas’ diabolical act today was not an act of desperation. It was not a cry from an oppressed and occupied people. It was a calculated act of murder, intended to further Hamas’ political goals. Was their goal, as many assume, to derail the direct peace talks before they even got started? Was it, as Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum “…meant to highlight the failure of the security cooperation between the Palestinian Authority and Israel?” Whichever it was, the tool Hamas chose to further their goal was murder.

If an Israeli soldier or settler willfully kills a Palestinian outside of a combat situation and without immediate provocation, we rightly show zero tolerance for that. And we rightly call it murder. This is no different.

And some may argue that we in the peace movement should contextualize this so people can understand the need to end the occupation.

Nonsense. Sure, this act wouldn’t have happened if the Israelis weren’t there, but the occupation is simply wrong, and must end. Let’s not send Hamas the message that the way to convince Israel of that is to kill civilians. It’s just what they want to hear, and they will no doubt happily comply.

I suspect for some on the left – those who have been bending over backwards to make the case that Hamas is reasonable and really not the right-wing, reactionary sort of group that most in the West believe – there will be scrambling to criticize the act while at the same time saying it is understandable and to be expected because of the occupation.

That is wrong-headed and shows just how far some of us have wandered off the path. An act like this is never understandable, it is never justifiable and there is no context in which it is anything less than cold-blooded murder.

An attack such as this one leveled at soldiers is also illegal and unjustifiable. But in this case, along the roads in the South Hebron Hills, it is not hard to find Israeli soldiers. This attack was therefore directed quite intentionally at civilians, despite the fact that it need not have been.

On every level, this was a heinous act. Anyone who fancies him or herself a progressive should have no trouble condemning it unequivocally, just as he or she would if an Israeli soldier knowingly and intentionally shoots a Palestinian in Gaza carrying a white flag. There is no moral difference between the two.

And yet, too many on the left will downplay the horrific nature of this act and somehow continue to make excuses for Hamas.

We’ll also know that we’ve made progress when it is politically feasible for the Palestinian Authority to condemn such acts for being wrong, not just because they are against Palestinian interests (which they most certainly are) but simply because they are wrong.

I have said (and am even currently working an article to reiterate) that it is necessary to talk to Hamas, to bring them into a unified Palestinian government. That is a practical necessity. But today’s act reminds us that we in the US and our fellows in Israel may have to do that, but we should never forget who it is we’re dealing with. And we who work for peace and justice must keep in mind that these principles apply to all, and we should stop romanticizing those, like Hamas, who would commit such acts as the one that they committed today.

Tel Aviv protest against the new cultural center built in Ariel settlement

Before I go into what this means for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), let me say I applaud this action. Continued development of industry in the settlements only entrenches their presence. It is crucial that foreign governments and corporations stop supporting that development and make it clear that settlement industries cannot expect “business as usual” and, most importantly, that those companies are not in Israel. That is a line that must be drawn clearly, in the boldest green. The message must be sent in no uncertain terms that the settlements are NOT ISRAEL!

Predictably, supporters of the BDS movement have been declaring how this incident proves their strategy is working, that their “movement” is making real progress. But that is really overstating the case.

This is, indeed, a victory for the BDS movement, but not nearly the one they will, understandably, purport. The two companies are part of the corporate group owned by billionaire Lev Leviev, who actively promotes settlement expansion. Leviev has been targeted by BDS activists spanning the spectrum from anti-occupation groups to anti-Israel ones for years.

European companies have, for years, divested from Israeli companies seen as doing the business of settlement or occupation expansion. This has been, and remains, a limited trend, but some European companies will stop doing business with Israeli businesses when involvement with the settlements or occupation is brought to their attention (it often requires some investigation to find these things out). So, yes, this is the sort of thing activist groups can do, though it happened with less frequency before the BDS movement really rose up.

Still, this was certainly caused by the BDS activities. And they can rightly take credit for it.

But the larger impact that is being felt in the settlements is not the result of this movement’s efforts. It’s the result of the Palestinian Authority doing what it should have done a long time ago—cut itself off as a market for settlement products.

The PA boycott of settlement products has been very meticulous. They have specified which products are made in settlements so that the boycott does not affect Israeli businesses located inside the Green Line. They have acted to stop Palestinians from working in the settlements as well. This is what is hurting the settlement businesses that, perversely, do a very large amount of business by selling to Palestinians.

Two factors have allowed this tactic to succeed and to resonate well in Europe. The Palestinians have effectively communicated their goals and strategy behind this boycott in Europe, where they tend to be heard far better than in the United States.

But the major factor is that the PA, and specifically Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, has gotten the point across clearly that this boycott is aimed at the settlements and not at Israel. Europe is not going to boycott Israel, for many reasons. But there is a lot less tolerance in Europe for the settlements than there is in the US, and a good opportunity to strike at the settlement project alone is likely to win at least some European support.

The BDS movement is diverse and different people and groups in it have a wide variety of views on many issues. But, despite the fact that not all of the groups who engage in BDS activism hold to these views, the movement as a whole has become associated with one-state ideologies and support for the Palestinian Right of Return, two points that fall well outside the international diplomatic consensus and are non-starters for most of Europe’s elites.

This is why the Netanyahu government is able to twist a legitimate protest tactic into an attack on Israel’s very existence—because it is being employed by some who do indeed believe that the root of the problem in the Middle East is Israel’s very existence.

Economic actions like boycotts and divestment are legitimate and time-honored non-violent tactics to express protest and to try to take concrete action against policies people believe are wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with employing such economic action against the occupation and the siege of Gaza. The test of such tactics is whether or not enough people will come to agree that the policy in question is wrong; if they do, the tactic will be effective, otherwise it will not.

Unfortunately, a targeted program of economic action was not pursued by those who realize that the problem is the settlements, and that peace with two states, one of which is a Jewish Israel, is possible. The tactic was taken up by one-staters who believe the only way to address the historic, and massive, injustice done to the Palestinians is by promoting a single state where Jews lose their political self-determination and quickly become a minority in the area in question.

Now, it’s harder to take up the tactic, despite the fact that, from talking to many two-staters, both activists and politicians, I know that many such folks now realize that a well-orchestrated campaign targeting the settlements could very well be effective.

The PA, however, has proven it can be done. And a handful of artists and performers in Israel have also given us an opportunity to pursue an effective campaign against the settlements. A pro-Israel, pro-peace boycott campaign has the potential not only to really affect the status quo but also to bring back many Jews who feel less and less affinity to an Israel whose identity is increasingly being radicalized by the settler movement.

Thus far, Diaspora Jewish peace groups have been largely silent on this issue. That’s understandable, because there will be considerable political fallout from it. But this is a real opportunity to back and Israeli initiative, brought by ordinary Israelis not career leftists or radicals. This is a chance to back an Israeli initiative that clearly targets the settlements from within Israel.

It would be a shame if Israeli and American peace groups let this chance go by. They screwed up once by leaving a powerful tactic in the hands of those who cannot possibly use it to maximum effect. One hopes they don’t make the same mistake again.