This is a portion of an op-ed I recently crafted in response to an article by Ethan Bronner of the NY TImes. In a recent article of his, “West Bank shows hints of a Palestinian state” (Aug, 31 2010) I was pleased to see someone actually write about the best kept secret in the world, that the West Bank was seeing glimpses of a normalized daily life for its residents. As my quote above indicates, this does not mean things are not hard. Nor does it mean supporters of Israel shouldn't push Israel to work even harder toward a settlement so that conditions can improve even more. But I was furious when Bronner laid out a list of improvements and seemingly normal activities only to interject that Israeli troops, roadblocks and checkpoints “render life impossible."
Now which is it folks. Does life has a semblance of normalcy or is it "impossible?" It can't be both. It can be hard and improving. It can be "slightly improving but really on the whole, miserable on most days." But it can't be both improving AND impossible. My fear is that most people, as is usually the case, will give no consideration to the facts and simply see the phrase "life is impossible." The sad part in this case is that the facts are about two column inches away from the distortion. How can that be? How can a reporter not see both the contradiction and the problem it poses for real progress toward peace?
This also brings up a larger point about people who protest Israel and/or boycott Israel or Israeli goods. In a recent Newsweek article, Jacob Weisberg lays out a case countering the Israel Boycott movement. (Don't Boycott Israel - The Very Idea is Repellent) In it he mentions Meg Ryan, who cancelled an appearance in Israel, and Elvis Costello, who cancelled a concert. He also mentions his distaste for academic boycotts. Weisberg, however, takes the traditional route of promoting Israel's many attributes and asking the David Project and AIPAC question; "How can you boycott Israel when there are so many other really bad places." Personally, that is not my favorite approach. Do they really think that the "I'm not as bad as that guy" argument works on a visceral or intellectual level.
Most protesters of Israel do not see the shade of gray between Israel having military control of an area and them having anything to do with social services, jobs, and the actual plight of the population. They do not see it as the political no man's land that it is. The West Bank has been in a virtual purgatory for quite some time, and the idea that Israel leaving tomorrow will create prosperity is the main thing these protesters seem to not understand. The other critical issue they do not get is that both sides are actually doing a great deal to improve conditions as much as they can given the current situation. So I ask, what is the boycott for? If it is for Israel to leave, do they not get that Israel wants to leave and that agreements have already been proposed that will allow some settlements to stay and have some go? Do they not get that BOTH sides have already agreed that this is what will eventually happen? And if this is so, how can settlements, in principle, be so vilified.
This is not the same old, we've offered this much land before and they turned it down argument. Camp David was flawed and everyone who was there knows it. The point is that a structure exists to leave the West Bank and Israel has been supportive of it in principal. So I ask again, what is the point of the boycott? Is it to say Israel is bad? Is it to say Israel should leave tomorrow? Well, again, how naive is that? Leaving tomorrow gets you another Gaza, and saying Israel is the evil party here is as one sided a claim as you could make given the history of this conflict.
And just so we can be consistent here, I really hope Meg Ryan and Elvis Costello are also cancelling their appearances in the US and Europe because their rules of engagement and security in Afghanistan and Iraq are actually less protective of civilians than are Israel's.
Palestinians are trapped between hard liners on both sides and only by encouraging moderation on both sides - with positive measures - will anything productive come about. All the money and effort going toward boycotts could be going toward development in the West Bank and Gaza. All the celebrities who are boycotting could be going to both Israel and the West Bank and advocating for moderation, political activism and a spirit of compromise on both sides. As with Ethan Bronner's article, these celebrities are simplifying the situation, contributing to the global demonization and ostracizing of Israel, and not actually helping average Palestinians at all.
To be fair, there are figures protesters see that show how conditions for Palestinians are not good. But not only are most of those figures skewed by combining conditions in Gaza and the West Bank, but I state again, the idea that Israel leaving tomorrow will improve these conditions is preposterous. But the numbers are real. Lets just not kid ourselves that Gaza and the West Bank face the same severity of problems. And frankly, lets be honest about Gaza. No one knows what to do about Gaza. It may have to be the red state to the West Bank's blue state in some future Paletstinian confederation. But most boycotters are talking about the West Bank and envisioning Gaza. In fact, boycotters get louder after conflicts in Gaza escalate. Where is the rational there?
Here are some figures that should alarm us all:
Again, these conditions are not good, but they are not really reflective of actual conditions in the West Bank. If you think about it, the place that is the most moderate is the place Israel is giving the most support, and encouragment for growth. Isn't that exactly what they should be doing? Maybe they should be moving faster and with more determination, but is that a reason to boycott? Is that a reason to vilify and demonize?
I say let's stop the boycotts, discredit and dismantle the biased organizations who promote them, role up our sleeves, and be part of the solution, not the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment