Karma Nabulsi, a Palestinian intellectual and former PLO representative — whose book Traditions of War reclaims a central place for Jean-Jacques Rousseau in thinking about the ethics and law of war and conflict — writes today in the Guardian about Rousseau, the Geneva accords and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Her piece points up a central problem in the politics of the Israeli—Palestinian conflict: for all the neoconservative rhetoric about the centrality of democracy to progress in the Middle East, the sort of Palestinian leaders with whom Bush and Sharon want to deal are very different from those who would emerge from democratized Palestinian institutions.
I seem to recall some pieces during the dying days of apartheid exploring what Roussea-ian political theory could say about that conflict and its resolution. One of the things that came out was the warning that living under the distorted political regime of Late Apartheid would significantly affect the ability of many young men in particular, to properly adjust and practise their duties and rights as citizens in a ‘conventional’ democratic way. In a sense not exactly an unforeseen consequence but a new angle on a serious problem. The deeper contradiction, or potential one, as I understand it, is that democracy, particularly that of a Rousseau-ian nature, won’t necessarily reduce or eliminate conflict; especially when two ardent nationalisms clash over a finite piece of territory with strong ethnic and religious readings of history which have become quite antagonistic to each other. Increasing democracy, here could very well increase the intensity of conflict – I assume this is part of the thinking behind the willingness of the Israelis and the US/international community to overlook the flawed elections to the PA in the past which guaranteed Arafat a comfortable position. Of course with the peace process derailed now, the issue of political reform has very much come back on the agenda. There may well be an unpalatable choice to make here between the deepening of democracy and the capacity to achieve a sustainable peace; for both sides, it is debatable as to whether a democratic consensus on the compromises needed to achieve peace within a two-state framework may exist. On the other hand, opinion and belief has shifted around a lot within both camps, so all that might be needed is a set of leaders that have broadly the same goals and who maintain a level of trust necessary in the Other to make the initial steps.
“Once understood that the Palestinian people . . .consider [the right of return] the essence of their identity, the very basis of their struggle, then peaceful negotiations with Israel mean that this simple truth is recognised as the starting point of any authentic peace process.”
Why is this not equally true backwards? Once understood that Israelis consider their identity requires living in a majority Jewish state, then peaceful negotiations require this simple truth be recognised as the starting point of any authentic peace process.
I’m not saying that the quoted sentence is wrong, merely that it is no more right than any other “fundamental” position held by either side.
It seems that in any peace negotiations between two sovereign entities, there will be some concessions that are not supported by the majority of one or the other. Making a concession that the majority didn’t want anyway is hardly a concession.
It is easy to say that the “right of return” is the essence of Palestinian identity, but one would think that “self-rule” would be at least as important. Meanwhile, sticking to the one point that the Israelis won’t budge on just makes it easier for Sharon to impose a solution, drawing boundaries wherever he sees fit.
On another note, the Palestinians have been subject of anti-Israel indoctrination. There has been no free flow of ideas or contrarian viewpoints permitted on the issue. Without a basis of free institutions, the views expressed by the majority cannot be considered the “democratic” will, but merely majoritarianism.
What nonsense. The right of return is a fundamental one acknowledged by the world. Israel’s “right” to create a Jewish state in Palestine (as opposed to the other places that were considered in the C19th) was a creation of the Zionist movement. These are not just two competing assertions of equal weight. That Palestinians have a right to their homes seems fairly uncontroversial to most people.
Nice formulation on democrtatic vs majoritarian, BTW. Who will decide what are legitimate views (democratic) and what are the product of evil indoctrination (majoritarian)?…. Israel?
Anyway, any attempt to proceed on a basis other than at least an acknowledgement (if not complete implementation) of the right of return is doomed to failure and, sadly, more senseless violence on both sides.
“On another note, the Palestinians have been subject of anti-Israel indoctrination. There has been no free flow of ideas or contrarian viewpoints permitted on the issue. Without a basis of free institutions, the views expressed by the majority cannot be considered the “democratic” will, but merely majoritarianism.”
Just because they’ve got a grudge doesn’t mean they are being unreasonable.
I’m not sure what represents the real will of the Palestinians if the views of the majority won’t do. In her article Dr. Nabulsi describes ideas not flowing to us from Palestine so who is suffering from indoctrination? In fact the Palestinian community is very cosmopolitan and has satellite tv and relatives everywhere, for instance including Dr. Nabulsi. It is not as if there are not serious divisions and debates amongst the Palestinians either.
I suppose that it might be hard to keep up with the letters page of the NYT if you are living in a refugee camp. It might also not be easy to forget why you are there.
If I’m not mistaken the Rousseau solution would be for the Israelis just to include the Palestinians in the Democratic process of Israel. Sounds fair to me.
Lee,
Perhaps my history is faulty. As I recall, before WWII, the area called Palestine was under British control. It had some Jews living there and it had a lot of Arabs (Palestinians) living there.
After the war, more Jews started moving to the area. The British decided to divide the land between the two groups living there, creating one “Jewish” state and one “Palestinian” state.
This plan was brought to the United Nations, voted on, and approved. Under international law, that by itself should validate the “two state solution”.
Almost immediately, almost all Jews living outside the new Israel in Arab countries started getting persecuted and fled to Israel out of fear. Many Arabs living in the new Israel either fled out or fear, or left assuming they could return when the Arabs defeated Israel in the 1948 war. When that didn’t happen and Israel became permanent, the Jews who fled to Israel became “Israelis” and the Arabs who fled from Israel became “refugees.”
Aside from the imprimatur of the UN, I don’t know what the Israelis should (or could possibly) have done to gain their “right” to a country in your view other than living there. National borders are inherently arbitrary, and it makes sense that if two groups don’t get along, when you’re drawing the arbitrary boundaries you should put them in separate countries.
I can’t help feeling that the relevance of 18th century Geneva is - limited.
Of more interest, perhaps, are the implications for the 21st century Middle East if the Palestinian leadership decides to upgrade the right of return from the level of pious hope.
Isn’t this only a paradox if you understand democracy purely as the electoral system? It is pretty clear to me that neo-cons are using ‘democracy’ as short-hand for, at a minimum, the following: rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of association, independent judiciary, freedom of contract which are supposed to make a functioning democratic government possible. Democratization is an end product, not a “one man, one vote, one time” affair.
It is pretty clear to me that neo-cons are using ‘democracy’ as short-hand for, at a minimum, the following: rule of USA law over the law of any other state, freedom of speech for USA corporations, freedom of association as long as one dollar one vote, independent judiciary designed amongst the most right-wing judges one can find, freedom of contract: you agree or you die.
That is not supposed to make a functioning democratic government possible. Democratization is an end product, a “one individual, one vote, any time it is needed” affair.
DSW
Rv agnos,
I don’t want to start a huge historical debate about the rights and wrongs of the whole Israeli-Palestinian issue but I think there are some points that could be clarified on what you have said. The main problem was that the British had basically promised Palestine to two different sets of people, both the Arabs and the Zionists in WWI with an eye to maximising their support and then went through a troubled Mandate period paying for this. They managed to alienate at different points of time, both sets of Nationalists, sparking off an Arab revolt in 1936 and periodic Jewish resistance culminating in a guerrilla campaign at the end of WWII. I don’t think it makes much sense to refer to the UNSCOP mission plan since I doubt whether either side was going to respect it and neither side was happy with Partition, having desired Palestine in its entirety. The Zionist leadership not having won recognition at a significant level for a Jewish state, decided to accept the plan while the Palestinian Arabs refused; however, even the UN plan would have left a large Arab minority (40%, I think) in the new Jewish state, which still had to absorb Jewish immigration, in an area smaller that modern Israel. This in effect would have created a de facto bi-national state and have caused a severe problem for Zionism as a state ideology. The later transfer of populations, ameliorated this problem, but only through substantial levels of ethnic cleansing; as aside from the urban professional populations; the mass of the Arabs in the rural peasantry were hard to move otherwise. The Zionist flight you refer to from Arab countries began somewhat later, one of the largest Jewish communities in the region in Iraq, left between 1950-52, somewhat after the founding of Israel and aided in some part by activities of a Zionist underground network which created series of false incidents but for the major part by the discrimination of the Iraqi govt at the time and the opportunist manipulation of anti-Jewish sentiments.
I cannot stress strongly enough that the UN does not have the right to ‘create’ a country and neither does Israel owe some sort of debt to the UN at the time for passing the partition plan; the right of a nation-state to exist can be judged on a number of different criteria, the adherence to democratic principles and enhancement of the life-opportunities given to ALL its citizens being the main ones in my opinion. Nationalist sentiment had become quite entrenched by the end of the 1930s on both sides and the likelihood of conflict was high, no matter which what the UN would have decided.
National border is indeed arbitrary but they need to be respected by state actors and nationalisms. While the Labour wing of the Zionist movement has been much more pragmatic in its willingness to accept demarcated borders, the ambiguity with which Israeli elites have been willing to take advantage to ‘adjust’ to newly created facts and situations on the ground is quite notorious. I suggest that it is essential for a nationalist consensus to emerge very early on in the existence of a state as to what its sovereign boundaries should be and that having designs or annexing parts of other state-territories or expressing long-term intentions to do so, are not conducive to a solution that is particularly democratic or peaceful.
As a German Green Party member recently suggested, Europe is fighting a proxy war against the US - through the Palestinians. There is no reason for Europe to want to see a settlement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It is no wonder that this article appeared in The Guardian - a decidedly anti-American publication.
If there was a mixed Jewish-Muslim state
in Palestine who would be elected Prime
Minister? If strictly along ethnic
Sharon would win and Arafat would lose.
And then Arafat would no longer have the
protection of the International Community
to shield him against being brought to
trial for his terrorist crimes.
And do you think the Israeli Defense Forces
would tolerate its new fellow citizens -
Hamas; Islamic Jihad; Tanzim - with all
those weapons? History tells us they
would not.
No way the current Palestinian leadership
would allow a single state solution.
On the other, individual muslim citizens would
joyfully want to be citizens of that sort of
state. Look to the Polling numbers of current
Israeli Arabs when asked if they would
voluntarily subject themselves to the rule of
the current Palestinian Authority. Heavily
against such an idea.
“Be careful what you ask for. You may get it.”
One would assume that in such a state the choice would not have to be between Sharon and Arafat, both quite unattractive alternatives; the default position that justifies the status quo always likes to present such stark decisions which are frequently untenable in the long-run; mirroring in some sense the alternatives of radical Islamism or secular tyranny which are often presented as the only possibilities to many in Muslim societies.
“And then Arafat would no longer have the protection of the International Community to shield him against being brought to trial for his terrorist crimes.”…
What protection would this be? Israeli intelligence services have long yielded repeated assessments that assasinating or eliminating Arafat would be counter to Israeli interests; which is why it was not done in the past even though it could easily have been so. By this stage removing him could actually strengthen more hardline elements in the Palestinian camp and given his rank corruption and poor governance, it would not be a significant loss to them outside the symbolic level.
“And do you think the Israeli Defense Forces would tolerate its new fellow citizens - Hamas; Islamic Jihad; Tanzim - with all those weapons? History tells us they would not.”…
What history is being referred to here?
“No way the current Palestinian leadership would allow a single state solution.”…
The leadership of both nationalist movements have always consistently opposed this idea; this is one of the few things there is a complete consensus on across the board in the Israeli political elite; there is nothing new here.
“On the other, individual muslim citizens would joyfully want to be citizens of that sort of state. Look to the Polling numbers of current Israeli Arabs when asked if they would voluntarily subject themselves to the rule of the current Palestinian Authority. Heavily against such an idea.”…
As said before opinions are not monolithic, with the most recent Intifada, most Israeli-Arabs have indicated a strong sympathy with the Palestinians, exposing older faultlines. The Orr Commission explores some of these problems in more depth. I am unsure as to why anybody would want to live under the PA as it is currently constituted, given its flawed and rather repressive nature. The solution would be to democratise and reform it; one can only wonder why with Israeli co-operation and international negligence such basic political imbalances were ignored or turned a blind eye to until of late. So presenting the PA as the democratic end-goal to which one must aspire to, is setting an extremely low standard, to say the least.
>Isn’t this only a paradox if you understand democracy purely as the
>electoral system? It is pretty clear to me that neo-cons are using
>`democracy’ as short-hand for, at a minimum, the following: rule of
>law, freedom of speech, freedom of association, independent judiciary,
>freedom of contract which are supposed to make a functioning
>democratic government possible. Democratization is an end product, not
>a “one man, one vote, one time” affair.
Democracy according to the dictionary
“1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. “
So the neo-cons have simply stopped speaking English. That explains a lot. After all in that case when the neo-cons use words like “rule of law” and “independent judiciary” they might not be using the typical English meaning of those words either.
“…the Palestinians being largely a refugee population with more than 5 million refugees…” As has been pointed out multiple times, the 5M number is composed of refugees AND descendants (who are now into the 3rd generation). The number of living people who actually fled/left in 1948 is under 750,000 and shrinking daily.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review