As I was browsing through the New York Times this morning, I was pleasantly surprised to see this op-ed by Ali Abunimah on the differences in the American approaches to negotiations in Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine. For the record, I don’t agree with Mr. Abunimah’s overall view of the conflict. He places too much emphasis on vaguely neo-Marxist anti-colonial narratives for my taste, and I think the “one-state solution” that he desires would be extremely sub-optimal. That said, I think it’s great that he and people like him are beginning to get serious attention in American political discourse. One of the reasons that American policy toward Israel is (in my view) so misguided is because the mainstream debate is so oddly circumscribed. American citizens have been treated to Charles Krauthammer and Jeffrey Goldberg, which is fine, but outside of college campuses they’ve been unlikely to come across many unabashed supporters of the Palestinian cause.
It really does seem as though that’s beginning to change, and Abunimah’s piece is one example of the shift. I seriously wonder whether the Times would have published the same piece five years ago. Progress then, in small steps.
August 29, 2010 at 2:55 pm
you might be reporting correctly, to an extent.
ha'aretz recently noted that public support for israel is eroding in the united states.
but consider some of the domestic forces in play. for example, the tea party activists are gaining ground, and hundreds of thousands were at a weekend revivalist rally in DC. (Did you expect so many people there?) Also, the majority perception of the ground-zero mosque is heartening, as people come to understand that islam is an ideology of conquest and prone to deception.
the question is, what will america do in the middle east as she becomes more protective of her resources and heritage?
perhaps the increased focus on traditional values will lead to an increased support for israel; or at least a continued identification.
the most important question is this: do non-muslim peoples have the right to sovereignty?
people arguing for one state in the middle east are hiding their negative answer in universalist or "nationalist" babble. the impulses of such people are congruent with the culture of islam.
these people will be heard, but others will gain ground by putting the narrow, middle east issue in a larger context of resurgent jihad.
August 31, 2010 at 3:48 am
I think it's disingenuous to consider crumbling support for Israeli occupation of the West Bank as as crumbling support for Israel, and would be unfortunate in many ways if the successful conclusion of peace agreements led to a cooling of ties between the United States and Israel, though the creation of a stable Palestinian state is more important than bilateral relations.
Jeff, I think you've highlighted an issue with American discourse on the conflict – it focuses on the religious (Jewish-Muslim) aspect of the conflict when in reality it is more of a cultural and national (Israeli-Palestinian Arab, including Christians). The PA and PLO are officially secular, a fact that seems to be frequently overlooked.
-Ben, Tel Aviv
August 31, 2010 at 12:57 pm
In many cases in this world, an organization is "officially secular" but acts in accordance with the basic assumptions of its culture, of which religion is a vital part.
You cannot understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without understanding Islam. I have the impression that many Israelis, shell-shocked by the unrelenting enmity of their enemy, are beginning to see the connection.
Lee Harris's book The Suicide of Reason is a good starting place. The best web site is as follows; and the main man there says that its readership is growing at a remarkable rate:
http://www.jihadwatch.org