September 16, 2007
Posted by yaman
Will Hussein Ibish save the Palestinians?
Hussein Ibish, above, believes he will single-handedly free Palestine with his American passport.
In his column of September 14, 2007, Hussein Ibish made one telling statement: “Any successful approach to pro-Palestinian advocacy in the United States should therefore emphasize the benefits to the United States, and indeed to Israel, of freedom for the Palestinian people.”
This suggestion comes at a time when the vast majority of Americans in decision-making circles are convinced of the exact opposite: that Israeli hegemony over the Palestinian people, and Israel’s status as a regional superpower, is in fact one that benefits the United States. It is nearly impossible to suggest otherwise considering the substantial cooperation between the militaries, intelligence communities, economies, and governments of both countries. Hell, an Israeli firm is contracted to train the campus police all the way at my California school. If Israel is good enough friends with the University of California, then we have a long way to go before making a convincing argument that Israel is not good enough for “US interests”–the same interests that have a history of spreading war, overthrowing democratic governments, and installing puppet leaders around the world. Contrary to Ibish’s thinking, “US interests” are not defined by the Arab love he thinks will follow a US-sponsored Palestinian state.
This small fact aside, we should also be troubled by anybody who views the Palestinian people instrumentally, as either beneficial or detrimental to so-and-so’s interests. In this problematic thinking, which was instrumental in bringing about the Israeli state in the first place, whenever Palestinian freedom is not beneficial to the United States or to Israel (like today, yesterday, and every day in at least the past 60 years: the existence of the Palestinians is in fact quite inconvenient for Israel, and this will always be the case until Israel changes its state ideology), Ibish loses all justification for supporting the Palestinian people in their just cause. The truest, most persistent, and most promising support for the Palestinian people is that which rests on ethical principles, not on opportunism and self-interest.
Ibish, who entertains the idea that he is not a supporter of “ethnic nationalism,” concludes that those “serious” about peace must work for a “Palestinian state alongside Israel.” In other words, Ibish’s idea of “serious” peace is that which results in a state defined for Jews and another defined for Arabs. Putting aside the question of whether or not this is practically possible, we should ask: is there a grosser example of “ethnic nationalism” than Ibish’s suggestion, anywhere, and can any of the academics Ibish smears (who actually call for one state defined by neither ethnic identity) actually be guilty of this? The truth is that Ibish himself is guilty of what he accuses his opponents. This paradox, which even Ibish himself may not have picked up on, is quite typical for those who believe they can achieve liberation by collaborating with the same people who are in the business of dominating them.
It is no coincidence that Ibish is especially shocked by the idea that some might blame “other Palestinians and Arabs” for the criminal situation in Palestine. Ibish’s “lament” in this regard is most striking, especially for somebody who opposes “ethnic nationalism” while espousing liberal values that might be believed to be antithetical to the implications of this “lament.” While communal solidarity is important in the fight against apartheid, it would be a grave mistake to believe that every single Palestinian is equal in that fight: indeed, there are those Palestinians, and especially those Arabs, who have benefited in material and political terms precisely because of the occupation, and precisely because of their participation in the never-ending “peace process,” which time is showing us is actually a process of destroying Palestine piece-by-piece.
The most troubling part of Ibish’s vision for a Palestinian state is that it will be unsustainable. If it is to rely on never-ending “international backing,” which itself is an impossible goal, then that state will disappear with that support. Not even the Zionists relied so carelessly and so exclusively on “international support” to establish their state. It is also difficult to imagine what kind of Palestinian state can occur if a group with such pervasive social roots as Hamas is one that can simply be discarded and ignored by his strangely exclusionary idea of democracy. Does Ibish think a state of any form can actually be formed without that segment of Palestinian society playing any role whatsoever? That state will not last: it has already failed, as recent events have shown.
What we need is not defeatism, as Ibish is proposing. Neither is it the redemptive approach that Ibish suggests of Americans wielding their passports to save the Palestinians, who Ibish appears to take for granted will never have a chance of helping themselves. We should be working to empower those who are leading the authentic struggle against the apartheid system, whoever they may be. This cannot happen by “engaging the political system” in the way Ibish thinks we should: not because of some irrational obstinacy on our part, as Ibish the Rational imagines, but because of the very nature of that political system. The only way we can “engage” the political system, is if we engage it in on contrarian terms. In remaining outside of the system while actively opposing it, we will shape it. The other alternative is Ibish’s: that we attempt to oppose the system by participating in it. But if we follow that path, it is our shape that will change.
Immortal Technique said it more gracefully: “The problem with always being a conformist is that when you try to change the system from within, it’s not you who changes the system; it’s the system that will eventually change you. There is usually nothing wrong with compromise in a situation, but compromising yourself in a situation is another story completely.”
The mural above, in San Francisco at 24th and Capp, illustrates the spirit of resistance common to struggles against external domination around the world. It is currently under attack by the censors of the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Community Relations Council. Click on the image for more information on how to help.
6 Comments
September 16, 2007
How nice it must be for you, a Syrian living in the US, to tell the Palestinians what is in their best interest.
Unfortunately for the Palestinians, they have followed the “spirit of resistance” for the past 60+ years, and it hasn’t done them much good.
It almost paid off, both in 48 and 67, when they came close to wiping out the Jews, but now its time to face reality: Israel is a country with a strong economy and an unbeatable army.
So the Palestinians now face a simple choice between a) The Ibish approach, and b) the Salahi approach.
The Ibish approach can be exemplified by the recent victory of the Palestinians in the West Bank village Bil’in. Many Palestinians in Bil’in were separated from their fields by the Barrier. So the local council leader of Bil’in, Ahmed Issa Abdullah Yassin brought their case to the Israeli Supreme Court. By “engaging the political system” in such a way, Yassin won an important victory for his village, who will now be able to continue their livelihood and live in dignity.
The Salahi approach is basically what has been imposed on the starving people of Gaza ever since Israel ended the occupation in 2005. This approach is guided by a narrow-minded adherence to principles such as “resistance” and “martyrdom”. However, the real motivating factors are pride, arrogance, and a severe sense of humiliation when confronted with any form of Jewish political power or self-determination. One should not expect this approach to accomplish anything tangible, since it exists only to heal the injured pride of the Arabs and to indulge their immature, romantic fantasies.
Before the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, many Israelis actually believed that Palestinians had the desire and the will to become self-reliant and self-empowering. However, the first step taken by the Palestinians was to demolish Jewish-built greenhouses, and any other infrastructure that would have allowed for a functioning, sustainable economy. Now Gazans live off of Israeli charity (food shipments and Israeli gas and electricity), while at the same time shooting rockets at Israeli kindergartens.
What Ibish is proposing is really the best that Palestinians can hope for, and it does not make him a defeatist. If only more Arabs could look at the situation the same way as Ibish and Yassin, without letting their inferiority complexes get in the way, they would be much better off. BTW, how do 22-inch rims symbolize “the spirit of resistance”?
September 16, 2007
Tony,
The “we” I speak of is not ‘the Palestinians,’ but pro-Palestinian activists in the United States. There are already strong arguments written by Palestinians for a Palestinian audience regarding this issue, in Arabic. If either I or Ibish wanted to talk to a Palestinian audience, we would be writing in the language that most of them speak. Ibish (and I) is very clearly targeting a Western English-speaking audience.
I’m flattered you call what I’ve presented here “the Salahi approach,” as if it’s a novel thing I’ve just come up with. I haven’t–it’s been around this whole time, otherwise this issue would have disappeared off the face of the map. You cite the Bil`in ruling as if it is exemplary of Ibish’s approach–I would disagree here, unless you have essentialized the “difference” simply as violence and non-violence, which is not an accurate reading or representation of what my post re-suggests. You may not have heard about the open letter that the people of Bil`in wrote to the Israelis in Hebrew in Haaretz–here is an English translation, which I think properly characterizes this “victory:”
This doesn’t sound like the Ibish approach to me. The Ibish approach involves bestowing honors unto Condoleeza Rice in the name of the Palestinians, because apparently Condoleeza Rice is well-known for her fearless support of the Palestinians.
I am not sure why you think the Palestinians ever came close to “wiping out the Jews,” but this is a blatant lie that has been repeatedly debunked. “Wiping out the Jews” has never been my goal, nor the goal of pro-Palestine activists, nor the goal of the Palestinians. This is something that you have invented. One state with one vote per citizen is not equivalent to “wiping out the Jews,” except in the twisted oligarchical and anti-democratic logic you use. The system you propose we support is more likely to wipe out the Palestinians and, indeed, it has made strides in that direction ever since the months preceding Israel’s declaration of independence from… actually, I’m not sure from what.
September 17, 2007
Here’s an alternative idea of what to do about the mural controversy. Call the Jewish Community Relations Council. I just called them to inquire what’s going on and why they wrote a letter against the mural. They seemed rather surprised that someone would actually call. I think it might be quite successful if a number of people call and respectfully ask them to desist from this type of intervention. In my view, the best argumentative strategy is to tell them that it is not the task of the JCRC to engage in mural censorship, and that among the Jewish community in the Bay Area (which the JCRC claims to represent) people hold a wide variety of views – so the JCRC should focus on its core mission and not became an arm of the Israel Lobby. Here are the contact details:
Jewish Community Relations Council
Main: (415) 957-1551
Fax: (415) 979-0981
E-mail
info@jcrc.org
September 17, 2007
That’s a good idea, dialektik. I will encourage others to follow your lead.
September 17, 2007
Yaman,
I take it you disagree with the Mearsheimer/Walt argument that the Israel lobby works against American interests. I would note that many of Israel’s defenders like Martin Kramer make similar arguments that you make about the benefits of Israeli hegemony to American power.
September 17, 2007
Peter, it depends that how you define “American interests.” If these are monetary and economic, then there are countless ethical ideals that should be abandoned in order to serve those interests. On the other hand, if those interests are in fact a matter of conducting our business–all kinds–in an ethical manner, then yes, the Israel lobby runs counter to those. What is clear though is that the Israel lobby often quashes debate on the issue of American support of Israel–that is the more important point for me, that even the argument about whether or not Israel is in fact something that serves American interests–whatever those are–is an argument that cannot be conducted freely, as we have other political arguments.
I do tend to side with the idea that the Israel Lobby, while being highly influential in civil society, is not the only determining factor when it comes to American imperial interests abroad. This argument runs the risk of being fatalistic, and I do not encourage that sort of fatalism, but my opinion is that there is some truth to it. We have seen American empire behave unethically countless times, in situations where the Israel Lobby was certainly not the determining factor (especially outside the Middle East), like in Latin America and Southeast Asia.
Leave a comment