Normalizing Occupation: Syria, Israel, and “Peace Talks”

May 30th, 2008 by yaman | Posted in Current Events |

On the Syrian outpost at the Syria-Israel armistice line in the Golan Heights, this reads “Peace is our target; the peace which retrieves our Occupied Syrian Golan.” Photo by Josh Hough.

Without the requisite insider knowledge, it might yet be too early to tell exactly what the story, purpose, and intent behind the secret Syria-Israel “peace talks” are, with Ehud Olmert positioned to leave office within months, and the Syrian government welcoming a new positive phase for itself as the Bush administration counts its last days in office along with its failures in Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Palestine, among other places. There is, however, at least one thing which can be said, for which the intentions of the parties are irrelevant. And that is, for us to position ourselves as either “for” or “against” these so-called “peace talks” is to obscure other important questions about and facets of the relationship between Syria and Israel, as well as the other implications of this ever-enduring “process.”

To say the least, given the name with which these talks have been dubbed, one’s being “for” or “against” them is reduced simply to one’s being for or against this thing called “peace,” which itself is not so simple as the word suggests. It further makes it impossible to present one’s attitudes on “Israel” separate from one’s attitudes on “peace.” It’s no surprise that in those countries which have already completed these peace processes, there is a constant suppression and repression of solidarity with the Palestinians and criticism of Israel–in Cairo, for example, a performance of the debkeh marking the 60th year of the Nakbah by AUC’s al Quds Club was canceled, and in Jordan marches commemorating the Nakbah were banned. To be critical of Israel becomes an illegitimate action which is identical to being a threat against “peace.”

It should be recalled as well, and time after time it has been re-affirmed, that these peace processes have always been to the overwhelming advantage of one party, and to the disadvantage of the others. That is not to say that peace is undesirable, or that open and transparent communication should be rejected, but rather that this process does not bring peace as we might normally imagine it. And it is not open or transparent. The Palestinians know this lesson more than any other people on this planet, especially with regards to Israel–every series of talks continues to weaken the struggle. If accepting “peace” were simply a matter of disliking perpetual violence, then the term would not be separate from “cease-fire.” How else can Israel’s perpetual calls for “peace” but constant rejections of cease-fire proposals from Palestinians be explained or understood?

The question that is posed to us by these talks, after all, is not whether or not we believe in “peace,” but whether or not we believe that colonization can be peaceable, or that liberation must be peaceful. A rejection of “peace talks” is not a rejection of peace, peaceful processes, diplomacy, or resolutions, but the rejection of the normalization of the status quo, since that is what these talks will affirm. We should recall, especially in the Syrian context, that there has been no open warfare for forty years, that the only aggression has come at Israel’s hands to Syria, and thus that there is no obvious pressing military need for such talks.

There is yet another facet of these talks to be examined. We tend to consider only their outcome as being potentially normalizing, when in fact it is the process itself that is normalizing since the very framework legitimizes occupation and colonization as things to be “negotiated” or “discussed” rather than rejected. Further, even without any formal results, these normalizing talks have always been fruitful for Israel which, behind this veneer of an ultimate aspiration for peace, continues to engage in violent hostilities and offenses against all parties with whom it has ever engaged in a peace process because it can then position the oppressed, colonized, and occupied as the obstacle to peace, as opposed to its own continued intransigence. Under a desire for future peace, Israel today expands settlement and annexation while expanding its military. It has only been a few months since Israeli airplanes bombed Syria, and it has been probably only a matter of minutes since the last Palestinian was abused, injured, detained, tortured or killed by Israeli violence, despite the unwaivering–and ultimately meaningless–public relations claim that Israel “wants” peace. It is, in all honesty, a case of severe incompetency on the part of those speaking for the occupied that has allowed for the discursive inversion of the relationship between the occupied and the occupier, insofar as responsibilities and rights are concerned.

Neither we nor those parties presuming to speak in our name should ever accept that these are “peace talks.” They are talks that normalize occupation. At best, communication between the occupied and the occupier can be a way to guide the disengagement and decolonization of occupied lands and peoples. If “talks” do not have this effect (and they never have), then they achieve quite the opposite. It should be noted here too that the Israeli government is not the only entity which is normalized through such processes, but so too is the Syrian government. In both cases, there are collective interests guiding participation in the process that are not necessarily the interests of the peoples for whom participants claim to speak and represent–namely, the interests of that collectivity called ‘the government’ and its own survival. These talks and the idea of “peace agreements” have meaning primarily and most directly for state and government institutions, not people. Hence Olmert in the final days of his government grasps for a rope that might pull him out of his quickly deepening hole, while Syria finds talks as an opportunity to strengthen its image and position in the region following years of assault and isolation.

We should recall, too, what has been the outcome of all previous “peace talks” that brought no peace: much publicized “failures,” as if it were the fault of both the occupier and the occupied for failing to bring “peace.” In truth, the only party who can “fail” to bring peace is the occupier, because the occupier is the cause of its absence. The occupied, on the other hand, can never be blamed for a lack of peace, because they are inherently rooted in conflict, violent and non-violent, which cannot be ignored or overlooked. If anything, the occupied can be blamed only for failing to bring peace by failing to bring liberation, for weakening the struggle by normalizing occupation and colonization. To speak of a “peace process” between Syria and Israel, or between Palestine and Israel, precludes the possibility that one or more of these entities is itself a barrier to peace. We should not be ashamed by such an acknowledgment because we should never forget that it is not the place of the colonized or the occupied to embrace “peace,” but rather the responsibility of the colonizing occupier to reject “war.”

In the case, though, that this process achieves its formal goal of normalization, this will merely shift the task of the activist away from arguing against normalization, since it has already occurred, to calling for boycott, economic and otherwise, of a state that is premised on persistent dispossession and displacement. The pattern to be followed in solidarity with the Palestinians in Syria, will begin to resemble the pattern guiding solidarity movements in the West and those in Egypt and Jordan. Grassroots boycott is the feature of a political institution’s failure to represent, through formal channels, the desire of its people. And that, really, is the more accurate expression of where I and many others stand on so-called peace talks between Syria and Israel, or Palestine and Israel: not in a position that advocates war or interminable violence or is against “peace,” but in a position that calls for boycott until justice. As we have come to know them “peace talks” are simply incompatible with such a position, especially in a country that is home to half a million Palestinian refugees.

“Peace talks,” now, are nothing more than the next manufactured product whose consumption benefits the manufacturer, the occupier, and by that reason alone calls for boycott.

  1. 26 Responses to “Normalizing Occupation: Syria, Israel, and “Peace Talks””

  2. By yael on May 31, 2008

    yaman,
    you know i respect your views, but i think your view of “peace” with israel is naive.
    in cairo, as you know - and can see very well in the film “salata baladi” - it is not support for Palestinians that is banned, but any “normalizing” of the relationship with israel. this relationship is termed in israel “cold peace” because there is no “friendship” there, just not war. is that so little, though? i think not.
    and about talks - those with egypt and jordan were quite swift and effective, and israel fulfilled the territorial consequences of the agreements with them. do you think the palestinians have no “agency” (as they say here) in the talks failing every time?
    i also find the sign you photo quite funny. our target is peach “if”. so is the true target peace or getting the golan back? i don’t care if its the golan, but then don’t claim your target is peace. your entire post suggests it isn’t, really, b/c even the talks “normalize” israel and are therefore unacceptable! this relates to our boycott discussion a while ago. the problem with boycott is that it requires that the party boycotted cares/is affected by it. just so you know, many isrealis think that given there will not be a “warm peace” with syria, and that the regime seems stable and not interested in war, and given israel’s economic ties have for the past 60 years not been with the region (and it is still doing well) - why bother give back the golan for getting the same thing as the present?
    In order to get the golan back syria will have to have “peace”, than, this way or another.
    israel exixts, yaman, and not going anywhere, despite your hopes of retirement ;-). face it already (all of you in the region), and act accordingly.
    please post something about life in damascus.
    yael

  3. By yaman on May 31, 2008

    Hey Yael,

    Glad to see you’re doing well… the photo was meant to be ironic since it does a little more to reveal the complexity of ‘peace’ than a lot of public discourse will do, treating it simply as an abstraction without any historical context whatsoever. My selection of the photo was neither an endorsement nor a criticism.

    I don’t know how Syria will get Golan back nor do I see it as my place to offer suggestions. I am just saying that peace or no peace, normalization of occupation should be opposed. And as far as talks are concerned, when they discuss occupied land as being negotiable, they very much are normalizing. I don’t mean here that Israel the state gains legitimacy in its existence, but that the fact of the occupation gains legitimacy.

    The retirement comment you are referring to from the Israel at 60 post was a joke making fun of the idea that states have “birthdays” :)

    I will post about Damascus once I’m there, but in the meantime I’m still in California! Maybe in a few weeks.

  4. By Tom Pessah on May 31, 2008

    hmm… I don’t entirely agree, or actually I think you could make the same argument more effectively.
    >>”The question that is posed to us by these talks, after all, is not whether or not we believe in “peace,” but whether or not we believe that colonization can be peaceable”

    The Golan is currently being colonized, and hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees are unable to go back. If the Golan were to change sovereignity the process of colonization would be reversed. I assume there would not be open talks unless there were some promise of that, and Sinai is a precedent, so it is theoretically possible. This also contradicts what you said about “communication between the occupied and the occupier can be a way to guide the disengagement and decolonization of occupied lands and peoples. If “talks” do not have this effect (and they never have)” - clearly in the case of Sinai there was some form of decolonization - the settlements aren’t there any more.

    >>especially in the Syrian context, that there has been no open warfare for forty years, that the only aggression has come at Israel’s hands to Syria, and thus that there is no obvious pressing military need for such talks
    this is actually almost the exact argument currently made by settlers against withdrawal, and it’s more of a right-wing than a left-wing argument. Even in the absence of an actual war (for 35 years) there have been skirmishes (1982, not to mention arming Hezbollah), and the cost of militarization for both societies is huge. To say “there is no pressing need’ actually normalizes the occupation of the Golan and the plight of the Golan refugees,which is quite a surprising argument for you to make.

    In addition, to say ““talks” do not have this effect (and they never have)” and call for sanctions is to place too much hope on one option. Peace talks did lead to withdrawal from Sinai. Where did decades of sanctions lead to? they may or may not be effective in the future, but I don’t think we should have blind faith in their effectiveness.

    BUT the most important point against is the one that you only hint at but don’t make expicitly, namely that a SEPARATE peace with Syria would weaken the position of the Palestinians and enable the occupation to deepen. So the problem isn’t with peace talks per se, or with decolonization, or with a lack of pressing military needs, but with the normalization of the occupation of Palestinians through separate deals with Egypt, Jordan and now possibly Syria. That is the real danger and, unfortunately, what is likely to happen.

  5. By Tom Pessah on May 31, 2008

    what I don’t like about the “there has been no open warfare for forty years” line, which I regularly hear from settlers and right-wing politicians, is that it implies that nothing should change until there is more violence. There is currently an equivalent argument that says “we cannot release thousands of Palestinian prisoners in return for one soldier, Gilad Shalit”, which also implies that Palestinians are expected to use more violence and kidnap more soldiers before their demands are taken seriously.

    Surely it would be better not to wait until there is open warfare before this issue is resolved?

  6. By yaman on May 31, 2008

    Tom, you make a number of very good points and you raise strong criticism/questions about my argument, especially with regards to Sinai. You are also correct about the importance of the Golan refugees who have been separated from their families for decades.

    However, the cost of retrieving these occupied lands, even in Egypt, was placing an Israeli embassy in Cairo and, if it happens in Syria, perhaps an embassy in Damascus. So it is not correct to say simply that the land was returned through talks, because they were really held ransom for the cost of an embassy and everything it represents. It’s this effective ransom, where Israel gets something out of nothing, and the other party gets only what it had before, where I see the damage of this normalization.

    I think for a country to house an embassy that is responsible for the refugee status of half a million of its own inhabitants is a contradiction that is impossible to resolve. The separate peace is non-sense for that reason. Syria has every legitimate reason to hold out on normalization–not de-occupation–until every one of the issues has been addressed, including the Palestinian refugees.

    Contrary to what we are told, we should not accept the division of these issues between different state apparatuses. I want to stress here my point that Israel is not the only body being normalized; so too is the position of the Syrian government, specifically the institution of the state in that region. The one thing most interesting about the Palestinian situation to me is its potential to challenge the very nature of as we know it, revealing all of the tensions both of Israeli state-hood and state-hood more generally. With two states and “peace deals” of these sorts between governments and capitals, we really have to accept the fact that it is the structure of the state, and not the people, which is empowered. The violence we see now at borders will simply be transferred and inflicted on the citizens themselves, as we see in Jordan and Egypt, where the normalization that has occurred is possible only because of dictatorship, monarchy, and rapacious economic policies.

    Those are some of the wider implications, to me, of these sorts of agreements, and that is why if it happens I see the pattern of activism shifting to be similar to the one we have here and in other places, the frustration with foreign policy based squarely on frustration with domestic policy. The talks, in and of themselves, make that possibility more likely, because they establish certain things as norms that can be debated.

  7. By yael on May 31, 2008

    yaman,and tom,

    I’ll mention boycott again.. I find the normalization discourse to be another version of this middle eastern strategy (now adopted by israel too as in dealing with Al-Jazira for example). I personally find it paradoxical as in the long run it only renders the boycotter redundant.
    israel, for such a long time under boycott (or non-normalization, whichever you prefer) by the arab world - has it really suffered from it as much as arabs thought it would? have the palestinians (for whom yaman say this is applied) gained anything?
    i think that all that the palestinians have gained resulted from pressure on israel not by the boycotting arab world - buy by the “friends” in the western world. having no relationship with someone (israel in this case) makes you (syria in this case) unable to pressure them to do anything!
    if you pay attention you can see how egypt, after 30 years of peace with israel, can demand things from it regarding gaza, and affect israel’s policy.
    boycott is, in my opinion, just lazy. in place of really acting for the palestinians, which no arab country really have, it is a preference to do nothing but still be righteous. and while one does nothing the other party can continue with their occupation quite peacefully.
    “i’m not your friend until you do x” rhetoric may be powerful in preschool, but even then the boycotted kid can have powerful allies, the teachers for example.
    – about nation states: it is quite popular nowadays (and berkeley-ways) to defy the nation state. however, as the most sophisticated public institution it is still irreplaceable as far as other alternatives are concerned. is “the global” really a better reality?? is a religious umma (of any religion) our preferred option??
    i think you are placing a burden of so many different ideas on your rejection of talks with israel, of such different scales and interests, that this makes the rejection itself weak.
    – lets leave grand ideas aside for a minute, and look at the everyday life in syria. will it not improve if the golan is returned? if less money is spent on arms? if there are foreign investments? — or is the situation is syria so bad that people are no longer interested in hope but only in “ideas” (like a free palestine, which they are powerless to pursue)?
    I truly dont understand, please explain

  8. By yaman on May 31, 2008

    Yael,

    The point of boycott is not to inflict suffering. It is not the same as siege. I think you under-estimate the degree of importance of normalization to the state of Israel, in the long-term, and not just political normalization but aesthetic as well. There are marketing campaigns in effect all around the world, both coordinated by Israel the state and by independent entities, in order to argue for the normalness of Israel. We see it all the time in the rhetoric of Israel advocacy in the United States. None of this exists simply to make people feel good about Israel, but because the idea of boycott is in fact a potent threat to Israel’s ability to continue acting the way it is currently acting.

    I think you have a fair assessment that no Arab country has ‘done anything’ for the Palestinians, but I don’t understand where you intend that statement to go. What do you advise them to do, and what ’something’ are they trying to do?

    Since we are talking about the state with birthdays, then maybe the pre-school analogy is appropriate. But again I will stress that there is nothing wrong with “talking,” unless it occurs at the expense of the rights of those who have been abused. Your idea of boycott is simply pretending that Israel does not exist. I think refusing to provide money, economic relations, military aid, “security” cooperation, or other favors, is the negation of the fact that it does exist in the way it does. So it is not simply obstinacy or denial.

    I knew that bringing in ideas of the state would be kind of messy here, since it was presented really only as an allusion of some wider implications, but this is not a fanciful opposition to the nation-state. I am echoing the belief that what we have in the PA, for example, after Oslo, is a security state which secures other countries rather than itself, by repressing the people. There is a similarity with Egypt and Jordan. As for integrating these ideas into my earlier comment, it may leave my argument weak because I did not develop it in depth, but I certainly do not think my perspective is weakened by looking at different dimensions of this issue.

  9. By Tom Pessah on May 31, 2008

    Yaman: >> Syria has every legitimate reason to hold out on normalization–not de-occupation–until every one of the issues has been addressed, including the Palestinian refugees.

    yes, exactly, I think that clarifies your argument and strengthens it.

    Yael: >> boycott is, in my opinion, just lazy. in place of really acting for the palestinians, which no arab country really have, it is a preference to do nothing but still be righteous. and while one does nothing the other party can continue with their occupation quite peacefully.

    The problem Yaman is referring to is that since 1993 the Israeli government has managed to keep up some form of negotiations with the Palestinians while continuing to build settlements and deepen the occupation. The reason for this seems ot be that there is no counter-force to the internal pressures (commercial, ideological, military-bureaucratic) that work to intensify this process. Egypt started a war in 1973 to signal that there is a price to be paid for ignoring its demands, and you could say the Syrian support of Hezbollah fulfils the same purpose. Some form of sanctions could be a non-violent means of achieving this necessary counter-balance. If you think this is not a good idea, how would you convince the Israeli gov’t to freeze and dismantle the current settlements? clearly the current peace talks, as well as the little internal public pressure from left-wingers, or the U.S. and Egyptian lip service isn’t enough.

  10. By yael on May 31, 2008

    yaman,
    i really think that if arab countries want to be ‘big brothers’ to palestine (if we continue the kid analogy) they should negotiate on its behalf rather then refuse to recognize its aggressor. saying “we will not talk to you b/c you hit our brother” is in fact actively being silent about the abuse. especially when there is no real “thing” that this boycott deprives israel of: it never gained any money, arms, political support or anything else form arab countries, so continuation of this “no” doesn’t have the affect that you hope for. what i try to point out to is that it is pressure by states that *do* give israel all the above (and the threat of withdrawing that) which might/is changing its policy towards palestinians. if arab countries do wish to have the ability to intervene as big brothers for palestine (if they want that at all), i think the way to do that is *engage* with israel rather than reject it. look at egypt and gaza for example, and the way mubarac’s pressure on israel (as result of the threat of hamas to his regime, not just good faith) has led to some israeli concessions to gaza.
    the problem is in the arab misconception that boycotting israel is the *right* thing to do to help palestinians. on the part of the people i think this is just naive. on the part of the regimes i think this is pacifying their people so to not really do something for palestine. engaging with israel and its people, and seeing that - disagreeing with them and all - they are people, and quite reasonable and perhaps likable, will shatter the ability of regimes like assad’s to have an enemy to waive in front of the people at times of need.

  11. By yaman on May 31, 2008

    Yael, the last thing the Palestinians need is more corrupt Arab governments to pretend to be their representatives. The point is not to negotiate for them, but to be in solidarity with them by refusing to undermine their position.

    Also, I want to draw attention back to the fact that boycott draws its meaning from the fact that it occurs by citizens, not the state. That is why it is powerful in the US context, in the Egyptian & Jordanian contexts, etcetera. That is why I said it should become the strategy in the case that Syria does formally sign an agreement without addressing all these issues.

    I also want to re-iterate that the boycott I am talking about is not a refusal to have contact or to conduct talks. In the context of talks, I said clearly that what should be refused is a framework which makes occupation and dispossession negotiable. Peace talks as they have occurred and been framed for the Palestinians for the past decade and a half have followed this pattern; allowing that to happen is what I referred to as incompetency on the part of representatives. Syria is right to have refused Israeli overtures that do not return occupied territory in full.

    I think we agree that ‘doing nothing’ is pointless or naive. I don’t think we agree that the boycott which I am talking about, which is not the boycott you frame as pretending that Israel does not exist, is the same as ‘doing nothing.’

  12. By yael on May 31, 2008

    tom,

    i understand the idea of sanctions - but they can only be applied by countries which have some relationship with the sanctiones state. israel has no relationship with syria so there can be no sanctioning of this relationship. boycott on syria’s part is therefore not affective. had the US chose to boycott israel - i agree it would have been quite dramatically affective.
    i try to say that if syria wants to be able to boycott israel - it has to have a relationship with it first. to give *something* that it can threaten to take away. absurd as this may sound.
    lets say israel now decides to boycott dubai on grounds of, lets say, treatment of non-citizens: who cares? this has no affect as the two countries have no relationship and no threat of *withdrawal* of anything.
    - had someone i dont know called me on the street saying they will *not* give me 200$ - would i be upset?? i don’t know them and have no reason to expect anything from them. had my neighbor whom i asked for a loan said that i would be upset since i have a relationship with them which i counted on.
    hope i am clear

  13. By Tom Pessah on May 31, 2008

    Yael - if I understand you correctly you are saying “Israel would get diplomatic relations from Syria, but it would also get potential pressure, and maybe that pressure would be effective in helping the Palestinians”. That sound logical in principle, but has it worked in the past? The Begin government got diplomatic relations with Egypt, and built a whole range of settlements in the territories. The Rabin government got peace with Jordan and built Ariel and many settlements around Jerusalem. The Sharon government received strong worldwide support for the disengagement, including from many Arab countries, and actually moved a lot of the Gaza settlers into new settlements on the West Bank. Jordan’s and the PA’s polite requests to free prisoners were ignored - prisoners were only freed after Hezbollah (and now, possibly Hamas) kidnappings. So I think people have good grounds to suspect that the same thing could happen this time too, unless there is some conditioning of normalization on actual steps like withdrawing from settlements, or recognizing the just rights of the refugees.

  14. By yael on May 31, 2008

    yaman,
    coming here i met several people from arab countries i previously (obviously) had no access to. the issue of boycott interests me on a personal level (that is, not only political level), as boycott was applied on me simply for being israeli by some of them. this personal boycott you are talking about has a funny purpose, as i am not my state and except for making them feel righteous (and vengeful, and exclusionary) - has no affect on palestinains whatsoever. it is just petty (envious of my good grades ? ;-). furthermore - as these people are not nice to me i simply engage with other people, and they are effectively redundant in my life. if there is any merit in engaging with me and affecting my politics - they refused/lost access to it.
    i never met any jordanian here, but i did meet many egyptians. all those i met side with the palestinains, and exercised personal boycott by never visiting israel - but at the same time were curious about me and israel and willing to talk and see me as a person. being outside of the anti-israeli atmosphere in egypt two of them started learning some hebrew, just for curiosity. were they less pro-palestinain? not at all.

    i really dont understand whom does this personal boycott serve other than assad. not going to/talking to israelies will just sustain isreal as a potential enemy for him to waive at the people when necessary.

  15. By yael on May 31, 2008

    tom,
    have the settlements themselves been at any point related to the peace with egypt of jordan? I am not fully familiar with the details but i think not.
    how about the example i gave above about egypt and gaza? if there is something israel is worried about it is mubarac losing control over egypt. so his demands about gaza are met with israeli concessions. they are not done for good will (israeli of egyptian) but they are done just as well.

  16. By yaman on Jun 1, 2008

    Yael, yes, I have met people like that, and I agree that sort of boycott is silly, but it should not be confused with what I am talking about. As for your last comment, given that Israel bombed Syria only a few months ago, I really don’t think Syrians are confused about their relationship to Israel.

  17. By yael on Jun 1, 2008

    yaman,
    so what boycott are you talking about ? ;-)
    give me an example.

    about syria, given that it supports hizballa which kidnapped+killed israeli soldiers and bombarded israeli north, no one in israel has illusions about having hummus in damascus next summer. at the same time, and if asad’s regime is stable, him not starting war via hizballa may be worth the golan.

  18. By yaman on Jun 1, 2008

    Yael, I am talking about things like divestment. Refusing on an individual level to speak with Israelis is fairly petty, and I am not sure why you consider this to be the meaning of boycott.

    In your last comment you are showing the fundamental problem with the attitude of many Israelis towards the occupied lands: that it is being ‘given up’ and it is up to Israel to decide whether or not it is ‘worth it’ to do that, as if Israel has a right to that decision in the first place.

  19. By Tom Pessah on Jun 1, 2008

    >>YAEL: have the settlements themselves been at any point related to the peace with egypt of jordan? I am not fully familiar with the details but i think not.

    that’s the root of the problem - whether we choose to place them in the same framework or not. Sadat did try to condition peace with Israel on concessions to the Palestinians, and there was a framework initiated in Camp David for that, alongside the bilateral Israeli-Egyptian talks (it included holding elections in the territories and beginning negotiations towards a final settlement), but once peace was achieved with Egypt the Begin government suspended all talk of concessions and went ahead with building settlements (and with invading Lebanon a few years later, knowing that it could devote all its military strength to that without any threat from Egypt).

    The point is that Egypt, Jordan and Syria have keys for normalization, something that the Israeli government needs - not just in terms of hummus in Damascus but more in terms of economic investments from the West once it is perceived as having peace with its neighbors. Most Palestinians and people sympathetic to their cause would argue that in return for getting this desirable thing the government should be expected to make certain concessions towards the Palestinians, rather than leaving them to bargain alone for their rights, since this hasn’t at all worked in the past.

  20. By yael on Jun 1, 2008

    Look,
    is it new to you that the israeli government treats what it gained by war as a bargaining chip that it may trade for normalization, but likes holding? and between us - how long has syria held the golan before that, 18 years?
    i just dont see why you expect states and societies to act like moral people - they never do, and analyzing them as such is an analytic mistake. i think this is why yaman talks about boycott on a personal level, as you understand states dont necessarily act according to their own moral agenda, and you think the people themselves should.
    BTW, if there is no relationship between israel and syria syrians cannot “refuse to buy israeli products” or go there, or anything.
    I still personally find that boycott is far less useful than you think, on a personal level. especially since israel’s main venue of export is not oranges but technology. will you not use icq b/c israelis developed it? fine, but no one will even notice this as a boycott on “israel”. I still find it as a petty practice performed by powerless people in order to feel better about their powerlessness - *by not doing anything*. absurd.

    regarding tom’s point on israel’s need for normalization with syria etc for economic reasons. did you not notice how israeli economy boomed *during* the 2006 war with hizballa? how the shekel is skyrocketing, even vs. the euro and pound? there is a bizarre phenomenon in Israeli economy (i wrote a paper on this this semester), that is disconnected from its “reality”.
    It is naive on the part of “people who support the palestinians” to think they have this economic pressure on israel. the economy is such a complex system, affected by so many things, and extremely hard to predict (otherwise all would be rich, right?). this boycott (which i dont object to, by the way, unlike to boycott on private people), is like buying *fair trade*. it makes you feel good, it raises awareness to a problem, but it is very very far from generating change all in itself in a world of global exploitation of labor. it therefore *pacifies the people* into thinking that they *did act*, while they actually did close to nothing. the dogs bark and the convoy keeps going. in order to change things, i strongly think, there is need in massive political power. in states. this is why i still think that syria will do the palestinians (and itself and israel and lebanon) far more good by having peace with israel, rather then not.
    – i must say i am amazed by the rhetoric that makes the palestinians a vine leaf for advancing the futures of peoples in the area beyond war. lets take the entire middle east on fire, this will surely help the palestinains, right?

  21. By yael on Jun 1, 2008

    and another thing:
    as absurd as this may sound, there is nothing that makes israeli society stronger than war. if there is anything that holds the fragile connection between the various sections in israeli society it is war. you know that too.
    – so not engaging in war with israel is the only thing that may make it open up and change its state structure (and its understanding of its need of a state structure) in a way that could help the palestinains.

  22. By Gus on Jun 1, 2008

    Yaman,

    Fantastic post, as always.

    Actions speak louder than words, but it seems all the media cares about is what people say, rather than what they do.

    Way to keep people focused!

  23. By yaman on Jun 2, 2008

    Yael, I think you are talking about boycott far too generally. You have to realize that it does not take place simply between individuals and Israel. It takes place within the specific context of where those individuals are acting from and, as I said in my post, reflects a failure on the part of the political system which ostensibly speaks for them. So, while the boycott itself is geared on the specific topic of Israel, it is enabled by a failure of the political system and has to work to change that political system’s behavior in order to have the impact necessary to influence the larger issue, Israel. Boycott is not purely economical–I don’t say refusing to buy oranges will stop occupation. It has important contextual value as well, and its symbolism should not be overlooked. You might say that it’s merely doing nothing, but I would challenge this idea based on the tremendous amount of opposition in the US and Europe to such boycott efforts. Of course boycott of this kind pre-supposes a relationship, which is why I said boycott would follow normalization in my last paragraph.

    I also never stated that boycott was the only thing activists should work on. It is simply one aspect of a multi-faceted campaign. In an environment like Egypt or Jordan, it is also a point of tension between the government and the people. That is not to say that the concept cant be abused by a government, and of course you can’t take the words or rhetoric of a government at face value–I am not speaking in universalities here.

    As for your last comment, it may very well be true. But I am not sure it is the place of Palestinians living under occupation to evaluate their role and decisions based on what may or may not be true about Israeli society. It is a bit unrealistic to say, take peace now and then afterwards when theoretically Israeli society might not have the unity it does now, seek to have your grievances addressed, don’t you think? Besides, I would disagree with you on the fundamental issue here, which is the right of return for Palestinian refugees, which I think Israeli society has a consensus against–except for the 20% Palestinians.

  24. By yael on Jun 2, 2008

    yaman,
    i’m trying to look at boycott as a practice of relationship between entities (people, states, political ideas). therefore i am both broadening it to ideas and narrowing it to face-to-face interaction at the same time, in order to analyze this practice better.
    i find boycott counter productive, as it includes no *learning experience*, b/c it has no dialog. boycott is not interested in dialog b/c it does not tolerate accepting that the other party has a different position/logic and the right to hold one. it offers either/or - and thereby paradoxically allows the other party *not to change*: if the other party does not *fully* accept the boycotter’s view (”you be what i want you to be”)it is banned anyway (”i’m not talking to you”). the boycotted can therefore just go on doing what it wants, as changing *towards* the boycotter will not better its relationship with it, only transforming to *be* like the boycotter.
    you know full well that the reason we are having this discussion is you not choosing to boycott me. thereby you allow for both of us to change. the emphasis here is on *allow*. in a non-boycott relationship none of us is *required* to anything as a pre-requisite to talking. this is a free willed and power-less relationship. introducing pressure - for example for me to agree to the right of return to isreal-proper as a pre-requisite - kills a dialog. a dialog can only be between *different* people! if we agree on everything its just self patting. boring and not productive.
    regarding social change: i remember in one of your previous posts you talked about not voting as the only possible strategy (probably before obama’s campaign ;-). how can this withdrawal lead to social change? only engagement can lead to change. the israeli case study is a great example for that, the mizrahis the most obvious example for changing both state ethos and political system through direct engagement through every possible venue. had they withdrawn from the state (like many minorities in the US do) would they not make it far easier to marginalize them?
    sure, syria’s regime allows for far little engagement, but i will risk saying that i dont see the people risking confronting the regime on any issue. they just withdraw. how is it helping their goals? does it serve more that feel-good pacification?

    boycotting israel and isrealis is 60 years old (how is this for a birthday? ;-) - but still in diapers. it has affected israel so little that i think it should be reconsidered as a strategy. i am saying this not b/c i am asking arabs to hug+kiss isreal and accept all that it is/is doing - but b/c i am truly interested in the impact that arabs could have on isreal, had they been willing to have a relationship with it.

  25. By yaman on Jun 2, 2008

    Yael, I understand what you are trying to think out, but I can’t help but feel that there is a flawed equivocation that is running through our back and forth here, between the boycott I am talking of, and the one that you are talking about. You can generalize to some extent, but you can’t apply your concept of the generality to the specific instance I am invoking.

    I never said boycotts should be eternal and unwaivering in all circumstances, but then again Israel has never, ever, ever performed any actions indicating that it intends to stop settlement expansion, implement the right of return, or de-occupy the West Bank and Gaza in order to allow a state with full sovereignty. Even in the talks of Oslo, the future Palestinian state is deprived of the right and mechanism to do the one thing that states should be expected to do: namely, defend their people with an army from foreign aggression, ie, Israel. In this case, I think there is plenty of precedent and plenty of reasoning to support the claim that Israel requires a boycott. You can argue otherwise, but I disagree, and I don’t think we are going to find common ground on this particular point, except maybe in our ultimate aspirations for an end to the occupation, equal rights for Arabs and Jews in Israel/Palestine, and a tenable coexistence. Of course, it will never be one strategy that accomplishes the goal; I think all these different strategies, different ones that you as an Israeli citizen can invoke, can work together in effect.

    I don’t think dialogue occurs between states except in issues that regard states. Dialogue between people I see chiefly as a way of bypassing states and their logic. Again, I don’t think we should equivocate between the two, primarily because a state is not a person.

    As for voting, civic involvement, etcetera–I remember the post you are referring to (”The democratic overthrow and why we need it”); I won’t comment on it here because I am currently writing a post which touches on many issues related to this. Let’s just let it stand that (a) I am not an absolute rejectionist, for many reasons which I will show, and (b) those statements I make are usually highly contextual so no, I don’t believe (especially in the US) that “not voting” is a viable strategy if institutional change is a goal.

    As for Syrian politics, very briefly, since admittedly it is an issue that I have no first-hand experience with and very limited knowledge about. I think there are many mechanisms for engagement, just not in the abstracted sense that we are used to here through voting and having opinions anonymously. It is probably not fair or equitable but it is not impossible either. It is not totalitarian, and there are ways, though limited, to exercise influence and push for collective demands, whether you are a rich businessperson, related to the officials, or a group of irate taxi drivers and shop owners. To say that there is no hope or no way to organize, exercise power and influence over policy, etcetera, I think, is only true for somebody who is extremely removed from the functioning of society. I am not being an apologist, I am just trying to look at the situation in a way that reveals opportunities for people to engage.

  26. By yaman on Jun 2, 2008

    In addition to the previous comment, I should stress the point that boycott is called not simply because of the fact of Israel’s actions, but also because it is a historically supported strategy, given that through normal channels Israel has given up very few, if any, of its practices, and then only the ones that it did not view as a threat to its superior status over Palestinians.

  27. By yael on Jun 9, 2008

    Hey Yaman,
    Hope you still look at comments on the previous post.
    What do you think of the latest news about talks with Syria being related to talks with Fatah (and suggested reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas?)
    This does sound too good to be true.

Post a Comment