Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Recent articles from Hirschkind, Cockburn, and Gordon

Charles Hirschkind: "The Myth of Impasse"

"When political analysts of the region have insisted on the importance of stepping back from the tit for tat of daily events in order to bring into the discussion this broader, more historical view, defenders of Israeli expansionist policies have usually responded in two ways. First, they have argued that the Palestinians themselves, by their refusal to accept the existence of Israel and give up violence, are to blame for whatever dispossession of lands they have suffered. By sabotaging each opportunity for peace put on the table by Israel, they argue, Palestinians bear the responsibility for their ever shrinking homeland. The claim that the victims of territorial expropriation deserve their plight due to their own treachery and aggression has a long historical pedigree. The dispossession of Native American lands by white colonists, for example, was justified on many occasions as an unavoidable consequence of the Natives’ refusal to remain within the generous territorial divisions allotted them, and by their continual recourse to violence and acts of terror against peaceful colonists. Today, from the vantage point of history, such claims appear only as window-dressing for brazen territorial conquest, and it is hard to think of any example where, with the hindsight of historical distance, we would not be led to a similar conclusion."

Patrick Cockburn: No Woodshed for Netanyahu

"Before yesterday's White House encounter there were particularly loud criticisms of Israel from the US security establishment. The influential commentator Dr Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies said that America's commitment to Israel's security "does not justify or excuse actions by an Israeli government that unnecessarily makes Israel a strategic liability when it should remain an asset".

Dr Cordesman said that Israel should be more careful about the extent to which it tests the limits of US patience and exploits the support of American Jews. He warned Israel against launching an attack on Iran in the face of a US "red light".

The US is particularly sensitive to the negative fallout of Israeli actions in the Middle East because America's strength in the region has been reduced by the failure of its military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq to achieve their objectives. On top of this Israel itself is getting politically and militarily weaker. The high point of Israel's influence in the Middle East was after the peace agreement with Egypt in 1979 which freed it to invade Lebanon in 1982. But intervention in Lebanon turned into a prolonged guerrilla war ending with Israel's final withdrawal in 2000. Military operations in Lebanon and Gaza in the following 10 years have uniformly failed to achieve their objectives. Meanwhile the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, said that America's need for Israel is less since the end of the Cold War."

NEVE GORDON: "BOYCOTTING ISRAEL"

"BDS is also not about a particular solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but rather the demand that Israel abide by international law and UN resolutions. It is accordingly something that you can support if you are for a two state solution or a one state solution. You can even support it as a Zionist. It arises from the realization, following years of experience, that the Occupation will not end unless Israelis understand that it has a price."