Palestine is not a minefield. Palestine is not complicated. Palestine is not a morass. Palestine is not tricky. Palestine is not a quagmire.
Palestine is not almost impossible to navigate.
Israel systematically abuses millions of Palestinians simply because they’re not what the state defines as Jewish. Israel came into existence through a massive program of ethnic cleansing that continues into the present. Israel prevents millions of Palestinians from returning to their ancestral cities and villages. Israel doesn’t allow those who remain the right of free movement. Israel is central to an ongoing project of Western imperialism. Appraise Israel’s position in the world and you’ll always find it aligned with forces of plunder and accumulation. Israel is a fundamentally racist entity—an ethnosupremacist settler colony, if you prefer—ruthlessly devoted to conquest and domination.
The notion of Palestine as doggedly complicated is a spectacular deceit.
Palestine is a living nation with a discrete history. Its people struggle for a future liberated of the misery imposed for decades by an insatiable colonizer. Palestinians need freedom. The conditions in which that freedom can exist are clear and tangible: dismantling a system of juridical inequality enforced at the barrel of a gun and replacing it with a polity invested in the well-being of all citizens. That polity would honor the right of return for refugees and eliminate strictures on movement and participation based on religious and/or ethnic identity. There’s nothing complicated about it.
Describing Palestine as perplexing or troublesome offers no benefit to the discourse. It obfuscates a clear distinction between victim and aggressor. It imagines the audience as incapable of comprehending straightforward concepts of justice and restitution. It is an act of cruelty to people often maimed, imprisoned, and murdered in a vigorous struggle for freedom.
More than anything, it manifests a kind of exegetic cowardice. To what end does a speaker describe Palestine as complicated, as a quagmire? To implicate Palestinians in their own suffering. And to absolve Israel of demonstrable barbarity. The absolution needn’t happen explicitly. It needn’t be intentional. But absolution is the effect of this cryptic diction.
We see it whenever a star politician boasting socialist credentials suddenly transforms into a dissembling clod (or an outright dick) when the subject of Israel arises. The criticism comes, quickly followed, as always, by the rationalizations.
“There’s no simple answer.”
“That’s the best response we can hope for.”
“To be fair, the issue is really difficult.”
Being fair requires more than an affinity for cliché. Deeming condemnation of Israel—or, better yet, of Zionism—difficult or intimidating exonerates the politician of cowardice. Palestine’s freedom is a momentous moral issue that deserves nothing less than decisive support. We’re inclined to view the politician’s mousiness as pragmatic: they have to worry about elections; they’re obliged to pander. This not only absolves the politician of cowardice, but of intellectual agency: they’re talking nonsense, but they can’t possibly believe it. Their own rhetoric is unreliable.
If we insist on being fair to the politician, then it seems important to extend the same grace to other demographics. What about the politician’s constituents or the general audience? Do they not deserve any of the honesty they’ve been promised? Must their finite energy be taken up haggling with their own heroes? Begging for recognition from the luminaries who claim to represent them?
Or what about the Palestinian people themselves? Is it not unfair that they continue to suffer a military occupation lavishly funded by the dissembling politician? Is it not doubly unfair that the politician derived power by pretending to care about them, only to retreat into the usual business of forgetting?
Let’s abandon this language of being fair to politicians. When it comes to maintaining the dignity of Palestine’s national liberation movement, antagonism is the only viable sensibility.
I don’t mean antagonism of an oratorical variety, but as a subject position—a relentless focus on prioritizing the downtrodden above the bourgeois ambitions of social climbers in the West. “You can’t get elected in the United States without sucking up to Israel!” screams the advocate of realism. It’s long past time for this bit of common wisdom to disappear. Aspiring politicians may oblige themselves to systemic norms, but we suffer no such obligation. Even where true, though, it isn’t our problem. I don’t give a single damn if my advocacy for the colonized disrupts somebody’s political aspirations. The goal is to liberate Palestine, not to seat more charlatans and chickenshits in Congress.
On this note, let’s also drop the pretense, exceedingly popular among bluecheck radicals on social media, that these ersatz socialists—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, especially—have betrayed their leftist supporters (Sanders by campaigning vigorously for Joe Biden and ingratiating himself to party bosses, and Ocasio-Cortez by transforming from a socialist dynamo into a bumbling liberal Zionist). They betrayed nothing but the ahistorical delusions of a pundit class trying to cash in on fantasies of influence. Sanders never pretended he’d do anything but champion the party and Ocasio-Cortez began dissimulating about Palestine before even winning her first election. I know because I criticized both of them from the outset for their weak politics, which were fully visible for anyone who cared to see them, and got dragged all over the internet. It’s unpleasant to see self-identified radicals boost every new savior appended to the Democratic Party, only to pull a sanctimonious, self-congratulatory switcharoo after dissent has become legible (i.e., behave as liberal disciplinarians when it’s beneficial and then as principled critics when liberal discipline is out of favor). The tardiness, like the naivete preceding it, is calibrated to the accumulation of clout—politics not as virtue, but self-indulgence. The only thing anyone gets out of being correct from the outset is an undeserved reputation for crankiness.
The savior always capitulates by design. The savior is a creation of the very culture he purports to transcend. A sincere commitment to Palestinian liberation precludes upward mobility in the U.S. political system. Upward mobility always prevails. Calling Palestine a quagmire facilitates the upward mobility. Palestine is complicated only insofar as it inconveniences devotees of American exceptionalism. On its own, detached from the logic of electoralism, Palestine is a collective responsibility, coherent and unbounded. We cannot make Palestine intelligible to people obliged by political convention to abandon it.
Before they became political metaphors, “morass” and “quagmire” were strictly geographical terms, denoting swampland hostile to development and most forms of agriculture. The notion of Palestine as a quagmire provided an important dimension to early Zionism, which conceptualized the Holy Land as marshy and barren. “Drain the swamp” is now associated with Donald Trump, but for centuries it served as a colonial rallying cry, first in North America and then in Palestine. Transforming these promised lands into something productive would be a difficult task, an undertaking nothing less than divine, and couldn’t be left to unindustrious natives. The settlers on both continents built roads and cities—planted new flora and extracted resources from the ground—and in the process destroyed the natural environment.
And now Palestine has again become a swampy trope in the colonialist lexicon. Palestine is not complicated, though. The quagmire comes into existence precisely where the fantasy of American salvation begins.
Brilliant. Steven. Needs to be said. Specific references would be helpful, however.
Daniel
Professor Boyarin, thank you for your brilliant work as a scholar, especially on matters related to the New Testament/Christianity, and for your support for the Palestinian people. You are an inspiration.
Israel does not systematically abuse millions of Palestinian Arabs. Those Palestinian Arabs who do complain about being abused are not undergoing some unpleasant experience because they happen to be a Palestinian Arab. It is because of something they did that is a crime, not for something they are.
Israel came into existence when the British abandoned their Mandate. Prior to that existence, the Jews in the Palestinian region were engaged in a Civil War started by the Arabs of the Palestinian region, aided by a volunteer Arab rebel force approximately 5000 strong. As reported by Rashid Khalidi, “practically every village in the country harbours and supports the rebels and will assist in concealing their identity…” Therefore, when Jews were finally able to do more than just defend their lives from the Arab genocidal desires, they began emptying the villages on the front lines, at least those which were not already emptied by the fear instilled by both Arab and Jewish propaganda.
Israel rightly prevents the return, not only the original villagers, perhaps 40,000 still living, because they refuse the parameters of UN resolution giving them the opportunity to do so as long as they desired to live in peace, but also the millions of children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren, and great-greatgrandchildren who have no right to try to return to the rented apartment or sod hut on land they did not own. And as the vast majority live within the borders of British Mandate Palestine, they are not even refugees. They are home.
Israel has nothing to do with Western Imperialism. Israel is comprised of a multi-cultural people who live in their ancestral homeland. They are ruthlessly devoted to peace and security.
This is why some educated objective people consider the Palestinian Arab issue to be a minefield, complicated, a morass, tricky, a quagmire, and almost impossible to navigate.
Wow. You are so full of utter shit, my screen’s oozing.
Fuck off.
Steven
I agree with you completely; I’m not sure this rhetoric is helpful.
Daniel
The truth is bothersome?
Why do you agree? You have some information not available to the rest of the scholars who follow this blog?
I’m not sure “Reader” is or has to be Steven Salaita. Neither am I sure that a different (more *respectful*?) rhetoric in response to a classic, incendiary Hasbarist like Jack Sigman would help Sigman – why don’t you try it instead of the admonishment? “Reader” could have been me, who am not Steven, and my screen is also oozing from the utter falsities, the stinking Zionist shit-narrative in this Jackass’s version of history (eg. what criminals Palestinians are, how Jews have been defending themselves from “Arab genocidal desires, ” and other such projective nonsense), which we’ve heard for at least the last 40 years that I’ve been alive.
Lipis,
You only need to read Khaldi’s latest history to see why the Jewish forces, once they were able to do more than ward off the Arabs’ genocidal attacks in March 1948, to see why it was deemed necessary to ensure that no Arab village behind the front line remained populated.
Additionally, as there is no assurance that any of the refugees desire to “want to live at peace with their Jewish neighbors,” it would be foolish to think Israel would ever let any of the original “Arab refugees” to return.
Perhaps https://www.international.ucla.edu/israel/currents/article/205993 would be helpful to you to make up for what you lack in that 40 years.
Wow. Really? Perhaps it is retorts such as yours that keep us from solving the problem the Palestinian Arabs, along with their cohorts, have created?
Sorry. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that it was Steven who wrote that in fury. If not, I apologize. I did not think that politeness to Sigman was in order; that was not my point. Nor do I care whether he is persuaded by anything since he seems to be a jackass. I simply thought that the particular rhetoric of that response was not helpful and likely perhaps to be less than persuasive to those who are not already convinced of Steven’s excellent arguments, of which I, of course am fully persuaded as demonstrated in my political action and writing of the last three decades at least.
Boyarin,
All of your assumptions are incorrect. Steven’s arguments are not much more than propaganda coming from a fictional narrative. Of course, he has company. If you are persuaded by Steven’s rhetoric, you are an easy mark.
No need for apology! When I comment, it’s under “admin” and I try to remember to sign my name to it–Steve
“I simply thought that the particular rhetoric of that response was not helpful”
Sure helped me . . . .
“and likely perhaps to be less than persuasive to those who are not already convinced of Steven’s excellent arguments”
Hmm, something’s coming to mind about the need to convince “white moderates”:
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
Dude, I have zero problem striking with you, but, for now, we’re marching in different columns, I think.
Dude, you are marching to the beat of a suicidal drummer. Good luck with that.
But I’ll be dying on the right side of the line, Sigman . . . .
There is no line.
I have held these views for nearly forty years. It didn’t take Steven to persuade me of their correctness. I lived in Israel for 17 years and served in the IDF; that was enough. I have published widely on these matters. You can still think I’m wrong, but I’m hardly a mark.
Boyarin,
You remind me so much of those ignorant Americans who have held their views of American history for so many years, refusing to learn the totality of the sordid history of the entirety. At least Khalidi admits so much being the fault of Arab infighting.
Are you seriously calling Daniel Boyarin ignorant? As in Daniel Boyarin, one of the most decorated scholars of our time? What a goddamn fool you are–Steve
Steve,
Why yes I am calling him a reminder of Americans who stay with what they learned of history in high school, especially if he is supporting your contention that the issue is simple. Unless you are referring to the issue being solvable once the Arab leadership gives up its unreasonable demands. Perhaps you should read https://www.academia.edu/36384516/The_Palestinian_Refugee_Problem_and_the_Missing_Peace?email_work_card=view-paper
I like the way that your viewpoint is unquestionable whereas everyone who disagrees with you is somehow holding a naive viewpoint that they learned in high school and have never questioned.
It seems to me that you are just regurgitating decades worth of stat propaganda and are barely worth the time of day, but that’s just my view.
Not as well stated, by in the same sentiment:
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2018/04/08/zionisms-palestinian-problem-and-ours/
I agree, not well stated. Wounded Knee was site of a massacre of about 300 Native Americans. Do you have proof that even 30 Palestinian Arabs are murdered every few months by any other than their fellow Arabs? It appears that Syrians may have done so but not Israelis.
Western civilization may well hold the same opinion of Palestinian Arabs that they had of Native Americans but for different reasons. Hamas members throwing Fatah members off of roofs to their painful death, the deliberate murder of Jewish families, Rabbis at prayer, Grandmothers with grandbabies on their laps does make one a bit leery.
The overwhelming support Americans give Israel my be unreasonable, but it certainly is rational.
The loss of life in the Vietnam debacle was likely 5 million when you include Cambodia and Laos. 50 thousand Americans died. If you will recall, 10% of the Israeli public (at the time) about 400,000, protested in the streets over Israel’s actions when Lebanese Arabs murdered about 700 Arabs, mostly Palestinian, in Sabra and Shatila.
If anyone is running around naked, it is the average supporter of the Palestinian Arabs continuing on the course they have chosen.
Ivan,
My viewpoint, while not unquestionable, is based on the facts and not exaggerations. Read Garcia’s website and notice how he projects his thoughts on others. I wish he would regurgitate some facts. That way, his writing would be much improved and useful.
Regardless, if you are unhappy with me regurgitating facts along with my opinion, you have issues that I cannot solve.
You’re a brave man, Steve. I admire that. And folks, you probably shouldn’t read my blog, since I definitely project my thoughts onto others (amazing abuse of a blog, no?) and my regurgitation of facts is nefariously hidden from the view of true believers not looking for them. I noticed that Israel was bombing Gaza City yesterday (a Palestinian woman sent me pictures, she’s trying to raise money for hospital medical supplies; why doesn’t Netenyahoo send some in, maybe dropped from an F-16), and people (you know, fathers, mothers, kids, those kinds of people) were killed. Just another day in Paradise I guess. Praise the Lord and launch the F-16s. The one thing I really hate are out and out racist bigots, no matter where they are or how close to God they imagine themselves to be.
Brave? What makes Steve brave? That he allows others to comment about the propaganda he posts? It must be assumed that the Palestinian Authority cannot send the woman money because they spend all of their cash on their “pay to slay” program.
If you are posting actual facts, they are well hidden. Why did Israel bomb Gaza yesterday? They had to many on hand and had nowhere else to put them?
It appears that someone from Gaza fired a rocket into Israel and Israel retaliated. What did you expect?
I expect that Israel will, once again, try to teach lessons of obedience to those under its heel. Much in the same way the Nazi’s did with the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
Fuck you, Sigman.
(And, surprise, Fucker! People other than academics have agency.)
Nothing you say is surprising. There is no one under Israel’s heel. Nor do they try to teach lesson of obedience. But they will retaliate every time. Israel tried to make peace after the suicide bombing at the Dolphinarium discotheque massacre where a Palestinian Arab murdered 16 Israeli children along with 5 adults. But the Palestinian Arabs kept killing. Fool me once.
“Israel tried to make peace”
Fuck you, Sigman! Arguing Israel tried to make peace is like arguing capitalism has been trying to make everyone rich.
Only to those with a limited education and point of view. You are very limited.
Fuck you, Sigman! Of course my PoV is limited: whose isn’t? Difference between us is I know it and work with it.
(And, duh!, education’s limited, too: we haven’t had a good enough revolution to make it unlimited.)
Reader,
You are exceptionally limited. It is if you learned nothing and became a empty bucket ready to be filled with baseless propaganda. The difference between us is you really know very little, and while mine is not complete (whose is ever complete?), it is vast next to yours.
Some facts:
In the Civil Rights movement of the Fifties and Sixties, a gospel song “I Shall Not Be Moved” became popular as “We Shall Not Be Moved”. — I think Daniel Beaumont meant it became “We Shall Overcome.”
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/04/16/the-palestinians-we-shall-not-be-moved/
Unfortunately for you and yours, Counterpunch is more of a joke propaganda site than having anything to do with factual discourse.
Martin Luthor King, Jr. appeared to be much more sympathetic to the Israeli side of the equation than to the Palestinian Arabs, who with their incompetent allies waged genocidal war.
Here is one of the more ridiculous statements: “Though it has not carried out any attacks that killed civilians since 2004, it is still listed as a terrorist group by a number of countries.” There is a statute of limitations?
SigHeilman wrote: “The difference between us is you really know very little, and while mine is not complete (whose is ever complete?), it is vast next to yours.”
You might be a fox, Fucker, but I’m the hedgehog.
So you have gone from just being a vulgar ignoramus to an antisemitic one. Good for you. You are not a hedgehog, you are a clueless rabbit.
“an antisemitic one”
Because you and other Zionists are soaked in the same Romantic “blood-and-soil” nationalism of the Nazis? Or just because you like to have boots on the necks of Untermenschen?
Now you are just being a troll. Good luck with that.