Why I Am Against The Anti-Boycott Law

Today, the Knesset passed a law, 47-38, called "The Prohibition on Imposing a Boycott." (You can read the text of the bill here.) 

Now anyone who knows me or reads this blog will know that I am against boycotting Israel, Israeli institutions, companies, or anything else. They will also know that even though I am not a huge fan of the settlements, I am against boycotting them because it will have no effect on ending the occupation, among other reasons. 

Boycotts create the impression that replacing the occupation with peace is completely within Israel's control and would happen if only Israel agreed. Israel did this in 2005 when it withdrew from Gaza and the northern West Bank. It ended the occupation there but instead of replacing it with peace, it was met with continued and repeated rocket-fire. This is also what happened after Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in 2000. That is why it is the express policy of the State of Israel and the Quartet (the US, EU, UN, & Russia) to end the conflict only through negotiations.

Boycotting Israel will not end the occupation. Boycotting the settlements will not end the occupation. 

Only a peace treaty with the Palestinian Authority can end the occupation.

If I'm so against these boycotts, why am I against this new law?

Because it criminalizes thought.

I am against this law for the same reason that I am against a law that would criminalize flag-burning. 

The proper way to dispose of a soiled and irreparable flag is to burn it. That means that if you have two people burning a flag, one because he wants to honor the flag and one because he hates America, only the latter will be arrested. They have both done the same thing, but because of their thoughts, because of their intentions, only one will be arrested. Their action (flag-burning) isn't illegal, but their thoughts are.

That is what this new anti-boycott law does.

According to the new law, you can boycott Israeli companies and businesses, but not if you are doing so because they are Israeli.

A group can boycott the Ariel Cultural Center for any number of reasons, like not hiring enough minorities, putting on bad plays or any other reason, but not because it is a settlement.

Recently, there was an online campaign to boycott cottage-cheese until the manufacturers lowered the prices. The boycotters won! They got the manufacturers to back down and lower their prices. But if that exact same group, organized the same exact boycott but did it instead because the manufacturers were Israeli (which they are), under this new law, they would be fined. 

The boycott isn't illegal itself, it's the thoughts of the organizers that are.

The worst part about this law is that it equates the settlements with Israel itself. The settlement movement has finally gotten a law passed that achieves what they have been working on for years: official recognition that the only legitimate form of Zionism is Revisionist-Settler Zionism and all other forms not only aren't Zionist but are in fact anti-Zionist.

Am I overreacting? Perhaps a little. But if the High Court of Justice doesn't strike down this law, we should all be very worried about Israel's future as a Jewish and Democratic State because this brings it down the road to being neither.

The 67 Lines Aren't Technically "Indefensible" but....

Jeffrey Goldberg had a good catch on the line about the "Israeli" blockade in the Times.

But in a previous posting, he wrote that the 1967 lines weren't indefensible because despite having them, Israel won the Six Day War. 

That isn't exactly the case.

In 1967 Israel made a pre-emptive strike, taking the fight to its enemies before they had a chance to attack Israel itself. It was because of this quick action that Israel won and the 67 lines didn't prove to be a problem. However, in 1973, when Israel failed to act preemptively, it was attacked and took nearly a month to fight off Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Israel was able to absorb the attacks because most of the fighting was done in the Sinai and the Golan, not in Israel proper. Had the 67 lines still been Israel's borders, there would have been no margine for error and while it is possible Israel still could have won, it would have been at a much higher cost in lives (not to mention that Jordan would have most likely joined in as well).

The 67 lines aren't technically indefensible (especially if they are accompanied by a region-wide peace treaty) but they do make it much more difficult for Israel to second guess itself. 

It's like the situation with Iran; Israel doesn't have the luxury of being wrong on this issue, which is why so many people think Israel will eventually try to destroy its nuclear program militarily. If Israel were to return to the 67 lines, the IDF would always be on a hair-trigger, just in case something changed, which could lead to Israel into needless preemptive action, upending a peace agreement and sending us back in time.

Israel and the Arab Spring

Ever since the Arab Spring made its way to Syria, there have been many people, both politicians and bloggers (I actually really like this blogger, I just wish she liked Israel a little more, or at all), who have been asserting that Israel does not want to see a truly democratic Syria. What's more, they have claimed that Israel is actively lobbying Washington not to abandon Assad or side with the protestors.

It was in this context that Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman openly lamented the lack of Western pressure on both Syria and Iran. He essentially called on NATO to actively intervene and support the protesters in both countries as it is doing in Libya.

Now, one can make the claim that the minister is only saying this cover Israel's tracks or he is simply trying to gain sympathy points by calling for something he knows won't happen. But I disagree.

It won't surprise any of my readers to hear that I am no big fan of Lieberman, but on this case I agree with him and I take him at his word. The West should be supporting homegrown pro-democracy movements in the Arab world and Iran (and everywhere else for that matter).

Why?

Because democracies, however antagonistic, don't fight each other.

Because Israel now sees that the peace treaties it made with the dictators of Egypt and Jordan are inherently flawed since they are not shared by their people.

Because in order to have real peace with its Arab neighbors, their governments must be truly representative of their people.

Because democracy is the right of all people and supporting it should be a goal in and of itself.

Israel made the mistake of maintaining its support for Mubarak up to the end and is not likely to make the same mistake again so soon. Especially not for someone who has refused to make peace at every turn, who actively arms and trains Hezbollah, and who arms and shelters Hamas. This is not a someone Israel needs or wants in power.

The people want the downfall of the regime!

Refreshing Honesty from Hamas

With all the double-talk coming from terrorist organizations attempting to make themselves seem more legitimate, it is wonderfully refreshing when one still speaks openly about their violent and destructive intentions. 


Today (5/11/11) Hamas' Foreign Minister and co-founder Mahmoud az-Zahar said:


Hamas is willing to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, but will maintain its refusal to recognize Israel, since a formal recognition of Israel would "cancel the right of the next generations to liberate the lands."

Mahmoud az-Zahar

While there may be elements within Palestinian society - even a majority perhaps - who would accept a Palestinian State only in the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas is not one of them and a "unity" government with Hamas is not one either.


Hamas sees a two-state solution as a means towards a one-state solution and nothing more. When Zahar comes right out and says that true peace with Israel can never happen since it would "cancel the right of the next generations to liberate the lands," he is saying that Hamas can't accept peace because it would prevent them from destroying Israel. At least we know that he understands what peace means even if he doesn't want it.


The goal of Hamas is not the establishment of a Palestinian State, but rather the destruction of the Jewish State. It is in their charter, it is reflected in all of their actions, and their leaders declare this publicly.




Zahar did say something else that was actually quite prescient - for a member of Hamas or otherwise.


He also said that anyone who thinks that a Palestinian state would be accepted by the international community without it recognizing Israel first, "does not understand the (political) landscape."

A unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians will have no effect without negotiations with Israel. That is why their declaration in 1988 brought no change and there is no reason to think that one in 2011 would be any different.

Of course, Zahar is saying this to discourage the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel since it might actually be successful and cause Hamas to lose support for its campaign to destroy Israel, while I am pointing it out to emphasize the importance of negotiations and Israeli recognition of such a state. Who'd've thought I would agree with Hamas on something? Go figure.

Hamas' Two State Solution

Hamas head Khaled Meshal recently celebrated the new Palestinian Unity Agreement by giving a speech in which he said: 


"We will have one authority and one decision. We need to achieve the common goal: a Palestinian state with full sovereignty on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital, no settlers, and we will not give up the right of return."


He should have been a little more specific. When he said "no settlers" he meant no Israeli settlers. Palestinian settlers on the other hand are an absolute necessity. 

Khaled Meshal

Let's put this in perspective: under any peace deal, only a few thousand Israeli settlers would remain in a Palestinian state and at the very most 50,000 would decide to remain. That is 50,000 Jews among among roughly 2.5 million Palestinians. That would make Jews 2% of the West Bank and only 1.25% of the entire State of Palestine since there are no Jews left in Gaza. 


Now let's put that in a political context: to gain 1 seat in the Israeli Parliament - the Knesset - a party must win at least 2% of the vote. If Palestine were to adopt a similar law which is common in Parliamentary democracies (and should the State of Palestine actually become a democracy) even if every Jew voted for the same party (which is extremely unlikely to begin with) they would not even be able to get a single representative in the Palestinian Parliament.


Settlers pose no threat to demographic dominance of the Palestinians in their own state. Even if every settler were to stay in the new state, they would only be 17% of the population. This is much less than the current 20.4% of the Israeli population that is Palestinian, and that is before any Palestinian "refugees" are allowed to "return." After a few million Palestinians move to Israel, they would quickly become the majority, turning Israel into a de facto second Palestinian state.


This makes one wonder, when Meshal says he wants "a Palestinian state with full sovereignty on the 1967 borders," which side of those borders does it want to be on? 


Meshal's idea of a two state solution is not one of Israel and Palestine, it is a Fatah State in the West Bank and a Hamas State in Israel and Gaza.

Hamas and Bin Laden

As I'm sure anyone reading this knows, on Sunday, President Obama announced that the US finally killed Osama Bin Laden. This was immediately followed by celebration around the world; at least it was in most circles.

It may be unseemly to rejoice in the death of a human being and normally I would not engage in this and would encourage others refrain from celebrating death, but I can't in this instance. There are some people in this world who are so evil, who's sole mission in life is to bring death to others, that the only logical response to their own demise is to rejoice and be glad that the world is rid of them. Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden was one of those people and I can only say that news of his death brought me nothing but joy.

This feeling was not shared by everyone. Hamas released a statement condemning the US operation, claiming it was:

"a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood... We condemn any killing of a holy warrior or of a Muslim and Arab person and we ask God to bestow his mercy upon him."

And for some reason the world was shocked by this. The US can't seem to understand. The EU is baffled. William Hague, Britain's Foreign Secretary had this to say:


"It would have been better for Hamas to join the welcome to [bin Laden's death]. That would have been a boost in itself to the peace process."

And you know what? He's right. It would have been better for Hamas to welcome bin Laden's death. It would be a boost to the peace process. But the fact of the matter is that Hamas did not. 

Why?

Because Hamas loved Osama bin Laden. They shared the same ideology, the same tactics and the same virulent hatred of Jews (bin Laden was less reluctant than his friends at Hamas about talking plainly of his anti-Semitism, he didn't bother couching this hatred with the more "acceptable" anti-Zionism or anti-Israelism). Bin Laden often spoke of himself as leading his crusade against the West as part of his fight to "liberate Palestine" from the Jews.

On September 11, 2001 Hamas was out on the streets of the West Bank and Gaza celebrating and handing out candy to children. 

They rejoiced at the news of American civilians being massacred in New York and Washington. They celebrated and glorified Osama bin Laden as a hero. Their reaction to news of his death should surprise no one. And yet it has.

Why?

Because for too long people have made excuses for Hamas. For too long people have been saying they don't really mean what they say. That they don't really hate Jews, they just hate Israel for the Occupation. They don't really want to kill civilians they have no choice. They would welcome peace if only we spoke to them and heard them out.

I learned long ago that leopards don't change their spots and if you shave their fur, you'll see their spots are even on their skin.

Hamas' hatred of Jews and Israel is not superficial or something used to grab attention or followers. It is a part of their ideology and goes to the core of their belief system, one that they have anchored with God. This cannot be changed or shed, so it should not be ignored either.

Yes Mr. Hague, it would have been better for Hamas to welcome bin Laden's death. Yes Mr. Hague, it would have been a boost to the peace process. But no Mr. Hague, that is not what happened. No Mr. Hague that is not who they are, that is not what they believe.

This is an organization that grew out of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, based itself on the teachings of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna, that uses violences to kill Westerners and Muslims who oppose them, that has recruited suicide bombers from Britain itself and has called on its followers to kill Jews and Americans.

Anyone hearing this description would immediately think I am describing al-Qaeda, but I am in fact talking about Hamas. They are one in the same. Just as there is an al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula and the Maghreb, there is an al-Qaeda in Gaza. It just happens to have a more specific focus.

The civilized world rejoiced and congratulated America on killing bin Laden, but they condemned Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin, the founder and spiritual head of Hamas. Should Israel ever be so lucky to kill Haniyeh or Meshal of Hamas, Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah, or Ramadan Shallah of Islamic Jihad, we can expect a similar response.

The lesson for Islamists is clear: Kill as many Jews as you want, just make sure you stay out of America.

Mashriq Matt Solves the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Ok, this one is a little long, but with a title like the above, it couldn't be short. So please be patient, keep reading and I think you may be a little surprised. If these ideas have been proposed before, I certainly haven't heard of them. 

One of the problems with the Israeli Peace Initiative and every other peace plan with the Palestinians, is that they don't recognize the inherent difference that they have from those made with Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania. The reason why negotiations with the Palestinians are so different is that they aren't just negotiating a peace treaty, but the Palestinians are negotiating their way into existence as a state. This means that even before talks begin, there is an inherent disparity between the two parties. So, should the Palestinians declare statehood in September as they have threatened to do, this does not necessarily mean it will be bad for Israel and in fact, it could even be good if it allows the Palestinians to negotiate from a better, more equitable place.

This would put Israel and Palestine on more equal footing. The Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 is based on its Israeli counterpart. The Israeli and Palestinian peoples are inseparably linked and by creating parity and reciprocity between the sides, it may be easier for each to accept compromises as they see their enemies doing the same. It is for this reason that obligations should be carried out simultaneously and not one after the other.

By allowing the Palestinians to declare independence prior to the signing of a peace treaty, Israel would take much of the pressure off Palestinian leaders who are constantly afraid of compromising too much and giving up too much at the beginning. If they are already independent, they will have more latitude for movement. Many people are afraid that this will hurt Israel but the fact of the matter is that any declaration of Palestinian independence would be largely symbolic and have little effect on day to day activities. Israel would not automatically pull out of the West Bank, so there would be no vacuum of power for Hamas to run in and fill. People often forget that the Palestinians already declared independence in 1988 during the first intifada and since then this has been recognized by over a hundred countries and yet it has done nothing to change the situation. Such a declaration will only bring about change should Israel recognize it and allow for the Palestinian Authority to take on more responsibilities. Then the PA leaders could talk with Israeli negotiators as equals, giving them more legitimacy and therefore the ability to make the hard decisions they were previously afraid to make.

The main issue that the parties keep running into is defining the borders of the new State of Palestine. The Palestinians keep saying they need the '67 borders and have convinced the whole world that before the Six Day War, these were the borders of a Palestinian State (which of course isn't the case, but that is a discussion for a different time), while the Israelis keep on saying that the new state should have provisional or intermediate borders. But the Palestinians are worried that any temporary borders would eventually become permanent. And they have good reason to be worried since that is exactly what happened to Israel and Israel is still trying to define it's borders 63 years after its creation. For this reason, there should be no discussion of the borders of a Palestinian state. When Israel declared independence, the leaders made no reference to the new state's borders, Abbas and Fayyad should follow this model.

Many people say that a unilateral declaration of independence by the Palestinians would bring more pressure on Israel since it would then be occupying an sovereign state. But they fail to recognize that that is happening anyway and will be sure to continue until an agreement or an end to the occupation comes. Also, occupation of another state is not illegal (if there is cause). Israel itself was occupied by Arab forces when Ben Gurion declared independence in 1948, so it seems somewhat fitting, or ironic (take your pick) that Israel should be occupying Palestine when it finally declares independence.

The Right of Return is another incredibly sticky issue. The Palestinians say that excluding it is a non-starter and the Israelis say including it is a non-starter. Even President Obama is making his own peace plan, but one of the key components (not surprisingly considering America's close relationship with Israel) is no right of return. So how exactly can you have the Right of Return but also not have the Right of Return? This requires some fancy maneuvering in which Israel recognizes the Palestinian Right of Return, agrees to resettle hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Israel, but at the same time not accept more Palestinians into Israel which would pose a serious threat to Israel as a Jewish and Democratic state. These may seem like contradictory and irreconcilable positions, but they are not.

After 1967, Israel began a policy of granting citizenship to foreign Palestinians through family reunification laws. Through this policy, from 1967 to 2001 over 250,000 Palestinians moved to Israel and gained Israeli citizenship. Let me repeat that: over a period of 34 years, during which Israel engaged in 3 wars with Arab states and 2 Palestinian intifadas, Israel granted citizenship to over a quarter of a million Palestinians! Nearly 100,000 Palestinians became Israeli citizens in the 1990s alone! Instead of focusing on the fact that no other state in the history of the world has welcomed as equal citizens members of an enemy nation in such incredible numbers, we should see this as a unique way out of the Right of Return issue. The generally accepted number of Palestinian refugees created in 1948 is 750,000, and taking this as a guide, Israel has already allowed at least a third of the number of the original refugees back to Israel.

Israel can therefore recognize the Palestinian Right of Return, apologize for its part in creating the refugee crisis and agree to take in a quarter of a million refugees (the Arab League should also agree to take in and grant citizenship to other refugees, while admitting their role in creating and perpetuating the refugee crisis) and then Israel can say that it has already fulfilled this obligation but as a gesture of goodwill will accept in a few thousand more (specific number to be determined later) over a period of ten years. In this way the Palestinians can claim victory in getting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to return to Israel, but Israel doesn't actually have to take in any new Palestinians.

In the spirit of parity, the Palestinians should agree to recognize the Israeli Right of Return to Israel and the West Bank. It is accepted that most Israelis living in settlements will be annexed to Israel, however, not every settlement will be able to be annexed and the Israelis living these isolated settlements might not want to leave. These numbers will be significantly smaller than those Palestinians who have been accepted into Israel and they pose no demographic threat to the Palestinian people due to their extremely limited number (now Israeli Arabs make up 20% of Israel's population, but the only way Palestinian Jews would be able to even come close to those kind of numbers would be if every settler was granted Palestinian citizenship).

It still surprises me that everyone recognizes that Israel must stop building settlements in the West Bank, but when the Palestinians insist on building settlements in Israel AFTER a peace deal is signed - in the form of the Right of Return - those same people see no problem. After all, what is the purpose of creating a Palestinian State if Palestinians are going to move to Israel instead? Not even Israel is insisting on the right to build settlements in a future Palestinian State (though it easily could as I have shown), so why do the Palestinians keep insisting on the same thing? Just as Jews will need to give up on their Right of Return to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), so too do the Palestinians need to give up on their Right of Return to Israel proper.

I am not bringing up a Jewish Right of Return to add another problem that needs to be solved. So why bother? Because the Palestinians need to recognize that Israel is also giving up on something extremely important. Giving up the West Bank is not merely the ceding of a piece of real estate; it is the birthplace and heart of Judaism and Jewish history. By relinquishing control of the West Bank, Israel is compromising on its birthright and on the central precept of Zionism that preached a return of the Jewish people to the land where the Israelite Nation was born. If Israel is willing to make such a difficult and impossible compromise, the Palestinians should agree to make similar compromises. This recognition of the suffering and rights of the other is an important component of a successful peace agreement.

Of course all of this will require some major good faith by both sides, which is always in short supply. Additionally, should the reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas actually hold, all of this will be more difficult if not impossible given Hamas' open and consistent calls for the complete destruction of Israel. Only time will tell what this agreement will come to, if anything at all, and just because I have said a declaration of Palestinian Independence could move negotiations one way does not mean that will certainly happen. Only that it is plausible, logical, and our best hope.