The Zeitgeist Politics

Global Politics with a focus on The Middle East

Michael Oren loses his way again

with 11 comments

The ongoing stalemate in peace talks has led to another op-ed in the New York Times by Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the US. As is often the case with Oren’s op-eds, the piece is full of weak arguments, hyperbole and hypocrisy.

The introduction sets the tone for the entire piece:

NEARLY 63 years after the United Nations recognized the right of the Jewish people to independence in their homeland — and more than 62 years since Israel’s creation — the Palestinians are still denying the Jewish nature of the state.

This, like the entire article, tries to oversimplify an incredibly complex issue and then make the Palestinians out to be some sort of irrational, anti-semitic barbarians. Oren is talking about a “Jewish nature of the state” when clearly defining Jewishness is a problem in itself, let alone boiling the nature of a state down to an ethno-religious identity.

Back in 1948, opposition to the legitimacy of a Jewish state ignited a war. Today it threatens peace.

Sure, it threatens peace as much as Israeli intransigence over the demands of the Palestinians. That’s what negotiation is. As for 1948, really Mr. Oren? Was 1948 really so simple? If Israel had established a Christian state, a secular state or a Rastafarian state, I’m pretty sure the Arab reaction would have been much the same. When you establish a state on land occupied partly by those who have inhabited it for the last thousand or so years, they being outside your ruling class, and partly by a massive population of recent migrants, war kind of tends to happen.

Such a step by the Palestinian Authority would be a confidence-building measure,” Mr. Netanyahu explained, noting that Israel was not demanding recognition as a prerequisite for direct talks. It would “open a new horizon of hope as well as trust among broad parts of the Israeli public.”

I’m pretty sure Israel wouldn’t fight so hard for a “confidence-building measure”. Building confidence takes a great deal more than that.

So what is the purpose of this new obsession then? Well Oren will actually tell you:

Indeed, Israel never sought similar acknowledgment in its peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Some analysts have suggested that Mr. Netanyahu is merely making a tactical demand that will block any chance for the peace they claim he does not really want.

The problem is, Oren then fails to actually refute this. And I don’t mean robustly, I mean at all. Oren goes on to claim that Israel “recognizes the existence of a Palestinian people with an inalienable right to self-determination in its homeland”, which sounds nice but the reality of it is very different. This is because Israel doesn’t actually recognise a Palestinian homeland. How else would you explain its policy to settle Palestine’s “inaliable homeland” with hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers?

Oren’s position gets even more tenuous:

So why won’t the Palestinians reciprocate? After all, the Jewish right to statehood is a tenet of international law. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 called for the creation of “a national home for the Jewish people” in the land then known as Palestine and, in 1922, the League of Nations cited the “historical connection of the Jewish people” to that country as “the grounds for reconstituting their national home.” In 1947, the United Nations authorized the establishment of “an independent Jewish state,” and recently, while addressing the General Assembly, President Obama proclaimed Israel as “the historic homeland of the Jewish people.” Why, then, can’t the Palestinians simply say “Israel is the Jewish state”?

Oren’s reference to “international law” seems to contain very little actual law. We can discount immediately a random speech by Obama, which could only have been intended as complete buffer. Citing the now extremely defunct League of Nations policy as a “tenet of international law” is tenuous at best. The Balfour Declaration too was a British policy statement, and though the British mandate over Palestine was accepted by the League of Nations in 1922, one would then also have to consider the McMahon-Hussein correspondence and the Churchill White Paper, which both repudiate much of the Balfour Declaration. Besides, Palestine had zero representation in the League of Nations.

Moreover, Mr. Oren’s extremely selective use of international law is galling. What about the whole host of UN Security Council resolutions that Israel routinely ignores? Not to mention the recent UN HRC fact finding missions into both Cast Lead and the flotilla incident? The hypocrisy is maddening.

The rest of the op-ed then collapses into fear mongering about “a two-stage solution leading, as many Palestinians hope, to Israel’s dissolution” and Palestinians failing to accept “that the millions of them residing in Arab countries would be resettled within a future Palestinian state and not within Israel”. Why should they accept this? They have no hope of being “resettled” in Israel regardless of its identity, and why should they want to be resettled in Palestine? Should we forcibly resettle the Jewish diaspora in Israel? This is ridiculous beyond words.

Israelis need to know that further concessions would not render us more vulnerable to terrorism and susceptible to unending demands. Though recognition of Israel as the Jewish state would not shield us from further assaults or pressure, it would prove that the Palestinians are serious about peace.

And equally the Palestinians need to know that Israel is serious about peace, that it is willing to accept the right of a Palestinian state to exist and immediately halt the illegal settlement of occupied land within that future state. Though a halt to that settlement would not shield Palestine from further assaults or pressure, it would prove that the Israelis are not suicidally inclined towards an inevitable one-state solution. That’s how easy it is to turn this ridiculous argument on its head.

Mr. Oren concludes his op-ed with a paragraph that neatly sums up the tone and content of the rest of it, namely unabashed propaganda without meaning, logic or sense.

The core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the refusal to recognize Jews as a people, indigenous to the region and endowed with the right to self-government. Criticism of Israeli policies often serves to obscure this fact, and peace continues to elude us. By urging the Palestinians to recognize us as their permanent and legitimate neighbors, Prime Minister Netanyahu is pointing the way out of the current impasse: he is identifying the only path to co-existence.

There are many ‘cores’ to the conflict, be they territory, security, national self-determination, dignity or oppression, but no one serious “refuses to recognize the Jews as a people”. The fact that some Jews are “indigenous to the region” is a matter of irrelevance and as for “the right to self-government”, the only way that Jews are going to lose the right to govern Israel is if they absorb a massive demographic shift of Palestinians under an inevitable one state solution.

And therein lies the irrational, paradoxical quality of the debate today. Mr. Oren’s op-ed reflects a fear that Israel will lose its Jewish character, but the most surefire way that that can happen is by not fast-tracking a two state solution by halting settlements and negotiating seriously. Every day the two-state solution grows further out of reach, until the inevitable point when Israel will be the only political entity between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan. On that day, Israel will be faced with a choice: give the Palestinians a right to vote or create a state of true apartheid character. I strongly suggest that, instead of writing hyperbolic op-eds in the New York Times, Mr. Oren devote himself to getting his country out of that inevitable mess.


Written by alexlobov

October 15, 2010 at 1:19 am

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Unfortunately your take on is in no way stronger than Oren’s Op-Ed. Both of you miss the point, due to focus on past and controverse discourse. Regards


    October 15, 2010 at 2:07 am

  2. I loved your final paragraph. So true!

    As for international law, I agree that the NYT op-ed was shaky in that regard, but so is your analysis. You’re very correct in stating that Balfour Declaration means squat, because it’s a British policy. I also have no idea why he stuck that Obama speech in there, since it’s utterly irrelevant.

    However, the fact that the UNSC condemned Israel many times doesn’t mean Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is questioned by the UN. The UN HR committee’s resolutions and reports to it are also not binding and aren’t considered a part of international law. You ignored in your critique of Oren the resolution on partition of Palestine (UNGAR 181), which is a part of international law, and validates Oren’s view that international law accepts Israel as a Jewish state (in fact, it refers to the future Israel as “the Jewish state”). Of course calling this a “tenet” of international law is quite absurd.
    So while you are correct that Oren points to very little law, he does have the backing of an important resolution and Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state hasn’t been questioned by international law (its right to occupy and discriminate against Arabs has). I also agree that his (and Israel’s) treatment of international law is highly hypocritical.

    Overall, I think this is a great post because it goes to show that Israel is shooting itself in the leg by keeping up its current policy.


    October 15, 2010 at 4:58 am

    • Thanks for the comment Liz. Yeah, I missed him invoking the resolution on partition, that was my error. As you pointed out though, it’s hardly a strong footing to mount a case that international law supports an Israel of an unequivocally Jewish National identity.

      The reason why I brought up those UNSC resolutions is that I believe you can’t cherry-pick aspects of international law that suit your op-ed. This goes doubly for Oren who is an Ambassador, not a random pundit. If he wants to invoke ‘international law’ then he better make sure his government isn’t falling afoul of it many times over in other areas. I view that as gross hypocrisy.


      October 15, 2010 at 5:07 am

  3. I think the UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which called for the formation of the State of Israel as a Jewish state can be the basis for Oren’s claim, but the word “tenet” is an exaggeration.

    But, if we accept Oren’s claim that Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is supported by international law based on UNGAR 181 (which I agree with), we must also look at other provisions in this tenet-forming resolution. It clearly envisions a situation where minorities will exist in at least one of the states. It spells out: “No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.”
    If this resolution is such an important part of international law, why is Israel violating it in its laws and practices?


    October 15, 2010 at 5:34 am

    • Hats off. At this point, my blog is ‘Renegade’, you’re Eminem and i’m Jay-Z. 😉


      October 15, 2010 at 10:28 am

      • Hahaha 🙂 I think Nas’ diss was uncalled for when it comes to “Renegade”. Jay Z is amazing on that song and the whole Blueprint album. I think it’s one of the best rap CDs ever.


        October 15, 2010 at 4:38 pm

  4. We’ll have to disagree there. 😛 Blueprint was his best album and possibly one of the best of all time and he was great on Renegade but Nas was right when he said that Eminem still totally killed him on his own track.


    October 15, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    • I think Nas and Oren suffer from the same problem – exaggeration. Eminem didn’t “murder” Jay Z on his own shit… he was just somewhat better than Jay Z who was also awesome. Though I think exaggeration is kind of the norm in rap music, and not so much in NYT op-eds.

      On a slightly unrelated matter, why does no one come out with good music anymore? I’m kinda wishing Nas and Jay Z would resurrect their feud just so we can get some good music again. Eminem’s two (or is it three by now?) last CDs were also bleh. I don’t like it when he sings in choruses. Jay Z is also too busy making money.


      October 15, 2010 at 11:54 pm

  5. Yeah Eminem’s last few have been terrible, the Blueprint 3 was underwhelming and that Damian Marley/Nas collab was even worse. But rap wise, there is good music – Big Boi’s new album was very good, as was Raekwon’s latest and Mos Def’s from last year.


    October 16, 2010 at 2:56 am

    • I don’t really like Outkast, but I’ll check out Mos Def’s and Raekwon’s CDs.
      Thank you 🙂


      October 16, 2010 at 4:53 am

  6. Maybe I missed something in your counterpoints, but one crucial aspect should be pointed out more decisively: the true nature of Israels demand about the “jewish character of Israel” and its request the Palestinians have to accept this is: If Abbas ever were to admit a “jewish Israel” he would provide Netanyahu a carte blanche about the demographic future of Israel AND about the rights of the arab population in Israel. Any Israeli gov. could easily neglect a growing arab-israeli population their / some rights – or even expulse them – and therefor point towards Abbas who officially gave way for this.

    Israel would be the first and only state in the world who would be based on an ethnical basis. There is no such thing like an “England for Britons” or “France for the French” etc.pp. Should Israel be given the right to act so? No, for this would amount to the weird nationalist agendas of the 19th century.


    July 15, 2011 at 5:21 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: