In a tiny West Bank village not long ago, a teenage girl, Ahed Tamimi, slapped a heavily armed soldier outside her home. The prevailing sense among 7 million Jews was that she was a violent renegade, a kind of apprentice terrorist, but almost 7 million Palestinians saw her act as effectively, or at least relatively, nonviolent. They viewed her as fully justified and, indeed, heroic.
This clash of completely irreconcilable perceptions reveals the fundamental realities between Israel and the Palestinians. This week, Israel released the 17-year-old Palestinian after she had served eight months for “assaulting” an Israeli soldier. Her 15-year-old cousin was allegedly shot in the head with a rubber bullet by Israeli occupation forces during a demonstration, after which there was a confrontation with the soldiers outside her home. That is when the slap occurred.
Why would a teenager slap a soldier? Why would she be lionized and vilified internationally for doing so? Because her people and the Jewish population of Israel do not operate on equal ground. One side has every reason to try to change that, but many on the other side are content to ignore the disparity.
If the 20th century taught us anything, it is that people cannot long abide living in a condition in which they have no power, no agency and no self-determination. This is why the European colonial project broke down so completely. It is why segregation in the US’ South could not survive. It is why apartheid in South Africa simply collapsed.
In the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, variously known as Eretz Yisrael, historical Palestine or mandatory Palestine, two peoples live in equal numbers, but one group in it has all the power.
A small group of Palestinians are Israeli citizens, making up a manageable minority of about 20 percent. They face lots of official and unofficial discrimination, but they have many of the basic rights of citizens.
However, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are not citizens of Israel or any other country. They do not have any say in the government that effectively rules them, or any influence on the laws, regulations, bureaucracy or courts that determine their fate. They cannot travel more than a few miles in any direction without the permission of a hostile occupying army.
They have no vote. They have no passport. They have, simply, no meaningful rights.
In a world of citizens, Palestinians are the only remaining large group of stateless people. This is striking, because most of them are not refugees and are living in their own towns and villages.
Young Palestinians such as Tamimi have never known another reality. They have grown up in an environment in which they know that another people control their lives completely and that they are utterly powerless. Their parents have no real authority. Their fathers are routinely subject to all manner of arbitrary humiliations in front of them.
Some try to rationalize these realities. They blame the Palestinians themselves, the Arabs or others. Yet, this fundamental reality of basic empowerment for Jews versus near-total disempowerment for Palestinians is still the essence of lived reality. This is the basis of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship. No one can deny it.
No people disempowered to this extent will ever be able to accept that status. Nor should they be expected to.
Yet, increasingly, many Jewish Israelis and residents of the US are beginning to assume that Palestinians can and should remain effectively powerless for the indefinite future. Not because they have any substantive rebuttal to anything that I have said about the inhumane treatment of the Palestinians, but simply because they see it as convenient for Israel.
Practically speaking, there are only two ways for Palestinians to gain any structural authority over their lives: They could have an independent state, or they could become full and equal citizens of Israel, or some other entity.
There is no third path to basic human rights. The alternative to those options is the formalization of Israeli apartheid. Yet, this is what many are now openly promoting.
The Wall Street Journal this week responded to Tamimi’s release by printing a sort of Rosetta Stone for this perspective. In it, US investor Daniel Arbess presumes to offer her “advice.”
Dismissing this brutal reality as a “so-called occupation,” he effectively offers her and other young Palestinians a deal: They can enjoy some measure of integration “into Israel’s thriving economy and culture of innovation” with “self-determination” for “local communities” (whatever that means).
Here is the catch: The “Jewish character of the state” would be guaranteed under “any demographic circumstances.” Even if Palestinians become the majority, as they probably soon will, they would still somehow have to live in a “Jewish state.”
Arbess clarifies that a central feature of any such arrangement would be sustaining “Jewish control of immigration and other policies of national identity and security.”
Again, this would apparently be true under any demographic conditions.
Arbess is not hiding his demand for perpetual, guaranteed Jewish supremacy in all of the land, with or without a Jewish majority. In effect, Palestinians can get some secondary economic benefits and localized political crumbs if they surrender any hope for dignity or self-determination.
This sounds a lot like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s notorious — and preposterous — vision of “economic peace” with Palestinians receiving a “state minus.” In effect, of course, it means that Palestinians would agree to live as “humans minus.”
There are disturbing signs from Jared Kushner, the US special envoy to the Middle East, and US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman that US President Donald Trump’s administration shares such a vision, and that any “peace plan” proposed by the administration would, in effect, embody it as well.
However, “economic peace” is an absurdity, because this is a political conflict, not a squabble over money. Even disputes about land hide what lies, very obviously, directly underneath: power.
It is no good saying that Jews should know what it means to live without power, and under someone else’s whims and control — people do not work like that. Suffering is rarely ennobling. As ever, the powerful do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
However, the same dynamics of fundamental human psychology mean that Palestinians, alone among all the peoples of the Earth, would not uniquely agree to live in a formalized, fundamental and structural condition of radical disempowerment.
Would Arbess, Netanyahu or the others ever agree to that for themselves or their families? Would they ever dream of asking Jewish Israelis to live that way? To ask the question is to answer it — possibly with a slap.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry