As issues surface here, there and seemingly everywhere in the Middle East, the 40 year old dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians continues. In fact the issue between the two peoples goes back to the establishment of the State of Israel. Much as some have tried to bring about at least some sort of an accomodation between Israel and its neighbours, all efforts have failed - possibly because of the refusal of the Israelis to accept the right of return to Palestinians displaced when Israel was founded in 1948.
A different, interesting dimension and consideration for a resolution of the right of return issue is raised by a professor psychology at Tel Aviv University, Carlo Strenger, writing in Haaretz:
"Here I believe, resides the deepest reason for Israel's reluctance to actively engage with the Saudi initiative. Israeli public discourse and national consciousness have never come to terms with the idea, accepted by historians of all venues today, that Israel actively drove 750,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1947/8 and hence has at least partial responsibility for the Palestinian Nakba.
This has not happened to this very day because this idea is seen as undermining the foundation of the Zionist enterprise and the legitimacy of Israel's existence. It is as if we were locked into an insoluble dilemma: Either we deny responsibility for the Nakba, or we need to accept that we have no right to be here.
This is the source of the deep fear that prevents Israel from meeting the Arab world face to face and saying "we are here, and we believe that you accept our existence." Since Israel has not come to terms with its part in the historical responsibility for the Palestinian Nakba, it cannot truly believe that Arabs could accept our presence in the Middle East. We are locked into a vacillation between self-images of either all-good or all-bad, and hence continue the occupation of the territories, with all the horrors it includes, because the idea of Israel being guilty of anything is still equated with the denial of our right to be here.
The only way out of this deadlock is to raise the question of how Israel can live with its responsibility for the Nakba into public discourse. The dilemma of "either we are morally impeccable, or we have no right to be here" needs to be replaced with a narrative that accepts that Israel's moral, historical and political reality is as complex and multilayered as that of most nations."
Another perspective - with a frightening prediction - of the "problem" with Gaza and the West Bank on Israel's doorstep and the way Israel has dealt with its occupation of these two areas, is covered by the ABC's correspondent in Jerusalem, David Hardaker, in his report on Correspondents Report on ABC Radio National:
"I wish I knew the truth and could tell you. But here's my best guess about Alan Johnston's fate - whoever is responsible for what's happened in Gaza, be it the Israeli occupation or international sanctions, as the Palestinians say, or be it the Palestinians themselves, the territory has reached a turning point.
The Harakat Al-Muqawama Al-Islamia, the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, may well achieve its goal of creating an Islamic state in Gaza.
It's a result which is a nightmare for western governments.
It's a result too which many Palestinians themselves fear, because they believe Hamas is less interested in creating a Palestinian nation than in realising its dream of an Islamic caliphate which would swallow up not only Israel, but the way of life of secular Palestinians.
The people who propel that movement couldn't care less about Alan Johnston, even though they say they're working hard to release him.
In any case, the world's judgement, especially the West, is unimportant to them. Left to them, the BBC reporter might as well rot in a dark room for years.
So I feel rotten for Alan Johnston, a colleague who tried harder to understand than almost anybody, and has paid for it."
A different, interesting dimension and consideration for a resolution of the right of return issue is raised by a professor psychology at Tel Aviv University, Carlo Strenger, writing in Haaretz:
"Here I believe, resides the deepest reason for Israel's reluctance to actively engage with the Saudi initiative. Israeli public discourse and national consciousness have never come to terms with the idea, accepted by historians of all venues today, that Israel actively drove 750,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1947/8 and hence has at least partial responsibility for the Palestinian Nakba.
This has not happened to this very day because this idea is seen as undermining the foundation of the Zionist enterprise and the legitimacy of Israel's existence. It is as if we were locked into an insoluble dilemma: Either we deny responsibility for the Nakba, or we need to accept that we have no right to be here.
This is the source of the deep fear that prevents Israel from meeting the Arab world face to face and saying "we are here, and we believe that you accept our existence." Since Israel has not come to terms with its part in the historical responsibility for the Palestinian Nakba, it cannot truly believe that Arabs could accept our presence in the Middle East. We are locked into a vacillation between self-images of either all-good or all-bad, and hence continue the occupation of the territories, with all the horrors it includes, because the idea of Israel being guilty of anything is still equated with the denial of our right to be here.
The only way out of this deadlock is to raise the question of how Israel can live with its responsibility for the Nakba into public discourse. The dilemma of "either we are morally impeccable, or we have no right to be here" needs to be replaced with a narrative that accepts that Israel's moral, historical and political reality is as complex and multilayered as that of most nations."
Another perspective - with a frightening prediction - of the "problem" with Gaza and the West Bank on Israel's doorstep and the way Israel has dealt with its occupation of these two areas, is covered by the ABC's correspondent in Jerusalem, David Hardaker, in his report on Correspondents Report on ABC Radio National:
"I wish I knew the truth and could tell you. But here's my best guess about Alan Johnston's fate - whoever is responsible for what's happened in Gaza, be it the Israeli occupation or international sanctions, as the Palestinians say, or be it the Palestinians themselves, the territory has reached a turning point.
The Harakat Al-Muqawama Al-Islamia, the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, may well achieve its goal of creating an Islamic state in Gaza.
It's a result which is a nightmare for western governments.
It's a result too which many Palestinians themselves fear, because they believe Hamas is less interested in creating a Palestinian nation than in realising its dream of an Islamic caliphate which would swallow up not only Israel, but the way of life of secular Palestinians.
The people who propel that movement couldn't care less about Alan Johnston, even though they say they're working hard to release him.
In any case, the world's judgement, especially the West, is unimportant to them. Left to them, the BBC reporter might as well rot in a dark room for years.
So I feel rotten for Alan Johnston, a colleague who tried harder to understand than almost anybody, and has paid for it."
Comments