Israel is a mirror in which they see their own imperial presence

The War of Return, by Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf, argues that the Palestinians' demand for a right of return is the single greatest obstacle to successful diplomacy and lasting peace, and has no legal or moral basis.

Benjamin Kerstein reviews the book favourably, in Quillette, and adds his own conclusion: 

The truth, however, is that for all its hardened realism, Wilf and Schwartz’s book seems at times overly optimistic. The international community is unlikely to force the Palestinians’ hand on anything, and given the power of the Arab-Muslim bloc at the UN, the possibility that UNRWA will be dismantled is remote. But the largest obstacle to such a change relates not to the international community but to the manner in which the refugee issue and indeed Israel’s existence itself cut to the quick of Arab-Muslim identity. The obstacle may be, ultimately, psychological rather than political, and by no means confined to the Palestinians.

The reason for this is inadvertently indicated by the authors when they note of Musa Alami’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist, “Full Arab independence, Alami wrote, could be achieved only if every trace of foreign imperialist presence was erased.” This has become the Arabs’ most essential argument: Israel is a foreign, imperialist, colonialist imposition, and so justice demands that it be eradicated. This belief justifies even the most horrific acts of terrorism, and is necessitated by a historical irony: that the entire Arab presence in the land of Israel is itself the result of imperialism and colonialism. The Arab people are, in fact, foreign to the Levant and indeed to much of the Middle East and North Africa. Israel is a mirror in which they see their own imperial presence, which is illegitimate by their own post-colonial standards.

Hatred of Israel is used to absolve Arabs’ own historical sins: Imperialism, colonialism, ethnic cleansing, the appropriation of land and other people’s holy sites, the bloody conquest of entire continents. Without these historical developments, the Arab-Muslim world as presently constituted would simply not exist. Projecting these sins on to a hated Other is an evasion of accountability—a way to bury their own historical guilt beneath the violent self-assertion of an unchallengeable myth of indigeneity and noble victimhood. In its insistence on return, the Arab-Muslim world holds out the hope that “justice” can be done—the Other can be eliminated, and their own original sin remain suppressed and denied indefinitely.

But there is nothing uniquely monstrous about the history of Arab-Muslim imperialism. For all of human history, great empires and religions—and Islam has been both—have built themselves in precisely the same way. As Balzac put it, behind every great fortune lies a crime. And today’s Arab Muslims are no more guilty of these crimes than Germans born after World War II are guilty of the Holocaust, or today’s Americans guilty of the institution of slavery. The problem is that the Arab-Muslim world has dealt with its history in a particularly dysfunctional manner. It rejects the self-criticism it demands of the West, and indeed of Israel, in favor of self-pity and hatred. Historical sins demand an internal moral struggle, not the unending persecution of a convenient scapegoat. If the international community should work toward anything, it is toward encouraging the possibility of such a reckoning.

And this, perhaps, is where the real solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies. Wilf and Schwartz provide an excellent historical study of, and useful practical suggestions for dealing with, one of the most intractable aspects of the long struggle between the two peoples. But I doubt that these suggestions will prove effective unless and until the Palestinians, along with the larger Arab-Muslim world, come to terms with the fact that they are not uniquely persecuted, that Israel is not uniquely evil, and that compromise is therefore possible after all. Only then will Palestinians be in a position to renounce the irredentist dream of return that stands so stubbornly in the way of the dream of peace. Unfortunately, such a reckoning is not likely to come soon. In the meantime, Wilf and Schwartz’s fascinating critique of one of the myths that prevents it is at least a step in the right direction.

I'd say that any book putting forward possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is overly optimistic for the foreseeable future.

Consider the case of Palestinian journalist Rami Aman, who was arrested for treason by Hamas simply for holding a virtual Zoom conference with Israeli peace activists:

Eyad al-Bozom, a spokesperson from the Hamas-run interior ministry, said the prominent Palestinian figure Rami Aman and others had been detained on charges of “establishing normalisation activities with the Israeli occupation via the internet”.

“Any activity or communication with the Israeli occupation under any cover is a crime punishable by law, and a betrayal of our people and their sacrifices,” Bozom said.

He turned himself in three weeks ago, and hasn't been heard from since.

At MEMRI you can see Gazan journalist Alaa Al-Asi commenting on the case and asserting that any form of dialogue with Israelis - even peace activists - that takes place outside of the framework of the resistance is collaboration with the enemy.

That's the dead end they've talked themselves into.

Comments

[Recruiting Animal]

He seems to be saying that no group has a claim to the land it is on no matter how long they have been living there because all residence is ultimately based on conquest be it in the recent or distant past. Then he says that the current residents are not guilty of this original sin but they have to accept its logic anyway. At least, I think that this is what he is saying. But I've read Wilf a few times and I think I remember her saying something about indigenous people having a legitimate claim.

[Mick H]

Well...he's saying that the Arabs base the morality of their claims on the belief that the Jews stole their land, when they're guilty of the same charge back in the days of the Arabic conquests post-Mohammed. I don't think that necessarily implies that it's conquests all the way down.