So what’s the problem in highlighting the combustible nature of such a seemingly reckless and shortsighted move? Surely such warnings are warranted given both the history of Palestinian resistance and current regional dynamics. But focusing so insistently on a potential Arab backlash elides the actual illegality of this move. United Nations Resolution 478, passed in 1980, deemed Israel’s claim that Jerusalem is the “complete and united” capital of Israel to be in violation of international law and urged member states to withdraw diplomatic missions from the city. Jerusalem is a contested city, at the heart of the dilemma over the two-state solution, and as some of the commentary has in fairness pointed out, this move is likely to prove an enormous obstacle to peace and good faith between Palestinians, Israelis, and the United States. Furthermore, Jerusalem’s eastern half has been under illegal occupation by the Israeli government since 1967. The construction of illegal settlements and the demolition of Palestinian homes continues unabated and has even seen an uptick in recent years. To recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel legitimizes these illegal actions. These factors should be at the forefront of any opposition to Trump’s policy rather than fear of backlash.
Focusing on the potential mobs of angry Arabs reacting to the decision further reinforces stereotypes about, well … angry Arabs. In an era of divisive rhetoric, often directed particularly toward Arab and Muslim communities—much of it stoked by this president—employing the fear of rioting Arabs as a reason for opposing particular policies is, forgive me the metaphor, playing with fire. Opponents of this policy should not be using the same fear of Muslim violence used to justify the Muslim ban, no-fly lists, and other discriminatory policies.
There is also a more insidious message being sent by warnings about the potential for a “third intifada” in response to President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem, one that has long haunted, not just the conflict over Palestine and Israel but also other instances where human rights, civil rights, and sovereignty are violated. When we focus on violence as the only preventive force against unjust policies, we reinforce the notion that violence is the only effective means of resistance. Perhaps more often than not, these assessments prove to be accurate, but it’s a dangerous game and only aids those who see no point in working toward peace at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment