Except for Palestine - The Limits of Progressive Politics. Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick. The New Press, New York. 2021.
"Except for Palestine" is a remarkable little book. Within it, the authors Hill and Plitnick present the larger picture that the self-proclaimed progressive "universal" values of the United States are argued for in many troubled spots of the world, except for Palestine. Their introduction lays out this idea, "The conditions mentioned here should be profoundly disturbing to American liberals and progressives, as they are clearly out of step with the values they claim to hold most dear."
For the following chapters, "we examine Israel's escalating authoritarianism and how U.S. policy has enabled it, and we demonstrate how it is anathema to universal liberal values." There are four chapters each covering a distinct topic, and each succeeding strongly in supporting the authors' perspective.
The Right to Exist
The first chapter, "The Right to Exist" presents the ongoing Israeli position that the Palestinians must recognize Israel's right to exist before other negotiations begin. This demand is made of no other countries, and no other countries make the demand of any other country. Countries exist through recognition of their governance and boundaries, not by right. There is no similar 'given' by the Israelis that Palestine has a right to exist, and under international law it is not a requirement for sovereignty.
Yet international law does include the right of return, a law Israel simply ignores. The Israeli position comes from two sources: right of return implies the recognition that they are an occupying colonial-settler state; and it is acknowledged that the current demographic Jewish majority, slim as it is, would be overwhelmed by refugees returning to their homeland.
As for American progressive values, the demand for recognition "is a demand rooted in a 'might makes right' ethos that demands the utter subjugation, even humiliation, of one's rivals."
Criminalizing BDS
The second chapter, "Criminalizing BDS", discusses arguments made concerning the supposed anti-Semitic nature of its demands, but as presented here, it is a basic non-violent expression of civil rights. For the U.S. and its own internal arguments, "The Supreme Court has generally interpreted refusals to do business, including through boycotts, as conduct that may be permissibly regulated... When the motivation is political or social in nature, may have more of an expressive element, which according to Supreme Court Precedent, could qualify for First Amendment protection."
The BDS movement is not organized by the PLO/PA governance currently in place over the Palestinian people. The BDS national committee has an explicit statement concerning anti-racism and non-violence, which is "an unambiguous refutation of any association with violence or anti-Semitism."
In summarizing their arguments, the authors say, "While Israel should never be unfairly isolated or targeted, it also cannot be shielded from principled and organized political pressure through boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. These tactics have always been critical tools for producing peace, freedom, and justice for the vulnerable. Palestine cannot be an exception."
Trumped-up Policy
The four years of Trump's governance made several important concessions to Israel and created the situation in which the U.S. "could no longer function as a mediator of the conflict, and diplomacy, already barely existent, went completely dark."
Trump's recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, and the transfer of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, were the two main actions invalidating any supposed mediating role. Mostly unrecognized was his decision to cut off aid to UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency set up to aid Palestinian refugees), and while generally unrecognized, it carries significant importance in consideration of international law and the desires of the Israeli state.
The UNRWA was set up to aid refugees, to provide social services and neither to settle them nor define who they are. UNRWA's role is "to provide basic services... not to resettle the refugees." The UNHCR (the UN High Commission for Refugees) does have the mandate to help refugees settle in areas other than their homes. With Trump defunding the UNRWA the Israeli hopes are to have the Palestinian refugees settled in the countries where they currently are. On the other hand if the funding is stopped Israel could "face a humanitarian crisis that could turn world opinion sharply against the country."
Once again, the demographic factor comes into play - with the refugees settled outside Israel a very large portion of them would then stand outside the right of return. The Palestinians steadfastly refuse this, many holding the keys to their homes (whether demolished or occupied) and maintaining their international law right of return to a militarily occupied area.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
