Newly minted The New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Patrick Kingsley has effectively called for the replacement of Israel with a bi-national state. In his latest article — Palestinians and Israelis Both Vote Soon. The Differences Are Stark. — Kingsley not only conflates the democratic process in Israel with the authoritarianism that pervades the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but goes so far as to insinuate that Palestinians should have the right to vote in the March 23 Israeli national elections.
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
Putting aside for a moment the dystopian scenario of Hamas supporters casting ballots for any individual with direct influence over Israeli policy, Kingsley himself suggests that Palestinians are more acutely focused on having their voices heard at internal polling stations for the first time over 15 years:
Many of those eager to vote in May were too young to vote in the last election, and dream of a new and more competent Palestinian leadership with a clearer idea of how to achieve statehood. More than 93 percent of Palestinians have already registered to vote, a fact that analysts say illustrates an initial enthusiasm for the process.
Given the “initial enthusiasm” among Palestinians, it is seemingly clear that they have had their fill with the kleptocratic Palestinian Authority government and the destructive “leadership” of Hamas. And as it relates to achieving statehood, Kingsley might have quoted a Palestinian youth calling for the next batch of elected officials to return to the negotiating table without preconditions.
Related Reading: In Depth: Arafat Rejected Peace in 2000
Indeed, this almost undoubtedly requires a changing of the guard given that both Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas turned down comprehensive peace offers from Israel in 2000 and 2008, respectively, and that the days when the Palestinians can adhere without consequences to maximalist positions are basically over given Israeli demographic and electoral shifts combined with rapidly changing regional dynamics.
Nor is there any overt reason for optimism.
…If they go ahead, the May 22 elections would elect a Palestinian legislative council that might — in a best-case scenario — pave the way for a reunification of Gaza and parts of the West Bank — which have been run separately since the 2007 split — under one governing body.
The “split” Kingsley is referring to is the Palestinian internecine war — perhaps best remembered for images of Hamas members throwing Fatah officials off rooftops — that resulted in the ouster of PA President Mahmoud Abbas and most of his allies from Gaza. This, in turn, was precipitated by Hamas’ landslide victory in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, in which the US-designated terrorist organization garnered 74 seats to Fatah’s 45 in the since-then virtually defunct 132-member parliament.
Does Kingsley offer any evidence whatsoever that the upcoming Palestinian vote will have a different outcome? To the contrary, he half-heartedly suggests — before later backtracking slightly — that the intense animus between the rival sides, which, notably, have repeatedly failed over the past decade to bury the hatchet despite signing numerous reconciliation agreements, will somehow subside and a previously unseen “oneness” will take root.
This, as opposed to the equally, if not more probable result — one based on precedent — that Hamas will make major inroads in the West Bank, impose its iron-fisted rule on the population therein and begin building a military infrastructure in order to place major Israeli population centers in its immediate line of fire.
Related Reading: Focus on Hamas: A Brutal Terrorist Organization
In fact, such an eventuality correlates nicely with the pièce de résistance of Kingsley’s article:
Many Palestinians and international rights campaigners warn that the Palestinian elections are no game changer for Palestinian rights. Palestinians in the occupied territories cannot vote in the election that will have the greatest effect on their lives — the Israeli one.
Whether Kingsley is aware of it or not, he is essentially espousing support for a “one-state solution.” That proposal entails incorporating into Israel some 4.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and then extending to them equal rights, including the right to vote. While often blanketed in hoity-toity terminology, in practice, the implementation of the plan would ultimately spell the end of Jewish self-determination.
Accordingly, irrespective of one’s underlying intentions or motivations, the formula is, at its root, eliminationist. That is why the status quo diplomatic mantra for nearly 30 years has been “…the establishment a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with Israel.”
By attributing decontextualized blame to Israel for the Palestinians’ purported plight — be it for “frequently conduct[ing] military raids even within places nominally under Mr. Abbas’s control;” or for “controlling what and who can come in and out [of Gaza], as well as most of the electricity and fuel supply” — Kingsley also demonstrates a subtle form of bigotry. He implies that Palestinians — some 95 percent of whom live under the full administration of the PA or Hamas — have no agency of their own and that only Israeli actions can determine their progress.
A good starting point for a rebuttal is the creation of modern-day Israel, which was borne not only out of ideological commitment, but a willingness through hard work to transform an ephemeral “dream” into tangible reality by doing everything from draining swampland to creating the institutions that are a prerequisite for statehood. This occurred on the backdrop of fierce opposition by the British and the local Arab population.
Moreover, the Jewish people compromised, a lesson that Kingsley might encourage be taught in Palestinian schools instead of textbooks being filled with maps of “Palestine” extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
Be that as it may, that the Palestinians are not living under ideal conditions — a circumstance, mind you, that applies to almost all peoples across the world on both the macro and micro levels — is well documented, even while being largely self-inflicted.
But that they will probably in May have the opportunity to express themselves in the most fundamental democratic manner is a step in the right direction. And whereas in the short-term “many crucial aspects of Palestinian life [will] still [be] decided by Israel,” as Kingsley notes, by choosing moderate leaders dedicated to coexistence and prosperity the Palestinian public has the power to improve its lot over time.
This, however, requires the Palestinians, on the whole, to accept a modicum of responsibility for their predicament so that they may begin the process of rejecting rejectionism in order to chart a new path forward.
“We want jobs more than rockets,” said Amr al-Shaer, a 21-year-old unemployed Gazan cited in Kingsley’s article. It is a type of hope that can only sprout from within. In other words, there must be an inherent desire for a better future before it can be actualized.
So, let the Palestinian people vote. And leave Israel out of it for the moment.
Afterwards, people can judge for themselves where things stand and if peace is on the horizon.
HonestReporting encourages you to seek a correction to Patrick Kingsley’s article by emailing The New York Times: [email protected]
