PARTIALLY ON VACATION: Joshua Marshall checks in from vacation to object to the Bush speech, comparing it to "cheap donuts."
Marshall states:
The highlight, the shot in the arm, of this exercise is supposed to be the US endorsement of a Palestinian state, or rather a provisional state.
That comment presupposes that the purpose of the speech was to give the Palestinians a "shot in the arm." While the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Washington Post persist in that misunderstanding, the rest of the speech served strong notice to the contrary. The speech was much more akin to an intervention, with the aim of forcing the Palestinians to confront the hopelessness of the current path. Hopelessness is the key. In the words of Joe Katzman, "until the Palestinians lose all hope, they must not be allowed to have it."
Marshall also says:
The rub to the proposal is that the Palestinians can have their state - or rather their provisional state - only if they get rid of their current leadership. So they can rule themselves if they choose leaders acceptable to the United States and/or the Israelis. Not to be knee-jerk about this, but isn't that almost the definition of colonialism, the antithesis of what it means to have your own state? The essence of sovereignty or statehood is that you pick your own leaders.
I think Marshall would agree that a Palestinian state under current leadership would be, to put it mildly, a danger to Israel and to the interests of the United States. Were that state to be in existence, Israel and/or the US would be justified in invading it and terminating its sovereignty when faced with such a threat. I don't see why preventing such a state from coming into being is worse, whether you call it "colonialism" or "self-defense." Sovereignty is not an absolute right; it can be infringed when a nation poses a threat to its neighbors, and may forfeit its right to exist when it poses a threat to the existence of another.
Marshall's retort would probably be this sentence from his piece:
But that's the law of power and violence. And that law more or less gives the Palestinians free rein to continue their own campaign of unbridled violence.
No, it doesn't.
Leaving aside the relevance of comparative morality (i.e., if there is a contest for survival betwen two entities, and only one of them has a deliberate policy of murdering innocent civilians, the choice of which one to support is not especially difficult), the existence of a Palestinian state has never been predicated on violence. Just the opposite - two words: Camp David. The Palestinian's turn to violence was in rejection of a peaceful alternative, and no "law" permits violence in the face of such an alternative.
I don't think Marshall meant everything I'm accusing him of, but his piece lends itself to that interpretation.
Take it up again when you get back from hiatus.