by JIM MILES
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.”
Axis of Logic for more