Colonialism or something else? A reply to Ira Sharkansky's comment.

• Author: Reuveny, Rafael
• Position: CONTROVERSY - Critical essay

Ira Sharkansky's criticism of my article is emotional and sometimes inflammatory, but it is also unconvincing. Colonialism, he writes, "is one of the ugliest words available to judge a country's history, and therefore it tilts the analysis heavily toward Israel's fault," suggesting that I seek to blame Israel (he does not specify for what, but presumably he means for perpetuating the conflict). Contrary to what he suggests, my approach is neither polemical nor judgmental. Colonialism is an empirical phenomenon whose attributes have applied to Israeli-Palestinian relations since 1967. I evaluate the conflict in a historical perspective because this approach provides insight into its determinants and suggests how it may ultimately be resolved.

Sharkansky compares my essay to former U.S. president Jimmy Carter's use of the term apartheid to describe Israeli-Palestinian relations, which, he says, "makes clear how [Carter] is judging the country." This criticism is empty because I do not assign guilt, but perform an empirically based analysis. In contrast, Sharkansky blames the Palestinians "for years of failure [to resolve the conflict]." He claims the West is "nervous about Islam" and is "perhaps more inclined to understand Israel." It seems as if he seeks to ensure continued U.S. support of Israel. Rather than promote an ideologically based position that supports one side, I seek to understand the conflict objectively.

"[T]he ascendance of an aggressive form of Islam," Sharkansky writes, "make[s] it difficult, if not impossible, for Palestinians to accept anything Israel is likely to offer." This statement begs the question, What is Israel actually offering that the Palestinians reject? Perhaps the ongoing settlement expansion since 1967, numerous Israeli checkpoints, blockades of Palestinian areas, curfews, and demolition of Palestinian houses? Perhaps the ongoing confiscation of more than 50 percent of the land on the West Bank, much smaller Palestinian water allocations per capita than those given to Jewish settlers, roads closed to Palestinian traffic, or the separation barrier that Israel builds around but inside the West Bank, which the International Court of Justice in the Hague has ruled illegal? Other colonial rulers who faced revolts have taken similar actions.

As Sharkansky notes, some Palestinians reject Israel, claiming Greater Palestine in the name of Allah, but he fails to note that some Israelis reject a Palestinian state, claiming Greater Israel in the name of Jehovah. More important, a point Sharkansky also ignores, both phenomena are not unique. Some colonialists and rebels in other conflicts acted in the names of their gods.

Next, Sharkansky argues that Israel is not the last colonialist: Tahiti is a colony of France, Gibraltar is a colony of Britain, Chechnya is a colony of Russia, and Israel is a colony of the United States. However...