Sari Nusseibeh in Haaretz

In an interview with Haaretz, well worth reading. He talks about the feeling that time is running out on a two-state solution? The irony is that Israel has often hoped that the settlement of the West Bank would pressure the Palestinians to settle the conflict more quickly. At the same time, Israel has claimed the settlements (except a few of the major ones) are reversible. Meanwhile the Palestinians demand that the settlements be reversed, but use them to pressure the Israelis to end the Occupation before "it's too late." It seems that both sides are playing both sides. (Via Ron Skolnik at Meretz USA.)

Real Palestinians' opinions

There's little recognition over here of the range of views in Palestinian society. Right-wing Islamophobes and racists pretend that all Palestinians are terrorists (or perhaps will concede that some merely support terrorism) while left-wing "anti-Zionists" pretend that all Palestinians are saints who support terrorism because it's saintly. I'm afraid the willingness to see Palestinians as supporting a two-state solution (they do) has disappeared lately. At one point, I could swear people understood that.

Two interviews (via Guide to the Perplexed) with Palestinians Sari Nusseibeh and Bassed Eid, from New Society: Harvard College Student Middle East Journal, can help people to understand the real views of real Palestinians.

Sari Nusseibeh:

What is Hamas? It is a virtual construct. Behind Hamas are indi-vidual human beings. Now individual human beings are open sys-tems. In other words, one day they may adopt the ideology of this virtual construct and another day they might adopt something else. Hamas is itself, full stop. It believes, for instance, in the liberation of all of Palestine, in the creation of an Islamic state. The question to ask is who is the person who adopts those beliefs and is such a person also somebody who will continue holding those beliefs. My feeling is that that is not the case. I think a majority of Palestinians are prepared to accept a two-state solution based on 1967 lines, East Jerusalem as a capital, compensation for refugees, all those things. If the Palestinians are given this offer, they will take it.

Bassed Eid:

We are having to face the consequences of our actions over the past seven years. In my opinion, the Palestinians totally lost their way during the past seven years. Things will get worse if we continue in the same way. We will have to change our direction.

More on Sari Nusseibeh (and James Russell)

After the email (reproduced almost word for word in this post - the last sentence was absent in the email) I felt compelled to send to James Russell, condemning his condemnation of Sari Nusseibeh, he responded to me:

Mr. Nusseibeh's words speak for themselves; and I stand by my resolution to oppose him and his institutional Jew-hatred. I regret your disagreement with my views, which you have every right to hold and to express. But might I observe that your epithet "McCarthyist" is childish: I know what McCarthyism is, since relatives of mine were blacklisted when I was a boy. I am not doing that, but stating merely what I will do myself and what I think personally. Others are free to collaborate with Al Quds as they please.

Yours faithfully,

JR Russell

Of course, as for what Nusseibeh's words were, I don't think they say what Professor Russell does. I think he's misreading them, and I'd be happy to debate on those grounds. When Nusseibeh responded he explained what he had said -I think it's best that the debate remain centered on what was actually said- that was taken out of context:

I explained that, as part of a package deal, return on my view should be confined to the Palestinian State (in addition to compensation, etc.). I added however that the other side of the coin of my position (confining the return of palestinians to within the borders of a future Palestinian State) was that Jews also will have no right to claim to "return" to within the borders of a Palestinian State, and will be confined in the exercise of this "right" to the State of Israel (meaning their claim as Jews to return and settle anywhere in "Judea, Samaria, etc." will not be substantiated). I certainly did not mean by this statement to exclude Jews from being able to live in an Arab State, or vice versa. At this point the issue of whether Palestinians can accept confining their return to within Palestine came up, and I said this had to be accepted if Palestinians truly wished to have a two-state solution. But in any case, I said, Palestinian leaders should express themselves honestly on this matter: demanding a two-state solution entails, from a practical point of view, confining the exercise of the right of return. Insisting on the pursuit of a full implementation of the right of return implies a pursuit of a one-state solution. I am personally indifferent to what we (Palestinians) should put up as a vision [ig: though, in fact, Nusseibeh has consistently argued for a two-state solution, and been branded a traitor by many Palestinians for it]. Indeed, I said, I was the first to call for such a solution. However, I added, PLO strategy has been going in the other direction, and it is a direction whose implications we should own up to.

Nusseibeh's position as a philosopher is that practical concerns sometimes bring rights into conflict, so that achieving certain rights requires abandoning others. It's in that vein that he advises Palestinians to abandon the right of return, and it is not objectionable that he advises Jews to accept the same framework of prioritizing their (our) right to national self-determination over our "right" (for those, unlike me, who think we have one) to the whole of the land between the river and the sea.

As for whether it's fair to call Russell's declaration McCarthyist, I think it is, in that it casts aspersions on anyone remotely connected to Nusseibeh. He originally wrote that:

In response I declare that I refuse to teach or collaborate in any way professionally with any person having any connection whatsoever to Al Quds University, which must be regarded as an anti-Semitic and racialist entity. Furthermore I will oppose by every possible means, including prosecution under the laws of the United States, any association or cooperation of Harvard University with Al Quds. I urge all scholars and teachers of good will to join me.

That is not nearly the same as what he wrote in his response to me, that:

Others are free to collaborate with Al Quds as they please.

(The fun thing is that we can make this whole debate clear by actually referring to what people said. We can debate the meanings and implications of what people said. Of course, that's radically unlike the insinuations of those antisemites who arrogantly shout "Don't you dare call me an antisemite!" -Because, of course, Jews make a hobby of calling people antisemites without reason.- Those people aren't concerned with the actual matter of what was said. In the case of my having been banned from Newsvine -read the link if you're even tempted to blame me for that- those who spoke out against me never made any reference to anything I had said or objected to. Their arguments were equally valid -which is to say invalid- whether the original statement I had voiced objection to was not antisemitic, midly antisemitic, or openly genocidal.)

Sari Nusseibeh

It has come to my attention, through the Engage website, that there are a number of websites asking if Sari Nusseibeh is an antisemite. Among them, Campus Watch posts this as a message from James Russell:

I, James Russell, Mashtots Professor of Armenian Studies at Harvard University, have read the statement by Sari Nusseibeh in his official capacity as President of Al Quds University: "No Jew in the world, now or in the future... will have the right... to live... in East Jerusalem" and so on. In response I declare that I refuse to teach or collaborate in any way professionally with any person having any connection whatsoever to Al Quds University, which must be regarded as an anti-Semitic and racialist entity. Furthermore I will oppose by every possible means, including prosecution under the laws of the United States, any association or cooperation of Harvard University with Al Quds. I urge all scholars and teachers of good will to join me.

I find these words deplorable. Many people would disagree that Nusseibeh said anything questionable. Even from the abbreviated transcript from MEMRI, it is clear that Nusseibeh challenges the Palestinians to understand that the Palestinian Right of Return is an obstacle to peace. He has been one of the few Palestinian leaders pushing the Palestinian people to accept compromise.



I certainly support Russell's right to characterize Nusseibeh's words however Russell sees them, but to take the further step of refusing to work with anyone having any connection to Al Quds University is an outrageous overreaction. It is clear from Nusseibeh's history that he is not an antisemite but an admirable man striving to make peace. In a conflict where too few on either side are willing to take the necessary and difficult steps, he stands out for his opposition to the Palestinian Right of Return.



To characterize Nusseibeh as someone with whom you could not work would be to misjudge his character on the basis of a misjudgement of a single statement. As an academic, Russell should be sensitive to the academic freedom of all at Al Quds University, including Nusseibeh, regardless of their positions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. To declare that Al Quds University is "an anti-Semitic and racialist entity" is not only Manichean but McCarthyist. But Manichean and McCarthyist, "You're either with us or against us," is typical of the right-wing in America these days, isn't it.