The New Yorker Radio Hour - Israel’s Other Intractable Conflict (Part 2)

Episode Date: August 6, 2024

Israel has occupied the West Bank of the Jordan River since 1967, after the third Arab-Israeli war, and ever since Israelis have settled on more and more of this contested land. Violence by armed settlers against their Palestinian neighbors has increased dramatically in recent years, as a far-right government came to dominate Israeli politics. Unless things change, the American journalist Nathan Thrall tells David Remnick, the future for Palestinians is “not unlike that of the Native Americans.” Thrall won a Pulitzer Prize for his book “A Day in the Life of Abed Salama,” which uses one isolated incident—a road accident in the West Bank—to illustrate the ways in which life under occupation has become nearly unlivable for Palestinians. On July 19th, the United Nations’ International Court of Justice issued an advisory ruling that the occupation violates international law. While the world’s attention is focussed on the devastating war in Gaza, and the escalating conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the occupation of the West Bank remains a fundamental challenge for any peaceful resolution. Remnick also speaks with Palestinian lawyer and author Raja Shehadeh, a longtime advocate for peace with Israel who lives in Ramallah. Palestinians “are, in a sense, living under a different law than the law of the settlements. And so the settlers are going to be part of Israel, and the laws of Israel apply to them—and that's annexation—but not to us. There will be two communities living side by side, each subject to different laws, and that's entirely apartheid.” Shehadeh’s new book is titled, “What Does Israel Fear from Palestine?” He argues that, as much as a concern for their security, many Israelis refuse to contemplate a two-state solution because recognizing Palestinians’ claims to nationhood challenges Israel’s national story.   Although Thrall believes that any false hope about an end to the conflict is damaging, he acknowledges that U.S. sanctions on violent settlers is a meaningful step, and Shehadeh sees the I.C.J.’s ruling as a new degree of global pressure. “That could bring about the end of the era of impunity of Israel,” Shehadeh believes. “And that can make a big difference.” Plus, for the fiftieth anniversary of Philippe Petit’s famous high-wire walk between the Twin Towers of the old World Trade Center—a quarter mile up in the air—The New Yorker’s Parul Sehgal reads an excerpt from Gwen Kinkead’s Profile of Petit titled “Alone and in Control.”   New Yorker Radio Hour listeners, we want to hear from you.  We have a few questions about the show and how you listen to it. The survey takes about twenty minutes, and your feedback will help us make our podcast better.  Take the survey here.

This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. Right now, much of the world's attention is focused on the Middle East, on the horror of Hamas's October 7th attack on Israel, and then the massive devastation of Israel's war on Gaza that has continued for 10 months. There's also the potential for a wider war between Israel and Iran's proxies, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. But today we are concentrating on one place, on the West Bank. This was part of Jordan until the 1967 war with Israel, and ever since Israel has

occupied the territory, particularly since 2000, and what is known as the Second Intifada, opportunities for compromise have either been lost or disdained, and the Israeli settlement project has expanded year after year. Indeed, the settlers and their supporters have come to dominate much of the spirit of Israeli politics. Even Benjamin, and Netanyahu's opponents, men like Benny Gantz, dare not advocate directly for two states. Particularly after October 7th, there's no real constituency for such a deal. Indeed, the Knesset recently held a vote on such a plan, and as a show of ideological unity, two states was voted down by a landslide. This is our second of two episodes dealing with the occupation of the

West Bank. If you miss the first, it should be in your podcast feed right now. I've been speaking with two particularly insightful thinkers on this situation, Roger Shahade, who is the author of many books, including What Does Israel Fear from Palestine, and the writer Nathan Thrawl, who worked for years with the International Crisis Group and lives in Jerusalem. Nathan, there's a presidential election going on here in the United States. What do you expect will happen under a potential Trump presidency vis-a-vis this situation? And what could a Democrat do to make matters better? So I think that a Trump presidency could make things much, much worse.

There are things that Israel has refrained from doing that it might be given a green light to do in Gaza. we could see much more serious efforts to push Palestinians out of Gaza to third countries or maybe even against the screams and cries of the Egyptians into Sinai. So I see a real potential for a deterioration in the entire situation in the region if Trump is elected. And with a Democrat in office? I see little chance of significant changes in policy toward Israel-Palestine. But what I do see the possibility of is small, incremental changes such as the sanctions that have been imposed on violent settlers and on settlement organizations.

That could be ramped up a great deal. It is slowly being ramped up. I think it's clear that the reason that the Biden administration is doing that is because of criticism from the left within the United States. There is little doubt that that is a driving force behind these sanctions that are, you know, unprecedented. The U.S. had never done that before. And they are increasing in scope. Every couple weeks we hear about new ones. And that's the process that could really change things here if it were,

amped up in a major way. The question of Netanyahu, if he were to resign, if he were to be thrown out of office, if he were to leave the scene, what could possibly replace him that would improve matters at all? What is the realm of the possible here?

The realm of the possible is more of the same or worse. There is a notion in the Israeli press, and much of the Western press, that the policy toward the Palestinians is a partisan issue in Israel. It's driven by Netanyahu and the right. There is hope, false hope, derived from the fact that there is a great deal of opposition to Netanyahu the person. But in fact, there is a bipartisan consensus in Israel. It's left, center, right governments, all of them since 1967 have advanced. the settlement project have constricted Palestinians, have dispossessed Palestinians. And so I don't see

really any possibility of an improvement no matter who is elected. And it's not just Gans who neglects the Palestinian issue. It was the successive heads of the Labor Party over the last decade who during those elections have ignored the Palestinian issue. Nathan, I get a sense, and I have for some time, that part of your mission, part of your intent as a writer, as a commentator, is to make sure that no one has any sense of false optimism, that your voice is distinguished in many ways, but one of them is to puncture what you see as the pieties of the center left about what is possible in the short term. I think that's fair. I think that is a driving motive for me. I feel enormous frustration reading that false optimism from the center left. And I think that it is actually destructive.

I don't think it's just a matter of, oh, its hope is a good thing. I think that there is an enormous apparatus in place that is this system of domination. and it rests on the illusion of a temporary occupation. It rests on the illusion that some solution is just around the corner. I get that, I get that. But my only beef with that is the potential spirit of it, which can lead to despair. And despair is the one, as the Bible writes,

is the one unforgivable sin. Well, I'm not calling for despair, you know. But do you despair of the situation? I despair of the situation. because of all of the false optimism that's propping up this system of indefinite control. You know, if we graph over time this process of expanding Jewish presence and shrinking Palestinian space, let's extrapolate. What is the future? I mean, it's been linear. And so the future is one that is not unlike that of the Native Americans for the Palestinians. And so my aim in puncturing false optimism is to wake us up to that reality before it's too late so that we can avoid that outcome.

Nathan Thrill, his recent book, is A Day in the Life of Abbot Salama. The question of hope is certainly a vexed one. For long-time observers, it can be hard to imagine anything getting any better. But if we can't imagine it, we can sign ourselves. to the notion of a permanent state of war in the Middle East. I put this question to Roger Shahadi, the Palestinian lawyer and writer I spoke with in our last episode. He's based in the city of Ramallah.

Rajah, how old are you now? 73. You're 73. Even when I spoke to you years ago, I asked you if you ever expected to see a deal in your lifetime. You said no. What do you see in the years ahead? I think it has become much more complicated

after the Gaza War and the terrible. devastation that Gaza has suffered. And yet, usually after great upheavals comes something that is a great development towards the new future. And perhaps after this great upheaval, something like that would come. And yet, it cannot come unless there is recognition of what has happened to the people in Gaza of the great devastation and attempt by Israel to recognize the Palestinians and move forward in the peace, which doesn't seem at all now to be possible. But unless the nations of the world come together and put pressure on Israel, it's not going to happen. But, you know, there's also the ICC and ICJ, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice,

who will give me a lot of hope because after years of struggling in the law and in attempts to show that Israel is breaking international law, we never succeeded into making it popular and knowledge known all over now with the ICJ, International Court of Justice, they're going to rule on the legality of the occupation, and that is a very positive development. And the ICC, the National Criminal Court, is going to hear the case of the prosecutor of the court for a arrest warrant on Netanyahu and Gallant. And that's something that I would never have expected to happen, and now it has happened, and that could bring about the end of the era of impunity of Israel.

and that can make a big difference. You're a close observer of Israeli politics. There's not much of a left left in Israel. And Netanyahu is many things, but he's also extremely shrewd in his own survival. How do you see Israeli politics developing as a reaction to what's just taken place in Gaza? I think Israeli politics is doomed to failure

because the problem is that the right wing, the religious right wing, are increasing in power and they have such extreme politics towards the Palestinians that they will lead Israel into outright fascism and racism. And that means that Israel will have to fight one war after the other. And that is a terrible fate for Israel because Israel depends on its wars, on the United States, and that dependence is not going to be forever. And the United States is not going to be supporting Israel forever.

And if they don't do that, then Israel will be in a dire situation. So the only way for Israel is to stop wars and to come to peace with the Palestinians. Otherwise, it will go from one war to another perpetually. And come to an agreement with the Palestinians that would mean, in your view, a two-state solution. I think that the first step is to end the occupation and to establish an independent Palestinian state. But that's only a first step. After that, there should be something that will include all the Israel, Palestine, and make it one, it and somehow a new relationship which will enable the free movement and free life for both

in the same land. But that cannot come until we go through the first stage of ending the occupation and establishing an independent Palestinian state. So that's how I see it. And do you see Israel ever giving up its position as a Jewish state, a Jewish majority state? Why would it do that? Well, it will give up if it doesn't make peace with the Palestinian. because the number of the Palestinians in greater Israel is now equal to the Israeli Jews, and in a while there will be the majority. And if Israel doesn't make peace with the Palestinians

and keeps them within the borders of the state as they are now, then they would become the majority, and Israel would not really be a Jewish state. You invoke throughout your book a comparison between South Africa and Israel. The South African experience, as brutal as that apartheid was, and is long-lasting,

ultimately brought about a representative democracy, a very troubled one, but a democracy. Do you see a path forward for Israel and the Palestinian territories in which both Palestinians and Israeli Jews live in one country together?

This is thought of as a one-state solution. To my mind, to my observation, this seems to be a recipe for conflict and what happened in Yugoslavia. I don't quite understand the logic and real life how that would work. I think it cannot work immediately. It has to work after many years of preparation. And I think that you're right.

If it happens now, it will be a recipe for disaster. That's why we have to work first on a two-state solution and two states side by side and then make relations and bring the two sides together and change the laws and so on. in order to establish the vision of one state, or even more than one state, the whole of the Middle East can become united in some form or another, because it's all small states that will not ultimately work, whether it's Jordan, whether it's Syria, whether it's Lebanon,

whether it's Palestine, whether it's Israel. All of them have to come together and build a unified nation that will ultimately bring the Middle East into flourishing times. We began our conversation by your saying that, Israel must acknowledge the legitimacy of a Palestinian people and nation. Do Palestinians ultimately acknowledge the legitimacy of an Israeli people and nation? I think they didn't start off acknowledging that, but now I think they do, and now I think they recognize that there has to be such recognition if there is going to be peace.

And yet when I read the speeches of Sinwar, of Hamas and of many, many others, they see a two-state solution only as a hoodna, as a kind of interim step, but that ultimately that this is Muslim land, that this is bequeathed from God, and that the Israeli presence must be, and I'll use Sinwar's word, eradicated.

Well, that's a reaction to the Israeli side, which also says that the land is God-given land to the Jews and the Palestinian Arab presence must be eradicated. This is a reaction. action one to the other. Well, an Israeli would answer that by saying there are two million Israeli-Palestinian citizens and there have been offers of two-state solutions repeatedly. So we go round this merry-go-round historically.

How does it end, Russia? But David, there has never been a real attempt, a real offer of a Palestinian state. There has been an attempt at managing the Palestinians in their little enclaves, but never an offer of a Palestinian state, an independent Palestinian state. Never. Never a recognition of the Palestinian nation. That is not true that they have offered a Palestinian state. Never.

And if that recognition were on the table and accepted, that would put an end to the conflict? Well, yes, it would bring it closer to an end because then it would be a step forward, and on it we can build and bring the conflict to a close. but it will be a very important step forward, yes. Raja, thank you very much and all the very best to you. Thank you, David. Pleasure.

Rajahadi is a lawyer and a writer based in Ramallah. Roger mentioned the case before the International Court of Justice, the top court of the UN. And after we spoke, the ICJ ruled that Israel should evacuate all occupied Palestinian territory, including the West Bank and pay reparations. That's considered an advisory ruling, and it's not binding on Israel, but it's an unprecedented degree of global pressure. Roger Shahadi has written for us, and you can find his work at New Yorker.com.

This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. Please stick around. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. One fine day in August 1974, I believe I was dangling off a ladder, painting houses in New Jersey. I heard on the radio in my pocket something that seemed truly. dangerous. A guy had strung a wire between the two buildings of the old World Trade Center, the famous Twin Towers, and he was walking between them, a quarter of a mile up in the air. ...pilling in my stomach right now because I'm at, let's see, 1,500 feet. And up here at 1,500 feet or in that area, there is somebody out there in a tightrope walk between the two towers of the World Trade Center right at the tippy top. The man's name was Philippe

Petit, a high-wire artist from France, just 24 at the time. And that astonishing feat took place 50 years ago this week. It was a performance, but a strange kind of performance, because my audience could not be invited in advance, and also there were a quarter of a mile below me. But still, it was a performance. But it was also a very intimate dialogue with me and the birds, me and the sky of New York, me and the Twin Towers.

I never thought of the consequences. It was not part of my thinking. When Petit was profiled in the New Yorker, the piece was called Alone and in Control. In a battered trunk, in a small room, on an obscure street in Paris, a room he still rents, although he's rarely there, Petit has squirled away his dreams.

Maps and pictures of eminences and promontories, skyscrapers and other buildings around the world he longs to conquer. He is drawn to the grandiose. On August 7, 1974, Fetis set a record, still unsurpassed, for the loftiest walk over a city street. He surveyed the tower surptitiously for several months beforehand. Three friends, including a photographer named Jean-Louis Blondeau, flew from Paris to help him. At the time, the top ten floors of the towers were being finished,

and thousands of electricians, carpenters, and deliverymen flowed in and out of the buildings, along with the office workers. No one noticed anything unusual about two young men, Blondeau and an accomplice dressed in business suits who entered the North Tower late in the afternoon of August 6th. About the same time, that Petit and the third friend disguised his delivery men rode an elevator to the hundredth and fourth floor of the South Tower, the topmost reachable by elevator on their way to the roof,

with equipment concealed in packages marked, electric fence. After carrying the cable, which weighed 440 pounds, up 180 steps to the floor below the summit, itself, no mean accomplishment, they hid until the sole guard nodded off. In the dark, they sneaked onto the unfinished roof. Almost simultaneously, Blondo and his accomplice emerged from their hiding places on the north tower. At midnight, Blondo shot an arrow with a thin line attached over the gap, a distance of 140 feet. Unfortunately, the arrow landed on the lowest and farthest beam of a 15-foot metal truss that sloped downward from the roof. Petit was now faced with an enormously dangerous situation.

He had no choice but to climb down the truss and retrieve the arrow. Once back on the roof, he hauled over lengths of heavier and heavier line and attached the cable to the last one. Blondeau pulled the cable back to the north tower and secured it to a steel beam. Buttee attached his end to a grip hoist, a powerful device for drawing the cable tight that was attached to a beam. All this labor took seven hours. Working furiously against the dawn, they tied guy lines onto the truss to steady the wire. Just as light came into the sky, Buttee climbed down the truss one last time. In a narrow corridor underneath, between the tower and its outer skin,

he changed into a black sweater, black pants, and wire walking slippers. At 7.15 a.m., as the city began to awaken, Petit took out a yellow grease pencil and drew his symbol and wrote his name and the date on a beam of roof and started his walk. Words spread rapidly. An unbelievable story has just arrived. I don't believe it, one broadcaster said, report of a man walking across the World Trade Center buildings on a tightrope. In the street, 1,350 feet below, a quarter of a mile, throngs of people gathered. They abandoned their cars to gawk, and traffic snarled. Port Authority police, responsible for the tower's security, raced onto the roofs with emergency squads from the city police.

But he never glanced at them. He glided back and forth on the wire, holding his long balancing pole. He lay on the wire. He knelt, bowed, danced, and ran. He sat down and watched a seagull fly beneath him. Finally, after nearly an hour, he ended his performance, walked back onto the South Tower, and was handcuffed. When he reached the street, people cheered him and tried to shake his manacled hands.

They booed the police. Why did you do it? Reporters shouted. In English, more accented than it is now, Putsi replied, When I see three oranges, I juggle. When I see two towers, I walk. That's an excerpt from Gwen Kincaid's profile of Philippe Petit, read for us by the New Yorker's Parles Sagle. That high-wire walk between the Twin Towers took place a half century ago this week, a few hundred feet from where I'm sitting now.

This is The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. Thanks for joining us. See you next time. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of two. with additional music by Louis Mitchell and Jared Paul. This episode was produced by Max Bolton, Adam Howard, David Krasnow, Jeffrey Masters, Louis Mitchell, Jared Paul, Ursula Summer, and Alicia Zuckerman, with guidance from Emily Boutin and assistance from Michael May, David Gable, Alex Barish, Victor Gwan, and Alejandra Deccan.

The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherina Endowment Fund.