Seeking an Alternative to a Jewish State

[Classical_Liberal]

Seeking an Alternative to a Jewish State
By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN

Published: November 22, 2003

hen the distinguished historian Tony Judt declared in the pages of The New York Review of Books recently that "the time has come to think the unthinkable," he must have expected a shocked reaction. The unthinkable was that Israel should be replaced by a binational country in which Jews and Palestinians would live together in democratic harmony. There is, Mr. Judt suggested, "no place in the world today for a 'Jewish state.' "

But maybe his proposal should not have been shocking. Of course, it might seem a bit absurd to suggest that a country should dissolve itself. And it might seem a bit selective to ask Israel to sacrifice what Mr. Judt calls its ethnoreligious character when so many other countries are uninterested in the prospect.

Still, the selective application of such ideals has a respected pedigree going back at least to the 1970's, when international terrorism was being pioneered by the Palestine Liberation Organization, which fought for what it euphemistically called a "democratic, secular state" in all of Palestine. Today sympathy for the consequences of such an idea is still more widespread; in a recent poll, 17 percent of Italians said that Israel should "cease existing."

Mr. Judt's conclusions are also no different from some offered by Israel's most accomplished intellectuals and no more caustic. In fact, in the Dec. 4 issue of The New York Review, Mr. Judt, responding to his critics, echoes Lenin and describes American defenders of Israel as "useful idiots." He also argues that they don't recognize that Zionism is now "the dogma of intolerant, belligerent, self-righteous, God-fearing irredentists." He actually sounds Israeli.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/books/22CONN.html?ex=1070168400&en=abb699adc93bcdb9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[bemildred]

1. "useful idiots"

I must say I enjoy these scholarly debates.

[aquart]

2. "Useful" is an exaggeration, surely?

Binational? BINATIONAL?

"Idiot", however, is understated.

[bemildred]

4. I wasn't really commenting on the substance of the assertion.

It seems a bit over-broad, shall we say, to label all who
have not given up on the Jewish homeland in this way, and
dragging Lenin into the discussion borders on a violation of
Godwins's First Law, although technically it isn't.

I was noting that this rhetorical approach seems more likely
to start a flame war than a reasoned discussion. Of course if
that is one seeks, what can be said but: "Flame ON!"

Warp factor seven, Scotty, all phasers on stun.

[Classical_Liberal]

5. I didn't detect the sarcasm either

that is why smileys are important on the net.

[bemildred]

7. It's a failing I have.

I am comfortable with it, but if it upset you I apologize,
as that was not my intent.

Edit: spelling

[Classical_Liberal]

3. I think it is a useful disgussion

The only thing that seems to have made the right wingers act seriously toward two states is the prospect of a binational state. If you look at it like trading barter, you surely must realize that a compromize between transfer and a Palestinian state probably won't be satisfactory or produce lasting peace. If transfer and bantustan can be a part of respectable disgussion why can't binationalism?

[bemildred]

6. Opinions may vary.

I doubt that it is rhetorical sallies that lie behind
whatever accomodations may be afoot.

As I said above, I wasn't commenting on the substance of the
argument, but on the combative rhetorical stance.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. The binational fantasy

Isn't making Sharon or anyone do anything. The reason for this, of course, is they know it won't happen.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. No?

Now, put yourself in Sharon's position. You believe in a Greater Israel. The Palestinians be damned, just swallow the West Bank and Gaza which, according to Sharon's political mentor, Menachem Begin, are an "intergral part of Israel."

Israel within the Green Line -- that is, within her internationally recognized borders and without those "intergral parts" -- is 80% Jewish and a place where the Arab minority has political rights. Greater Israel would be 52% Jewish and the "intergral parts" are 90% Arab. Moreover, the birth rate is such that Greater Israel will be Arab majority in about 20 years.

What happens to the Jewish state when a majority of the population is Arab? Well, either Israel is a democracy, in which case it can no longer be a Jewish state, or it will have to employ measures to respress the Arab majority that would resemble South African Apartheid, or it would have to expel the Arabs in what would be one of the major crimes of modern times.

Greater Israel doesn't sound like a winning proposition for the Israelis any more than it does for the Palestinians. Perhaps after all these years, Sharon has finally figured that out.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Solution

I think most Israelis -- including Sharon -- conclude there will be a Palestinian state. How large and how much power it has are the issues.

Sharon's plan, in my opinion, is to make sure they are as weak and small as possible.

However, nothing about the demographic realities forces Israel to do anything. They won't accept a one-state solution, so if the Palestinians push for it they will merely delay getting their own state and the status quo continues.

[Darranar]

26. And do you support Sharon's objective?

I think you've got that one right - but why, then, do you support such actions as the wall, which only further his goal?

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. I see a need for the wall

And would have built it on another path (though I am sure you wouldn't have liked that path either). However, right now the choice is either the wall or not. Given that, I support the wall.

I have said endlessly that I support the creation of a peaceful Palestinian state. But I have seen no movement among the Palestinians to offer peace. Till they do, they should get nothing in return.

[Darranar]

29. You didn't answer the question...

and which path would you choose for the wall?

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Specifically would take many hours

I would have included a large area around Jerusalem for instance, but lack the hours it would have taken to sit down and actually chart out a map. Suffice it to say it would not have run exactly along the Green Line and let's leave it at that.

In general, I would love to see this mess settled. Since I don't consider that at all likely, I don't see how the Israelis can look at the Palestinians as anything other than enemies.

[Darranar]

39. In that case I would most likely disagree with its path...

unless the changes were very minor and for purely tactical reasons.

And you still haven't answered my question.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. Actually, I did

I said I support a Palestinian state, which is the ultimate objective.

[Darranar]

46. Not of Sharon...

he wants a tiny and dependant Palestinian state, as a source of cheap labor for Israel.

Do you support that? Do you support what you called Sharon's objective, which is making the Palestinian state smaller and smaller?

[bluesoul]

47. I think

this is the ultimate question here to be answered. ;)

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. Not dependent

I want an independent Palestinian state, one that can be held responsible if its citizens continue terror. However, if the Palestinians refuse to agree to peace, then Israel must prod them to do so.

[Darranar]

51. Still not an answer....

and since Israeli "prodding" only incites the population further, I think that their "prodding" activities should cease...

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. That sure as hell IS an answer

And since the population of Palestinians includes a large number of terrorists and a massive number of terror supporters, PRODDING them into peace is a good thing.

[Darranar]

56. No it isn't...

Do you or do you not support Sharon making the Palestinian state smaller and smaller? It is a yes or no question.

"Prodding" them only creates more terrorists and more terrorist supporters.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. Kind of hard to create more terrorists or more support

Three out of four already support terror. That's a hell of a majority.

I personally don't consider the wall a permanent structure, so using the wall to prod them is fine by me. How big or small the Palestinian state ends up is entirely up to the Palestinians and when they decide to declare for peace. If ever.

[bluesoul]

63. Nice try Muddle

3 out of 4 are NOT terrorists. Supporting or saying something doesn't mean anything. I am sure many Israelis would like Palestinians to dissapear yet it ain't gonna happen. And majority obviously support Sharon and he's seen as a problem here and by most progressives and those wanting peace as well. Two way street...

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. Not exactly right

First off, I never said, "3 out of 4" are terrorists. Isaid exactly the truth, that 3 of 4 Palestinians support terror.

And, if you remember how Israel's government is a coaltion, Sharon doesn't have that strong support. He is simply a lesser of evils -- the evil in this case being the terrorists.

[Darranar]

64. Things "temporary" often become permanent...

armistice lines from 54 years ago are the basis for any just Palestinian state, for instance.

Now, as for that poll...

Out of those three-fourths, how many would actively aid and/or shelter terrorists? Do you really think, for instance, that all of those who approved of Bush after 9/11 would have voted for him immediately after had there been an election? Such votes are often a show of unity and solidarity - not neccesarily of willingness to aid.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. Define terms

What is aid? Is aid knowing full well where terrorists hide out and not doing anything? Is aid accepting a government that supports them?

[edzontar]

66. You have said you do't believe in polls..so why...

Do you keep citing this one?

Let alone equating expressed "support" (which miht operate on any munber of levels) with actually doing the deeds--they are rather different things.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. I said I question polls

However, ever pro-Pal supporters here seem to acknowledge this one. So why can't I.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GabysPoppy]

34. Muddle did answer your question Mr. Darranar

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GabysPoppy]

41. He answered your question

But you didn't answer mine

[Darranar]

44. Yes I did, and no he didn't.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

69. If only some

would care to comment instead of only leaving annoying remarks on every thread...

[meti57b]

72. I agree. If only more people would post like Jim Sagle instead of ...

leaving annoying remarks, the forum would be much better.

Hey Jim, you rock!

[Violet_Crumble]

73. 10 out of 10 for sarcasm!

I thought for a split second that you were being serious, but then the reality hit that no one in their right mind would want more people to post things like 'this thread ain't nuthin' but shit'...


Violet...

[meti57b]

82. I am being serious. Jim's reply is always an excellent description of the

post he replies to. Or perhaps you would like better, "this thread is little more than raw sewage"?

[edzontar]

70. This exchange has deteriorated into pointless finger-pointing.

But what else can we expect from I/P these days?

I suggest we change to topic to consider some aspects of the Parisian restaurant scene.....are you out there, Paschal?

[bluesoul]

30. Then you don't

really want peace...

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. LOL

That's a fun rationale. How can you have peace when it is never offered?

[Violet_Crumble]

79. You forgot a bit...

How can you have any peace offered when there is no-one to offer peace to?

Violet...

[Paschall]

65. Muddle, if the "issues" include how much power the Palestinian state...

...is to have, then that "state" is worthless. And the Palestinians would be totally justified in refusing any such "offer."

A Palestinian state must mean full Palestinian sovereignty over Palestinian territory, an equal partner to Israel and all its other neighbors on the world stage.

ON EDIT: Muddle, the qualifications you would apparently place on Palestinian sovereignty help me to understand more clearly--I think--how you can claim to have been a long-time advocate of a two "state" solution.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. Why

As many of you know I am fond of comparing this situation to Ireland and this is yet another area where I compare Israel to Ireland. The Irish were given a quasi-state initially that evolved into a total state. Are you saying that half a loaf is not as good as none?

Actually, I don't place any qualifications on Palestinian sovereignty, ONCE EARNED. However, I am not doing the negotiating. What they agree to is up to them.

[Classical_Liberal]

11. If binationalism is a fantasy then settlements should be stopped

a state should be made. It is that simple. If Sharon doesn't want a binational state he needs to break ties with settlments and/or dismantle them asap!

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Why?

Why not continue with the status quo instead of giving your enemies something and getting nothing in return?

[Darranar]

31. Do you think suicide bombings should stop immediately?

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. Yes

Because it is the one thing that either side can do to move forward.

There is a significant chunk of the Palestinian side that wants Israel destroyed, so even pulling back to the Green Line does nothing to find peace. But ending terror does.

[Darranar]

37. So please explain how that works, by your logic....

since stopping the suicide bombings would be discontinuing the status quo with no results from the other side.

Illegal actions are illegal actions. A bad policy is a bad policy.
It is unwise to continue in such a bad policy. It is most certainly not "surrendering" to do such.

This includes both settlement expansion and suicide bombings. Both incite the enemy populace against those who commit such actions, and both are illegal, inhumane, and blatantly immoral. Both hurt the causes of those who commit them, aand both cause no good for either side.

The only "reasons" not to stop them are that it would be a sign of "surrender" - and those are the excuses often used by both sides to defend them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Peace

The Palestinians want a nation. Israel has to provide them with one. So the Palestinians need the status quo to change. That means THEY need to offer an incentive. The incentive they can offer is peace. Not peace with the PA, but actual, real peace. That means an end to the terror and the terror groups.

A Palestinian move toward actual peace could then result in discussions on all the other points from water rights to travel to borders. Lacking a Palestinian commitment to peace, Israel gains nothing by giving them a state.

[Darranar]

50. Peace

The Israalis want a halt to suicide bombings. The Palestinians have to allow them to stop it. That means THEY meed to offer an incentive. The incentive they can offer is peace. Not peace with the Labor Party, but actual, real, peace. That means an end to settlements and constant incursions.

An Israeli move towards actual peace could then result in discussions on all the other points from water rights to travel to borders. Lacking an Israeli commitment to peace, the Palestinians gain nothing by giving them a halt to terrorism.

No, I do not entirely agree with the above.

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. Israel has offered peace

The Palestinians HAVE NEVER done so.

The Israelis have proven they can make peace with former enemies. The Palestinians have not.

Until the Palestinians offer real peace, they deserve none.

[Darranar]

57. So when, exactly, did Israel offer a real peace?

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. How about Barak?

Wasn't that an offer of peace? Forget whether you liked it or not, wasn't it an offer of peace?

[Darranar]

62. No...

peace must include some element of justice to be a lasting one, and since it did not, it could not have lasted. That does not mean in any way that Arafat's actions during that time period were any more enlightened then Barak's; he deserves at least as much blame.

[Jim Sagle]

68. Dishonest and evasive answer.

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. Not at all

Peace is the cessation of hostilities, not a happily ever after scenario for both parties.

If you don't think Barak was offering peace, then you are deluding yourself. It doesn't mean you have to LIKE the offer, but it was an offer of peace.

[GabysPoppy]

36. Gee

You have to wonder what Mr. Muddle's answer might be?

Do you want suicide bombings to stop?

[Darranar]

40. Of course I do.

[GabysPoppy]

42. Then why the qualifier?

"The only "reasons" not to stop them are that it would be a sign of "surrender"

placed in quotes because they are your words

[Darranar]

43. Notice that the words "surrender" and "reasons" are in quotes...

because it is not a legitimate reason and it would not be surrendering.

[GabysPoppy]

52. Sorry

Paragraphs 2 and 3 are fine responses I can agree with. 1 & 4 are not. They didn't make sense then nor do they now with your explanation of or use of quotation marks.

[Darranar]

54. 2 and 3 are my point...

the purpose of 1 and 4 were to show that Muddle's logic could also be used to defend suicide bombings.

[GabysPoppy]

58. Hogwash

He does no such thing. And your putting words in his mouth doesn't make it so.

[Darranar]

60. I never said he did...

I am just showing to him that if his logic was applied to the Palestinians instead of just to the Israelis, the suicide bombings would be justified according to it.

Fear of something looking like "surrender" has been used to excuse the continuation of bad and immoral policies across the world, including the settlements, the suicide bombings, the war in Vietnam, and the current war in Iraq.

[Gimel]

18. Evolutionary peace

Of course I am opposed to imposing a binational solution. That would be totally unworkable. What is possible to envision, is an evolution toward a regional unity, perahps beginning with Israel and a Palestinian entity. Israel should never give up it's character as a Jewish state. Israel should not give up it's right to security.

[The Magistrate]

10. 'Transfer', Ma'am

Is not generally seen as part of responsible discussion in this matter. It is crime, and proposed seriously only by criminals. It is possible to see a circumstance arising, should the violent deadlock persist, where serious popular support for that course among the people of Israel might come to exist. People do come to circumstances on occassion where they are past wit's end, and do the damndest things just to get shut of some bother: a great number of crimes are committed in that state of mind.

"Bantustan" is a question of definition, and is a useful propagandist marker. Most proposals for settling this matter, to date, have involved phased transfers of authority. They begin with small enclaves, certainly. These are not necessarily the end of the matter. It is my own view that a state of Arab Palestine ought to basically identical to those portions of the '47 partition's Arab Zone that remained outside the Armistice Line of '49, and that it should enjoy the full responsibilities and priviliges of sovereignity, but that does not move me to be hostile to proposals that commence with something less, but could easily reach that goal in stages.

The "single state" solution is simply not going to come about, and there is no reason to suppose "right wingers" are frightened of it, and so driven to consideration of the two state solution. They are quite aware the thing is not practical, that it can only be imposed by force, and since they feel themselves masters of force, the thing does not impose on them at all. Nor is there support for it in the polity of Israel, left or right, that extends beyond a tiny smattering of intellectual idealists, similar to, for instance, the influence of Prof. Chomsky on national elections here in the United States.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. Transfer is a solution half the Knesset currently advocates

so if it is a crime beyond the pale to believe in it how come nobody is enforcing the law against it? How come people who believe such an unthinkable thing are elected in Israel?

The single state solution may very well happen and you can thank the right wing and their intransigence on the Palestinian state for creating it when and if it happens.

If you think bantustan is just propoganda please see mr rini's post on the "Gaza only solution".

BTW, I think transfer should be more beyond the pale than binationalism, but this is just not the reality.

[The Magistrate]

13. It Has Not Been Done, Ma'am

It is rather hard to enforce a law against a thing that has not occured.

People are elected for many reasons, sometimes despite certain positions. Expressed support for "transfer" among Israelis is rather analogous to expressed support among Arab Palestinians for those who immolate themselves to kill Israeli civilians: both things reflect the moral strain of bitter and prolonged hostility between the peoples, leading them to support whatever seems to offer promise of ending the damned thing. As the old saw goes, if your only tool is a hammer all your problems look like nails, and people in a fighting frame of mind tend to think the way to end it is to fight harder. Show some other means, that seems to promise success in the object of ending the damned thing, and most people who support "transfer" or "suicide bombing" will will support that, just as eagerly.

The so-called "binational state" can only be brought into being by force of arms: no conceivable government of Israel would give voluntary countenance to it. No power on this earth will fight that war.

[Classical_Liberal]

71. If it looks like two states can only be brought about this

way, then what is your point? Binationalism is easier, because nobody has to move.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Transfer is not an acceptable solution

I don't care if certain members of the Knesset, including the Misister of Tourism, Mr. Elon, advocate it. It is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute, where it is called by the name given to the concept in recent years, ethnic cleansing.

I agree that a Bantustan is more than propaganda, but something that seems less well defined. Please state what you mean by it so that meaningful discussion can continue on the matter. As for Ms. Rini's offering, I had more trouble with it than that and stated my objections on that thead.

I think transfer should be more beyond the pale than binationalism, but this is just not the reality.

Probably true. However binationalism isn't so much beyond the pale as just recognized as impractical.

ON EDIT

I will also add my voice in concurrence to The Magistrate's point that no ethnic cleansing has yet taken place and therefore there is no crime on which to enforce the law.

[Lurking Dem]

15. Half the Knesset?

Gotta link?

[Gimel]

17. Needs verification

A survey of Israelis has reported that, not a Knesset vote. However, these surveys are not very profound or lasting in their results. Maybe 2 0r 3 Knesset members have expressed interest in the idea. Not half by any means. Please check the facts before posting such statements.

[bluesoul]

19. Ah but when there

is a survey on 75% Palestinians supposed to be supporting terrorist attacks it's all true, but when a larg part Israelis support "transfer"(ethnic cleansing) you try to minimize the very poll. Interesting. No way the other side would be embracing radical measures as well, hey?

[Gimel]

20. Survey methodology

No, not by any means. No survey was even referenced by Classical_Liberal in this thread.

I have never taken each survey as a standard of constant opinion on either side. At minimum it takes three authentic surveys (not telephone or internet surveys)to show a trend. I have followed the results of the statisitcal research found on www. imra.org.il
and Jaffe Center
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v4n2p5Ari.html

Surveys are cataloged at these sites and available for the past several years. The Palestinian support for Hamas has been high in all but one recent survey when it seemed to decline. However, the support for suicide bomb attacks has risen again recently.

[bluesoul]

21. Yes and it may

have to do something with Israel's policy too...

[Gimel]

22. If you mean a justification

for suicide attacks, there is none.

[bluesoul]

23. Actually

I was referring to the polls and support for such drastic actions, along with the miserable living condition to which Israel also bares a big part...

[Gimel]

24. So says

the propaganda. Read and believe.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

81. Locking

This has turned more into a personal battle of wills than any meaningful dialogue.

Everyone, please stay on topic and don't worry what someone else believes or doesn't.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground