I caught Ali Abunimah, the Palestinian/American activist and author of a new book calling for a single Arab and Jewish state in Palestine, at Columbia the other night. Abunimah made a few interesting points:
1. Having been to Northern Ireland, Abunimah reports that the two sides hate each other “deeply” but live with each other because they regard their situation as “vastly improved” over the violence of ten years before. The challenge in statecraft is to create mechanisms that allow for equal treatment under the law while giving a lot of space for people to preserve independent ethnic identity and autonomy. So what if they hate each other? At least they’re working together to improve one anothers’ lives. (The late Milton Friedman endorsed a similar view in a posthumous rerun on Charlie Rose: people who hate each other can still trade with one another.)
2. The “Peace process” is an industry that spends billions of dollars on the same idea over and over again with no clear results. “There is a fantasy of separation, that the other side can be made to disappear, either behind a wall or through the existence of a Palestinian state.”
3. Some Zionists in the 20s and 30s were in favor of a state that was Arab and Jewish.
(Judah Magnes of Hebrew U. And Chaim Arlosorov, who got murdered by people loyal to Leon Wieseltier’s father’s hero Vlad. Jabotinsky). (Roosevelt and Truman were also for such a state, at times). Yes, Arabs were against a binational state then, Abunimah said. But at the time, they were facing the in-migration of 80,000 Jews: maybe 10 percent of Palestine, why should they share power with these guys? He says attitudes are different now.
4. FW De Klerk of South Africa said a few years ago, Abunimah says, that the “roadmap” to a two-state solution in Palestine was just what Afrikaaner colonists were trying to achieve in their “grand plan” of the 1950s: partition/apartheid. In the 80s, as that system collapsed, the great challenge to the white South Africans was to accept the idea that they shared the land with the blacks who had preceded them. This was a long process that included “dismounting from the tiger,” coming to believe that if the whites gave up power, the Africans wouldn’t push them into the sea. Jews in Israel are in the same situation. They believe the Arabs want to push them into the sea. Mandela was a great figure because, in the process of burying his own grievances, he was able to show the whites that the blacks didn’t want to devour them, but respected their place. Abunimah says that Arabs need a collective transformative Mandela vision. He called for acts of Ghandian nonviolent assertion: like walking to Jerusalem en masse when they’re not supposed to be there.
5. In challenging the “ideological fortifications” of Israel, Abunimah pointed out that despite its origins as a refuge for world Jewry, fewer than half the world’s Jews live in Israel, and few American Jews desire to move there. Indeed, he said, the birthright program, which gives a free trip to Israel to young Jews, only gets 2-3,000 recruits a year.
A lot of the questions were about support for Israel in the U.S., which Abunimah described as a situation of “ideological hegemony.” Afterward I talked to Abunimah briefly and suggested that attitudes may be changing in the U.S., that the lobby is beginning to be examined, and pluralist Americans aren’t going to be happy with the findings. He said, “Well, one lesson of South Africa is, when things start to change, they change rapidly.”
Myself, I’m sympathetic to Abunimah’s vision, but I don’t know enough to be sure. One thing I am sure about is his presence: he’s idealistic. He may be a naive and deluded dreamer, fine, but his vibe is, he’s a dreamer, and visionary. He’s a slender, balding hip guy, dressed in big brass belt buckle, dark shirt and darker tie. He’s not angry and crazy, he’s an idealist. And as anyone who is trying to imagine the future knows—including Democrats who want to take back the White House in ‘08—idealism is a place you want to be. Abunimah’s vibe was more pronounced if (during the same time slot) you had visited the suit-and-tied Israeli general in the law school room next door, drily explaining the reasons for the Lebanon war and describing Lebanon as a “beautiful piece of land.”
The problem with Zionism for this Jew comes down to that one thing. I’m an idealist; I like to feel idealistic about my politics. Embracing Zionism these days isn’t any fun. It’s about arguing, we didn’t kill that little child on purpose, and they did it first; about rationalizing land grabs from Arabs, 60 years ago and today; about contending that Arabs are alot like the Nazis; about justifying the denial of the right of travel of the Gaza soccer team; about rationalizing the fact that the American Jewish committee spoke to the Polish consulate before Tony Judt’s planned speech to say that Judt “was not the most popular figure in Jewish circles.”
Omigod, what kind of way is this to Be Jewish and feel good about it? There isn’t a hope or a dream involved. Of course it’s true that Zionism was a place of dreams in decades past, but it seems like a lot of the dream has collapsed into a colonialist blind alley. And the idealistic energy now is in other places. Leon Wieseltier has said emotionally, angrily, that in calling for a binational state Tony Judt is calling for the destruction of the state of Israel. A scary word. The question back is how many blighted lives, Jewish and Arab, is the idea of a Jewish state worth?
Related posts:
- One State for Palestine Conference – ‘Who are the realists and who are the dreamers?’
- Ali Abunimah accuses flagship progressives of ignoring Palestine
- Chomsky/Abunimah (the left and Zionism)
- Abunimah in ‘The Nation’: ‘Obama shouldn’t defend the institutionalized bigotry [in Israel] that the civil rights movement defeated in this country’
- Abunimah on ‘Israeli Jews and the one-state solution’
{ 25 comments }
first thank you for not evoking Borat.
Also, I think it may be not ideaistic but realistic to support a one state solution considering the continued failure of the one state and one disputed area. Lebanon is not a bad goal to shoot for, figuratively of course.
"The problem with Zionism for this Jew comes down to that one thing. I'm an idealist; I like to feel idealistic about my politics. Embracing Zionism these days isn't any fun. It's about arguing, we didn't kill that little child on purpose, and they did it first; about rationalizing land grabs from Arabs, 60 years ago and today; about contending that Arabs are alot like the Nazis; about justifying the denial of the right of travel of the Gaza soccer team; about rationalizing the fact that the American Jewish committee spoke to the Polish consulate before Tony Judt's planned speech to say that Judt "was not the most popular figure in Jewish circles."
This is a fascinating formulation. Thanks. I used to walk by "pro israel" "infomation" tables on campus jam packed with leaflets saying that Jenin was a hoax, and that the Israeli army is a beacon of liberty. In fact denying, apologizing for, or explaning away gross atroacities take up a huge chunk of the work that groups like hillel do. Woefully off topic but have you read jacqueline rose's book
Some Rebuttals to Mearsheimer&Walt admirers:
O. Jew S., "Doing it and Denying it" | If I did Lobby It (never to be published)
Dershowitz, "Lobby meets Torture" | Jewish Hideous Creatures, a bestiary
Cabal Of Yale's Jewish Donnors, "Kissing Juan Cole Goodbye" | Letters of Advice to American Teachers
Need Lazarus, "How to Resurrect an Unborn Lobby" | Tales From the Crypt
Sasha Cohen, "Slipping with the Lobby" | Ass in the Ice – Autobiography
After many months of bloviating about the need for "realism," Philip Weiss now tells us he's an "idealist." How many American and Western European Stalinists, Maoists, an not a few Hitler Youth types have made the same claim. No doubt it was "fun" at the time (those kids in Triumph of the Will certainly seem to be enjoying themselves). Weiss is no idealist; he is a preening moral narcissist, a cynic who will take any position to justify the elimination of the state of Israel. If he wants to take the Palestinian position in the conflict that's fine. Let him do so honestly and tell us about all the idealism and fun he finds there.
The proposal sounds like a search.
The pros and contras are mostly too emotional.
The reason is the supra national feature of the conflict.
The Palestinian leaders have been falling into the many traps:
a. Nazi German
b. Soviet
c. Syrian tyranny
d. Iran's fascist leaders
Israel was mostly under these sieges.
The ZAHAL fought and defended Israel.
The destruction was awful.
I do not mind the one state solution if the siege is broken.
The problem can be understood if you take your time and go to live a few years in the Middle East.
Beautiful piece, Phil. It reminded me of the feelings that came up for me on some of those big anti-war marches: you know, when you come across the pro-forma small group of grim pro-war types, I used to look at them and think, "If they only knew how much fun we're having they'd join us in an instant."
And the South African experience I agree is very apt. You know, I believe Nelson Mandela is a true genius. There have been several notables who applied the Ghandi formula, but Mandela is maybe the only one who went beyond Ghandi. NPR has broadcast many interviews with some of South Africans involved in the Truth & Reconciliation Commission. It was an amazing thing, kind of like a miracle.
Ali's father actually is a Jordanian politician. Ali has been slow to move towards the one state view, wisely so, since in the absence of a bargaining chip analogous to the control of COSATU over the South African gold mining labour force, the Palestinians stand to gain very little from a South Africa style move to majority rule. Note that the crucial concession made by the ANC was a pledge not to nationalise the gold mining industry.
Why don't the Jordanians take the Palestinians back?
If the Palestinians had a leader like Mandela, there would have been peace and prosperity in the region a long time ago.
May dipshit Weiss should visit South Africa before he babbles on about it based on one person's story. His opinion might change after they rip his finger off to steal his ring or slice his face up for his watch.
I spent from the age of 10 to 25 as a pasionist bi-nationalist, follower of Buber and Magnes and the Ihud movement (yes- I learned about it in Herew school), I argued it against my Socialist Zionist relatives. I was the young idealist of "why can't we all live together?" But the last 30 years strongly working wthin both the left and Jewish movemments, I realized we all didn't have to be forced to live together if we didn't want to.
The oppressive model that forces groups to only we within one political unit is not needed or wanted. There remains a bold tradition within Jewish cultural life that recognizes and supports the struggle against that cultural melding. It is often identified with the Jewish Bund but present in oother cultural groups including Armenians arguing against the cultural nihilism of the great power models- It supports National Cultural autonomy- territorial or not. Your demand that there be one-state is the same demand as the US demand that the Kurdish Republic in Northern Iraq disband and give up its autonomy to be part of a single Iraq state. That is a repressive and regressive impulse. I understand your example of Nellson Mandela- but your comment about Vladimir Jabotinsky and Leon Wieselthier's father was foolish.
A 'solution' for one area may not be properly the best for another. You continue to ignore or avoid any validation of the cultural and historic rights and desires of peoples but treat each one solely as a state entity. I agree with your comment that you "do not know enough to be sure".
if US support is pulled Israel will have to find solutions to it's problems on it's own. with out a steady supply of weapons that will have to mean making alliances with it's enemies. this is the basis of conservative foreign aid: there shouldn't be any. at least not in keeping artificial states afloat and keeping them from facing the reality of their situation. like Iraq we must stand down so israelis stand up
'Nessie' (who will be familiar to those of you who follow the disputations about zionism in San Francisco's Indymedia) has done a nice long late night rambling style interview with Jeff Blankfort, who has forgotten more about The Lobby than is generally safe even to know in the first place:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/1733088.php
Rowan, max, any others: I have a question to ask, I'd really appreciate your input.
This piece of Phil's, it was the first time I'd been exposed to the idea of the one-state bi-national "solution". I have to admit, it appealed to me. There is now so much physical degradation of the land which the Palestinian State would occupy that I was beginning to wonder if the "two-state solution" is possible anymore. Like, how long can it be deferred before it is no longer an option? I'm thinking about the "security wall" built on Palestinian land, about the Israeli-only highways and adjacent "security" zones, the house demolitions, destruction of agricultural lands, public utilities and industries in Palestine.
I respectfully accept your thinking on why a bi-national state is not likely or possible, but could you also weigh in on my concern about the viability of a future Palestinian State alongside the State of Israel. Thank you.
Rowan, max, any others: I have a question to ask, I'd really appreciate your input.
This piece of Phil's, it was the first time I'd been exposed to the idea of the one-state bi-national "solution". I have to admit, it appealed to me. There is now so much physical degradation of the land which the Palestinian State would occupy that I was beginning to wonder if the "two-state solution" is possible anymore. Like, how long can it be deferred before it is no longer an option? I'm thinking about the "security wall" built on Palestinian land, about the Israeli-only highways and adjacent "security" zones, the house demolitions, destruction of agricultural lands, public utilities and industries in Palestine.
I respectfully accept your thinking on why a bi-national state is not likely or possible, but could you also weigh in on my concern about the viability of a future Palestinian State alongside the State of Israel. Thank you.
brenda- the primary selling point is the lack of a two state solution after so many years and so many attempts. if it's taken this long there is obviously some good reason why it hasn't worked.
so try something else. Israel will have to engage in an investment of some temporary security loss with no gaurentee that things will work out for a good long time, but there are no good solutions to establishing a safe jewish state in the middle of the middle east in 2006.
It is so refreshing to see a little civil discourse on this very important question.
There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin but I'll keep it to a few salient points. A one state solution is not going to be imposed by anybody. The Europeans can't get out of their own way. The US, much to the dissapointment of Lester,Gene, Brenda and the rest of the Mengele?Nasrallah brigades is on Israel's side and if the Arabs could destroy Israel and exterminate the Jews they would have done it already. On a secondary note little Phil. Your absolved of all the sins that Israel and the lobby commit. I HERE BY DECLARE TO THE WORLD THAT LITTLE PHILLY WEISS IS NOT LIKE THE REST OF US. HE IS BETTER, MORE NOBLE, AND DON'T BLAME HIM. Ok, little Phil go forth and live it up in the left wing salons of the world. Nobody will blame you know for the IDF, AIPAC, or the local USY group. Feels good now doesn't it.
I HERE BY DECLARE TO THE WORLD THAT…
Potent are the safeguards of the kol nidre.
We both can live safely in America precisely because Israel exists. The only reason why I haven't been to Israel is that I can't afford it. If Israel didn't exist, I would have to go there and help create it.
Phil, I'm sorry that Jews and Zionists have turned out to be be human. That is what really seems to bother you. Zionists are subject to the same follies and foibles as other human beings. Zionists should not have to prove that they are perfect in order to be worthy of support. I'm sorry that Israel isn't "fun" to support anymore. It's too busy protecting itself from terrorists who hate Jews and want to kill Jews.
Phil, you know perfectly well that Israel is not equivalent to South Africa. You analogy doesn't work.
Brenda,
The Binational Solution is nothing new, there were many people for it including early Zionists, even though today it is totally rejected by most advocates of Israel, especially in the US. When Tony Judt published an article in the New York Review of Books proposing it, his troubles begun:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671
A pretty fair presentation of this proposal and some of its history can also be found in Wikipedia (Binational Solution):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution
The problem with this is the demographic problem. If it were to happen, Jews would in a few years lose the majority in Israel.
So there is no safer bet, it will never happen, you can bet your house on that.
There is another dimension in this:
a) Many people who follow Israel's policy since a very long time say that the reason Israel proceeded with the settlements (since 1967) is because it doesn't intend to ever give the occupied territories back.
b) But at the same time Israel cannot annex these territories because of the aforementioned demographic problem.
c) At the same time, the current status quo – occupation, no annexation – cannot go on forever either.
Many speculate that this is the reason why people like Lieberman are now brought into positions of real power, because there is another plan, which is considered the only "feasible" solution:
Forcible transfer of the Palestinians, wherever. That way, Israel can
a) Annex the land.
b) Continue with the extremist fantasy of Eretz Israel ("further future expansion-dynamic borders"; "perpetual war", etc).
c) Solve the demographic problem the annexation would create today under the present circumstances.
Of course "forcible transfer" is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing actually but never mind.
There are many powerful forces at work for this scenario. Since the one-state solution will never happen and since the two-state solution seems more and more like a dead horse because of the settlements and the many forces inside and outside Israel who consider giving the occupied territories back unacceptable (many on religious grounds!), it seems Israel will go for the "transfer" at some opportune moment (don't ask what that might be…). That's why making Lieberman the deputy Prime Minister is no accident. Everybody knows what he stands for. The "forcible transfer" solution is gaining legitimacy that way and the Israeli public starts to get used to this idea, which only a few years ago was considered by Israel's majority unacceptable and immoral.
I hope this scenario is only speculation. It would mean many, many thousands of dead Palestinians and it would be a catastrophe for Israel, morally and in its international standing forever.
This is sounding like "The Final Solution". It is what has been haunting the back of my mind for some time now.
The tragic blindness of the human species, the unbelievable playing out of history — aren't there a few classic books and plays dealing with this theme?
Many thanks to all for the links, opinions and information. The Jeffrey Blankfort interview (linked by Rowan) is very fine.
Brenda, do you like taking it up your ass, just curious…
They're a funny bunch, these zios. You can't even discuss the weather with them without their dragging anal sex into the conversation.
Anyway, if you enjoyed that Blankfort interview, Brenda, you might take a crack at this massive study of Chomsky by him, which he mentioned in the interview:
http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
Thanks Rowan, great links, appreciated :)
Comments on this entry are closed.