Daphna Baram has a great article on the Guardian website today - "It's time to rethink Zionism." Similar to the recent LA Times editorial questioning Israeli democracy, Baram starts out by stating the obvious:
The results of last week's parliamentary elections in Israel brought to the surface some of the most rotten fruits of a debate that has been going on throughout the state's existence: the idea that a mono-ethnic Jewish state is feasible, legitimate and desirable.
Baram then covers a quick survey of Israeli history to the present day along with this gem outlining the history of the two-state solution:
The phrase "the demographic danger" became a legitimate part of the discourse calling for a two-state solution. What started as a lefty support for Palestinian national self-determination had turned in this century into a tool for propagating apartheid. From that point, it was easy for anybody on the right, from Ariel Sharon to Tzipi Livni and Binyamin Netanyahu, to adopt it, and for George Bush's administration to embrace it. Accordingly, that obscure entity the "Palestinian State" was to be of crippled borders that would compromise its already questionable viability. It was to be a Bantustan.
These, more than any other reasons, explain why the two-state solution is falling out of favor internationally: the idea of an ethnically defined state is not consistent with liberal values and people know "the two-state solution" has become a code word for making the Israeli occupation permanent.
This analysis is not even based in conjecture, it's being stated out in the open by prospective Israeli leaders. Just today, Benjamain Netanyahu is reported to have told 100 leaders from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, "while he would not want to govern the Palestinians, Israel must maintain control of all borders, airspace and electronic traffic." He is quoted as saying "Palestinians should have sovereignty, but not at our expense." Translation: Israel will continue its colonization of the West Bank and if the Palestinians want to call what remains a "state", fine with me.
The two-state solution is not only falling out of favor internationally, but within Israel/Palestine as well. A poll was released yesterday saying that 51% of Israeli adults oppose the formation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank (they didn't even ask about Gaza). The poll was released by the Israeli television channel 2. Only 32% supported the creation of a state.
It's not clear from this poll what the respondents support instead, but this would seem to be a reflection of the trends that carried Netanyahu, Livni and Lieberman to victory in the recent Israeli elections. None of them believe in a meaningful two-state solution.
And maybe that's why it's fallen out of favor as well: There is no Israeli partner for peace. (Adam Horowitz)
It's that little problem with the missile barrages. Maybe you've heard of it/
Then we need to help them. BDS. No foreign aid. Take the candy and cocaine away.
There has NEVER been an Israeli partner for peace. Oslo was nothing but a means of buying time while Israel accelerated its rate of confiscation and colonization of land in the occupied territories, while increasing restrictions on Palestinians and squeezing them into smaller and smaller spaces. "Peace talks" have consisted of the Israelis making "generous offers" and "painful concessions" that they themselves have admitted they would find unacceptable in the Palestinians' place, and the various "peace processes" have been yet more time buying ploys that allowed Israel to tighten its grip on the land supposedly meant for the Palestinian state.
Israel's leaders have always understood that peace does not serve Israel's goals. Ben Gurion understood it when months before the so-called "war of independence" began, he reassured his colleagues in the MAPAI party Council saying "The war will give us the land. The concepts of 'ours' and 'not ours' are peace concepts, only, and in war they lose their whole meaning." (Ben-Gurion, War Diary, Vol. 1, entry dated 6 February 1948. p.211) Nothing has changed in that regard since then.
The concepts of 'ours' and 'not ours' are peace concepts, only, and in war they lose their whole meaning." (Ben-Gurion, War Diary, Vol. 1, entry dated 6 February 1948. p.211) Nothing has changed in that regard since then.
Posted by: Shirin
Bad quote Shirin. Israel won the WB through war and have reasserted their dominion with war during the first and second intifada and now the Gaza war. They won those engagements. By this logic they get to keep the conquered territory.
Phil said:
———————————————
These, more than any other reasons, explain why the two-state solution is falling out of favor internationally: the idea of an ethnically defined state is not consistent with liberal values
———————————————-
Better tell the Pakistanis that, better tell the Walloons and Flemish in Belgium that, better tell the PALESTINIANS that (what do they need a state for when they can be part of Jordan?), better tell the Catholics in Northern Ireland that, better tell the French-speaking Quebec separatists that, better tell Scottish separatists that, better tell Moro separatists in the Phillipines that, better tell the Muslim Kossovars that in Serbian Kossovo that, better tell the Chechens that, ……………..
"And maybe that's why it's fallen out of favor as well: There is no Israeli partner for peace. (Adam Horowitz)"
Fantastic.
bar_kochba132's point is very important, Phil.
Ethnic nationism is not going to go away however much liberals would like it to.
The Soviets also found ethnically defined states inconsistent with their values. They crushed nationalist sentiment with mass killing, starvation, and deportation. Yet when the USSR fell, it instantly broke apart along ethnic lines.
The recent article by Jerry Muller (Foreign Affairs, "Us and Them" notes that over the past century the borders of European nations have increasingly reflected ethnic and linguisitic boundaries.
Your own cosmopolitan and relatively rootless social identity is characteristic of the US elite class, but compared to the rest of the world it is completely anomalous.
nationism?–>"nationalism"
The two-state solution is the only option, and the most just.
Nations do exist. If you took a poll of Palestinians, I DOUBT that they would want a cosmopolitan single democratic state, that they might not be the majority of.
Better that there be a state that they are the majority of and a state that Jewish Israelis are the majority of.
Netanyahu's description of what that is comprised of is NOT the only option.
But, as a couple Zionists have stated, the unrepentant actions of Hamas occurred, and prospectively will continue.
"There is no Israeli partner for peace." (Adam Horowitz)
After 42 years of no Palestinian partner for peace, perhaps the Israelis have decided to abandon such and just make unilateral decisions, cutting away the rest of the solely arab areas of the land while incorporating the major settlements.
"Palestinians should have sovereignty, but not at our expense"–Benjamain Netanyahu
Israelis should have it too, but not at our expense–any Palestinian.
Dead end?
How many official ethnically defined states are there in the world?
Will the USA break apart along ethnic lines? If not, why not? If so, then David Duke has a point? Maybe there's a lesson or two here? One way or the other…
How many states have immigration laws similar to the USA, where the dominant ethnic group steadily
gives away its own dominance?
Does any state other than Israel do just the opposite?
When is the last time the USA kept land won in war?
What lesson is there?
How about other nations?
Just asking. My questions are not meant to be rhetorical. I would appreciate informative responses.
What historical precedent do you think, if any, the USA should follow as a matter of foreign policy?
"What do they need a state for when they can be part of Jordan"
That is a nonsensical red herring, and nothing else. Tiny Bantustans which are subject to Israeli control in all important aspects are no more feasible as a part of Jordan – and won't be accepted by Jordan – than they are as a Palestinian state.
"Nations do exist. If you took a poll of Palestinians, I DOUBT that they would want a cosmopolitan single democratic state, that they might not be the majority of."
This is an unproven, and unprovable, assertion and can thus be dismissed as irrelevant.
"Does any state other than Israel do just the opposite?"
I would have named Japan, but Japanese attitudes are changing, and of course, it's never (well, never post-WW2) been as explicit as in Israel.
We have 57 states that identify themselves as Islamic states, but one Jewish State should not be allowed. What hypocrites.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Julian-
BINGO! You put your finger on it. What troubles all screamers at this site is not "ethnic nationalism" or "illiberalism" but JEWS and JUDAISM.
Koshiro,
Thanks for illustrating Japan. Japan IS more ethnically cleansed than Israel is, and contains legal and social prejudices against non-Japanese.
Do you not agree?
Most likely other Asian states that are less cosmopolitan than US, Europe, Israel, are similar.
Certainly the majority of Arab states are far more mono-ethnic than Israel.
It's as if Witty had never heard of colonialism.
This blindness on the part of doctrinaire 'liberals' towards the fact of global colonialism, neo-colonialism, and exploitation, exactly parallel their blindness in domestic affairs, where they refuse to admit that class exploitation even exists, and blame the poor for their poverty. 'Liberals' in other words are just whores for capitalist imperialism, and when it collapses they will perish unloved and unfed.
"Thanks for illustrating Japan. Japan IS more ethnically cleansed than Israel is, and contains legal and social prejudices against non-Japanese.
Do you not agree?"
No, I don't, actually.
Japan is, for a start, not "ethnically cleansed", because that would imply that there was an indigenous population which was removed and/or driven out. This has not been the case (in recent times, anyway. I'm not going back to pre-Heian times, and neither will I include Hokkaido colonialism.)
Japan does not have legal discrimination based on ethnicity in the way Israel has it. No right of return, no special marriage laws, no laws singling out, for example, Koreans as "security threats" etc.
Japan has traditionally seen itself as ethnically largely homogenous, and many Japanese preferred to keep it that way. However, this is changing – you have a growing number of Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese and other East Asians living and working in Japan now. Furthermore, Japanese are – not all of them, it's true – generally open-minded and friendly towards foreigners. There are no deep-seated religious or ethnic rivalries.
You imagine that Israelis are not similarly cosmopolitan towards those that don't violently threaten them.
If you visited Israel, you'd find MORE diversity than you do in Japan.
Japan is not horrid. The point is that Israel is similarly not horrid.
It is in the midst of a conflict. If Japan had to deal with ethnic minorities, then it would be tested similarly.
Arab countries to a T, adjusted to the presence of even large Jewish minorities post-1948, by throwing them out.
That has NOT been the case in Israel. The Arab minority there is growing, and has equal vote and equal rights (with very minor legal exceptions). There is more prejudice in the functional administration of services, but a lot of that is really class in nature.
In the West Bank, is really the only area in which persecution exists institutionally, and we are in agreement that that should change.
There are tensions in the idea of two states, and very many real differences of application of the concept. There are MORE tensions in the idea of a single state, primarily resulting from the REALITY that a majority of each community currently prefers a national orientation to a cosmopolitan.
And, then to impose a "solution" sounds good, but FAILS the test of consent of the governed.
Its a hypocrisy to criticize the desire of neo-conservatives to impose a cosmopolitan democracy on Iraq or Iran, while continuing to advocate imposing one on Israel/Palestine jurisdiction.
There is another tension to the two-state proposal, which is Hamas.
Its unclear if Hamas is willing to participate in a Palestinian state that it does not dominate.
There is much support for some wishful thinking that that might be the case, but there is NOT enough support to be confident that Hamas desires to power-share in any meaningful way. (The same may be said of Fatah.)
In Israel, while the ethical compromises that parties must make to form a government are profound, even the most right-wing parties do NOT orchestrate violent coups to retain their power even in regions. There is NO labor militia, not even an Israel Beitanyu militia.
There are Hamas militia, Al Aqsa Martyrs, Islamic Jihad, and in Lebanon – Hezbollah.
It is a qualitatively DIFFERENT setting.
"You imagine that Israelis are not similarly cosmopolitan towards those that don't violently threaten them."
I do not merely imagine, but know, that many Israelis have a rather broad concept of those that violently threaten themm which renders the whole thing incomparable. Whether they have that much more reason to do so than the Japanese do is a matter of debate, but doesn't change the facts.
Nor does it change the fact that Israel explicitly, officially, discriminates against potential immigrants and foreign residents for ethnic reasons – this is on a very different level than Japanese institutional practices are.
(Speaking of it, I thought of one other example: Germany. In the 1990s, reunified Germany actually had their own version of the "right of return" – for supposed ethnic Germans who lived in the former Soviet Union and other Eastern European states. These were remnants of previous German communities in those states, and they were allowed immigration into Germany with no questions asked as so-called Spaetaussiedler. Their criteria for determining "German ancestry" were actually very similar to Israel's. These policies were short-lived, though, and have been severely restricted now.)
"And, then to impose a "solution" sounds good, but FAILS the test of consent of the governed."
Actually, testing the consent of those governed would be rather simple, and the results would be rather not to Israel's liking, I suppose. That those who are governed – namely, the Palestinians – do not have a say in their fate is one of the key problems here.
Look further into Japan's practises.
And also look further into Israel's.
Israel is a nationalist entity. There is no denying that. It is just a very cosmopolitan one compared to ANY of its immediate neighbors, and its region. For example, there are still prohibitions from Jews owning land in some Arab countries.
There are NO similar ethnically derived prohibitions in Israel.
The options are of jurisdiction.
If the jurisdiction selected is a single cosmopolitan state, while most Americans would find that attractive, it is UNLIKELY that most Palestinians or most Israelis would. So, that wouldn't result in the consent of the ACTUAL governed.
Maybe I'm wrong, and the majority of Palestinians do favor a literal democracy in all of Palestine, in which Jewish financial dominance will likely continue and extend, and prospectively result in larger areas of Jewish cultural dominance.
Or, do you prefer that the democratic state also have ethnic based prohibitions against residing in certain areas, applied to Jews only?
A two-state solution OPTIMIZES self-determination. A single-state without overwhelming consent to cosmopolitan governance, is at best an orderly imposition, at worst a very violent civil war.
You can't really get to a mutually respected cosmopolitan state by condemnation of a people or their hopes.
"Its a hypocrisy to criticize the desire of neo-conservatives to impose a cosmopolitan democracy on Iraq or Iran…"
It is a myth that neocons have ever championed 'cosmopolitan democracy'. Saying something over and over again might make it believed by the mentally weak, but it doesn't make it true. Their talk of democracy is pure camouflage for 'whatever is best for Israel'. The democratization that has occurred thus far in Iraq can be attributed to Ayatollah Al-Sistani's insistence on open elections. The necons, e.g. Paul Bremer, were attempting to build a system of governance with absolutely no legitimate democratic response mechanism. CPA neocons backed down when they realized Ayatollah Al-Sistani was serious, and would make major trouble for them if they didn't allow open elections.
I remember reading a story, alas I can't find it, about an American Captain after the invasion but before Bremer and his CPA apparatchiks arrived. The poor Captain had bought into all the pre-war nonsense about bringing democracy to the Iraqis, and set up elections for a local council in his area of responsibility. Things were going fine … until the CPA arrived and shit a brick that he had allowed Iraqis to vote on their leadership. What a horrible precedent to set! The elected council was dissolved and replaced with one whose members were appointed by CPA bureaucrats. If anyone has a copy of that story please post a link. I'd love to read it again.
"Their talk of democracy is pure camouflage for 'whatever is best for Israel'."
Now, that is a silly repetition.
The point is the word "imposition".
The selection of jurisdiction should optimize democracy, not square peg it.
"Israel is a nationalist entity. There is no denying that. It is just a very cosmopolitan one compared to ANY of its immediate neighbors, and its region."
That's true – although my experience in Egypt was also quite less monocultural than many people would expect.
However, this is not the standard to measure Israel by. Israel is supposed to be a "Western" democracy. Such a classification requires adherence to certain minimum standards.
Although you do have a point: From my perspective, Israel is more similar to all the other countries in the Middle East than to the US, Japan or the EU countries. Yes, it is democratic insofar as there are regular elections an governments are formed according to the results – but this can be said about other countries in the region as well. Israel is not a secular state, it contains a higher than healthy dose of religious fundamentalism, and of course, it relies on saber-rattling and outright brute force as political tools, interior and exterior.
Culturally and politically, Israel right now is a part of the Middle East, and not a part of the "West" from my viewpoint. It's closer to Iran than it is to France.
that many Israelis have a rather broad concept of those that violently threaten themm which renders the whole thing incomparable.
Koshiro–can you clarify what you mean by this? Be specific as possible, if you don't mind. Thank you.
BTW–the US still has a recent memory of how Japanese fight wars and what they are like as occupiers. This isn't some abstract exercise for us.
Richard Witty nailed it. People with agendas are judging Israel by a peacetime standard–when in fact, Israelis are living in a hostile neighborhood. And are conducting themselves in that vein.
Leaders of most modern nations understand that. If citizens personally choose to be ignorant of political facts, it's not Israel's problem. Doesn't hurt or help Israel in the long run.
That judgement of whether Israel is western or Middle Eastern is an open question.
You'd have to go to each, and assess without prejudice.
Israel is also NOT a theocracy. There are a few religious parties that represent 10% of the knesset, and definitely swing coalitions in even elections.
The majority parties are nationalist and often conflict with the various religious parties.
I'm dissatisfied with the extent and slowness of Israeli reconciliation with Palestine.
I personally believe that Israel should accept the Arab League proposal at 67 borders, with limited (very limited) right of return, Palestinian day in court, East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine (or neither East or West Jerusalem as anyone's capital).
Again, I believe that settlers should be allowed to remain in their homes, but as Palestinian citizens.
Thereby creating a moderate minority in the Palestinian state, as Arabs comprise a moderate minority in the Jewish state (Jewish as nation, not as religion).
"Koshiro–can you clarify what you mean by this? Be specific as possible, if you don't mind."
Sure.
On a personal level, very often when I bring up the question of allowing Palestinians more freedom of movement, I receive something about the terrorist threat as an answer.
On a political level, just take a look at how Israeli authorities deal with millions of people because some of them might be terrorists. Don't debate whether this assumption is justified – just register how these millions of people are treated.
On a cultural level, consider this:
link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org
/>
I don't think that 43% of people being "uncomfortable" when they hear Arabic spoken, and 30% even feeling hatred, are indicative of an open-minded attitude.
"BTW–the US still has a recent memory of how Japanese fight wars and what they are like as occupiers. This isn't some abstract exercise for us."
No. Countries have no memories. Some US citizens might – although the experience that US citizens, as opposed to those of other Asian nations, might have, is rather limited. In any case: The question was which countries now have ethnically based restrictions in the way Israel has. Japan's WW2 actions are not relevant to this.
Witty: "Again, I believe that settlers should be allowed to remain in their homes, but as Palestinian citizens.
Thereby creating a moderate minority in the Palestinian state, as Arabs comprise a moderate minority in the Jewish state (Jewish as nation, not as religion)."
Richard, this idea is simply crazy. The settlers aren't the Neuteri Karta! They are among the most fanatical and uncompromising irredentist Zionists. They would never acknowlege Palestinian government, and the Palestinians would never tolerate a hostile minority occuping much of the best land. They would inevitably be forcibly expelled.
Colin,
This story may have been in "The Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast?
Koshiro, thank you for all your comments, which are historically correct. You are right that post WW2 Germany
had, for a short time an offical state law of return–for a limited purpose. And it no longer applies, as was intended from the enactment. Israel's law of return is the only one enacted and maintained to this day, and by its own words, intended to apply so long as Israel exists as a state for the Jewish people.
Those commenters who justify Israel's conduct because Israel is always at war, that is as a matter of self-defense always, simply do not acknowledge the history of oppressive, affirmative jewish state action now especially noticed by the world in the 40 plus year occupation. Listen to them and you'd think Israel was fighting the US military power, rather than being engaged for so many decades against the natives.
A two-state solution, though not perfect for either side, is possible to envision politically. A one-state solution isn't. I agree with other commenters that Netanyahu's vision isn't the only possible one, and in any event isn't likely to win Palestinian support.
As far as I can tell, on this blog, only the pro-Zionists seem to be interested in a 2-state solution.
The nazis, leftist goobs, and Islamist apologists want a single state solution that nullifies Israel's sovereignty. An Arabization of Israel, so to speak.
Well, I guess it's back to the 3 state solution that was in place before 1967. I.e., the one where Gaza was Egyptian (and those "Palestinians" in Gaza were Egyptian) and the bulk of the West Bank was Jordanian (and those "Palestinians" in the West Bank were Jordanian).
Israel already has peace with Egypt and Jordan who recognize Israel's sovereignty – seems that the simplest solution for immediate peace is for Egypt and Jordan to take back responsibility for governing and policing Gaza and the West Bank. The cultures of Egypt and Jordan are nearly identical to those in Gaza and the West Bank – so the fit should be perfect. And if Palestinians in the Gaza or West Bank want more democratic political power, they can just become a lifelong dictator as in Egypt or a monarch as in Jordan.
Koshiro – I lived in Japan in a Burakumin district? Why? It was much cheaper because "normal" Japanese refused to live there. Was the neighborhood materially different from the more expensive comparable areas of Tokyo? Not at all. Just happened to have Burakumin living there. Can you tell the difference between "normal" Japanese and a Burakumin. I certainly couldn't. Many marriage engagements end because a Burakumin ancestor is found to have corrupted the line. Here's a bit more information:
"The Buraku people are a stigmatized group who have faced bigotry and persecution in Japan for centuries. They have been characterized as "the invisible race", because while they are still considered socially inferior by much of Japanese society, they are not typically held to be racially different.[8][9]
Presently, there is a steep income difference between "buraku" and "non buraku" people ranging at about one million yen, or $10,000 income per year less than the Japanese mainstream. Lately however, there has been some awareness of the mistreatment of the Buraku and some measures have been taken to provide these people with better education and housing situations.
The history of the prejudice of these people comes from ancient times when the Burakumin were labeled "unclean" because of their occupations as leather cleaners, butchers, or executioners. There are approximately 2-3 million burakumin in the country.
Today, many influential Japanese figures such as politicians, actors, artists, and businessmen, are compelled to conceal their true Buraku heritage for fear of losing their positions because of such heavy prejudice.[10] The Burakumin are commonly compared to the Untouchable caste present in the Indian caste system because of the similar lower class positioning in society as well as the discrimination from the greater population.[11]"