Jeffrey Blankfort and Jack Ross have responded to Michael Walzer's piece in Dissent calling for the defeat of the colonization movement in the West Bank in order to save the two-state solution. Blankfort:
I have a different take on Walzer. He is one of those who realize that the two-state solution is literally dead in the water,
and, like others who advocated it in the past but never did anything
to seriously make it happen, he sees Israel's existence as a Jewish
state (one that he could support) slipping away. The two-state concept is, however, dead, as it should be, given what a
Jewish state has produced thus far, and the notion that the settlers
can easily be removed from the West Bank
reflects a mindset that refuses to accept how right-wing and racist the
Israeli population has become.
Unlike what happened with the removal of
a relatively small number of settlers in Gaza which never had the same grip on the Zionist mentality or its concept of Jewish history as does the West Bank, the settlers in the West Bank will not leave quietly and they have so deeply penetrated the army that a civil war would be assured. Perhaps, that is what's needed but with Netanyahu and quite likely, Lieberman
in the government, and the settlers being a major basis of their
support, it is not likely to happen. Nor will Palestinians, be they in
Hamas or other groups, stop resisting the occupation as long as that
occupation exists.
Jack Ross:
That truly is a watershed, but I think we should keep it in
perspective. What he asks of both sides is unrealistic, the Israelis
probably have as little control of the settlers in the end as Arafat
ever had over most of his own people. Walzer's narrative of Camp David
in this respect is significant – Arafat could probably have accepted
the offer at Taba if not Camp David, his people could not, and that was
the impetus of the Second Intifada.
At the same time, what Walzer is calling for is where the establishment and the Administration are right now, which is to quickly and desperately implement the two state solution as the train is leaving the station. It is indeed significant if the likes of Walzer and J.J. Goldberg are now dropping any pretense on "the other side of the street", that is, Marty Peretz and his confederates.
A word also then about Dissent itself: In the most recent issue, it was announced that Mitch Cohen was stepping down as an editor. Cohen, who among other things endorsed the Iraq War when Walzer did not, was unambiguously close to the Euston Manifesto crowd, and likely fell out with Walzer over the direction of the magazine. That is, Cohen wanted to take the magazine to the frontlines of the Eustonite polemical war, and Walzer did not, preferring the magazine to go the way of Partisan Review, living out its days in quiet detachment and irrelevance.
At the same time, what Walzer is calling for is where the establishment and the Administration are right now, which is to quickly and desperately implement the two state solution as the train is leaving the station. It is indeed significant if the likes of Walzer and J.J. Goldberg are now dropping any pretense on "the other side of the street", that is, Marty Peretz and his confederates.
A word also then about Dissent itself: In the most recent issue, it was announced that Mitch Cohen was stepping down as an editor. Cohen, who among other things endorsed the Iraq War when Walzer did not, was unambiguously close to the Euston Manifesto crowd, and likely fell out with Walzer over the direction of the magazine. That is, Cohen wanted to take the magazine to the frontlines of the Eustonite polemical war, and Walzer did not, preferring the magazine to go the way of Partisan Review, living out its days in quiet detachment and irrelevance.
Related posts:
- Stunner: Walzer says US must put ‘heavy pressure’ on Israel to ‘defeat the settler movement’ and pull the colonists
- Jack Ross takes on Michael Walzer: just wars or nice wars?
- David Bromwich: Further Comment on Walzer
- Is Gaza curtains for the Israel lobby? Ross and Blankfort debate
- Praise Michael Walzer, he declares that Gaza war was unjust
{ 15 comments }
Walzer has written some interesting academic stuff on "just war," but this piece is undistilled goofiness.
No Israeli government has lifted a finger to thwart settlements in the West Bank (Gaza was a different deal), and none will without an American gun to the head, and perhaps even with such a gun.
Meanwhile, Lieberman is the true face of contemporary Zionism. America tolerated Shamir, he of the Stern Gang. Why not a loudmouthed Moldavian bouncer?
But can Walzer be believed? He has continuously supported policies that have led inevitably towards expansion of the west bank settlements. He may have claimed to oppose them, but his actions said otherwize. Many people have behaved that way these last 20 years, but their actions can be understood as those of dupes. Walzer is no dupe, he is a leading intellectual and had to cognizant of what was happening. He must see that the Gaza slaughter has blown up in Israel's face and that it is time yet again to lull the world into believing in Israel's good intentions. This is a ploy. This seems to me more of a symptom that Israel has just suffered a major PR setback, and not evidence that Walzer is willing to work for a real any peacfull and just solution whereby Israel will give up control of Palestinian lands.
The PR setback is evidence of how lost the israeli front has become. How could they act with such hubris in Gaza, and continue now in East Jerusalem to ethnically cleanse, in plain view of a disgusted world community? There must be a complete disconnect from reality, and the "center" of what the world can accept as decent behavior.. Gaza has exploded in their face, and they don't have the presence to realize it. The west bank occupation might operate as a way to disenfranchise potential voters, but that doesn't really add up if settlers are living alongside palestinian arabs. I sense that things are coming to a head..
As usual, I agree with Jeff. I would add that it only started being official US policy to push for a 'two-state solution' when it became apparent that any 'state' in the West Bank would be a 'Bantustan'. The reason I haven't made a point of this before is that recognising it leads us nowhere, except to the utopian idea of 'one state for all its inhabitants', which will require a protracted and arduous global anti-apartheid-type campaign to achieve, and which it is pointless to discuss here because the whole point of Phil's 'struggle' (like that of M J Rosenberg, Gershom Gorenberg, who still define themselves as zionists, unlike Phil himself), is to avert this 'one state for all its citizens' nightmare, which as they see it will lead to wholesale expulsion of Jews from the entire state. However, this interpretation of his 'anti-zionism' Phil will presumably dispute.
Most intelligent people will refute any idea proposed by Rowan and martin.
I don't see why a single state solution will destory the Jewish state. After the recent Israeli elections the Arab political parties were not allowed to participate in the negotiations for a new government. To remain a Jewish state all Israel has to do is refuse to count Arab votes in all future elections. Whose is going to stop it? Certainly not Hillary or Obamaa. This may not work forever but Israel could hold it together for another 50 years surely.
I've NEVER heard of any policy that Walzer supported that encouraged the expansion of West Bank settlements. Where did you get that from?
Didn't Israel court slap down the ban on Arab political participation? Or, no? I imagine the reason for any ban would be couched in terms of Israel's security, which is the usual dust cover. Anybody know?
The Arab parties were deemed eligible to participate in the elections, did receive votes, and continue to have seats in Knesset.
You are correct, Richard. I see the Israeli Supreme Court delivered its verdict on 1-26-09, after the assault on Gaza was pulled. I also note that the right wingers now intend on circumventing the court's ruling via
proposed new citizenship (loyalty) litmus tests. How well will that sit with ObamaCo, I wonder. ShrubCo certainly had no problem. Sometimes the rule of law actually works, in the Western sense of the term. Good for Israel on that. We need to go after the Bushies regarding how they circumvented our own Constitution right here in the USA. Glad to see some movement towards that as well. The wheels of Justice grind slowly, but they grind well. I'd say, looking at history, those wheels often skip a number of generations, but there's always hope afforded by future generations and the continued persistence of
the usual handful of dedicated humanists.
Lieberman's party has supported similar "loyalty" litmus tests in the past, and a couple have passed knesset then similarly been struck down by the Israeli Supreme Court.
I hope that Phil and others that rationally contest Lieberman's insistence on a "loyalty test", note the irony in their insistence on "loyalty" on the part of Jews to America or whatever state they or any human being resides.
You can hope in one hand… Phil's phools will continue to pull out antisemitic reasons, reasonableness not being their forte.
By the way, Leiberman is very rationale in his ideas, just not reasonable.
I'm sorry, Richard, did you ever have to take a governmental loyalty test in behalf the USA? You have an odd take on irony. The point is it's not allowed here generally respecting native born Americans–even as to those who spent their summer camp childhood in the USA under an Israeli flag. Why should Americans subsidize such an official litmus test in Israel?
Chris, how is Leiberman very rational in his ideas, just not reasonable? In some way different than Hitler?
Wasn't Hitler for the security and life of Germany uber alles? How does Leiberman differ?
How Racist Israel has become –
Noa Does a ‘Benny Morris,’ Calls Hamas ‘Nazi-Like’
How Racist the USA has become –
Bost Globe: Throwing Rocks at Muslims
Skepticism reagarding Walzer and the entire Dissent/TNR crowd is quite justified, obviously. We find those who have been behind the curve (to put it too kindly) now proposing their solutions. Why would anyone trust that those solutions are in the spirit of justice for Palestinians. Walzer wrote a crappy book about Just War, not even when about Just Palestine.
Comments on this entry are closed.