Two-state doyen Leonard Fein takes stock of the situation in his latest column for the Forward. Fein outlines how he has moved from the liberal edge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to becoming a "hard liner:"
But by now, after two messy and inconclusive wars, one with Hezbollah
in the north and the other with Hamas in the south, in the thick of
growing impatience with a conflict that seems permanently stuck,
there’s more and more talk of a “one-state solution,” a state that
would reach from the Mediterranean to the Jordan and would (somehow)
guarantee the rights and perhaps even a degree of autonomy for its
component minorities (i.e., the Jews). Those who cling to the two-state
idea — that is, those who believe that a Jewish state is both desirable
and possible alongside a new Palestinian state — increasingly resemble,
and feel like, a balloon with a slow but accelerating leak. They have
become today’s hard-liners, hewing to Zionist axioms that once felt
bold, evoked fervor, but now seem increasingly quaint, forlorn.
Clearly, Fein is not just talking about the two-state solution. He is lamenting the difficulty of reconciling liberal beliefs with the demand for a Jewish state. In his words Zionism used to be "bold" but now seems "quaint" and "forlorn." The air is out of the balloon, and Fein senses that the air is going somewhere else. This article shows where the discussion is going. Increasingl, people who support the two-state solution in order to save a Jewish state will find they are arguing against democracy and equality in favor of ethnic exclusion and division. This is a losing argument.
Fein's initial argument against a one-state solution makes little sense. He tries to discount the idea by saying it "would (somehow)
guarantee the rights and perhaps even a degree of autonomy for its
component minorities" as if that's a laughable idea. How about with a constitution which outlines and protects citizens' rights? Perhaps Fein has a hard time imagining it because Israel still doesn't have a constitution that does this. Later he is a bit more honest when he says, "A one-state solution with the Palestinian majority in control means an end to the Zionist enterprise, to the Jewish state." To which I would say – you're right, and if you want peace, that's a good thing.
Why are you guys going wobbly with the two state solution now that it is finally within reach?
You're making the same mistake that the Neocons made: Middle Easterners aren't Americans. Jews don't accept Arabs and Muslims, and vice-versa. Imposing the Western way is just a recipe for conflagration, just as it was in Iraq.
Multi-cultural democracy is not a religion to which people can be converted, despite liberal delusions otherwise.
"Increasingl[y], people who support the two-state solution in order to save a Jewish state will find they are arguing against democracy and equality in favor of ethnic exclusion and division. This is a losing argument."
Or is it perhaps the only true way in favour of democracy, one where Israelis want to have a state that represents themselves and has Zionism in its core, however unjust Zionism is? I know that most Zionists who favour a separate state do it for the sake of saving Zionism as it is applied now (why would they want to do that after 60 years [and longer berfore it] of injustice and oppression of the Palestinians I don't know) but how can you call it being "against democracy" when they clearly want a state that speaks for Jews (and Jews only)?
Let's not get mixed up on which solution is more digestable for ourselves because it's "equality" and justice that we want; a two-state solution is NOT and SHOULD NOT be the end of this affair, it could provide the perfect precursor for a single state. It won't be perfect but the struggle will not be over.
Multicultural nations have pretty dubious track records for sustaining a strong civil society and republican government.
South Africa is a wreck, and much of Africa is worse. Tribal animocities overwhelm all the civil virtues requried for self-government. Britain is becoming much less free by US standards, as it attempts to stamp down on growing cultural and religious conflicts between mostly Moslem immigrants and natives. Many nations in Europe are facing the same problems.
The United States, with its gargantuan prison system, prosperity, and cheap consumer goods has been able to keep the public relatively pacified, but I am not even sure that the United States can endure much stress before it starts to suffer from bitter religious and ethnic divisions.
It is not the job of the Israelis to satisfy some neo-Trotskyite ideology of "liberalism." I think most of the Israelis want what most people throughout history have wanted, to live with their own people under their own laws. That will not happen under a single state solution.
"Those who cling to the two-state idea — that is, those who believe that a Jewish state is both desirable and possible alongside a new Palestinian state — increasingly resemble, and feel like, a balloon with a slow but accelerating leak. They have become today’s hard-liners, hewing to Zionist axioms that once felt bold, evoked fervor, but now seem increasingly quaint, forlorn."
A sign of hope.
I echo David F.'s sentence here: even though Zionism is anathema to what we all have been raised with (except for those who were raised by Zionism and other supranationalisms out there), that everything and everyone is equal before the law (when it is in principle but is not in practice), what are you to do when most Israelis want this form of government, and not only that, want the rest of the world to accept this form of government for them, even though it discrimminates where they think it doesn't.
Put it this way: we don't want to impose and intervene in other nations for the way they determine their fates (ie Iraq) but we still can abhor the regime. Why do we think we can delude ourselves into thinking that Israelis can accept what they don't want because "we say so" when the Iraqis did not cow into this thinking? (I doubt anyone would. Look at Somalia, Haiti, the possible example of Iran, Latino American, etc. No one likes other people sticking their noses in what they perceive to be their business.)
"Why do we think we can delude ourselves into thinking that Israelis can accept what they don't want?"
Because their colonial state is completely dependent on the economic and diplomatic support of the U.S. government?
perhaps even a degree of autonomy Fein sounds like a Spartan noble talking about helots.
Ed – Adam is articulating the highest good. I see negotiations for two states to be preferred to military assaults, and am willing to support movements toward such a solution, not because I consider it to be an end goal, but because the current situation is untenable. Adam has my gratitude for keeping in the public mind the most purposeful resolution: full equality under the law. Until that is reached, instability will continue.
In other words, what Joshua 7:30 pm said, with the addendum it is unlikely that international censure (peer pressure) of Israel's bigotry would end once two states became functioning entities.
Release the Palestinians from domination by Israel and the State of Israel might implode from such behavior.
I think Mondoweiss owes it to its readers to unambiguously declare its editorial policy on whether it is an advocate for the One or Two State solution.
My opinon: The first order of business is to cauterize the open wound. While searingly painful, the Two State solution will do that. The One State is just more gangrene.
Question: does Mondoweiss want to do the responsible thing and advocate for attainment of an unprecedented and tangible milestone on the path to peace on an issue that has been dragged out for 50 years with worldwide repercussions and oceans of blood, or do they intend to be just another political axe-grinder intent on turning the conflict into a ideological crucible — on the Left, towards some larger liberal utopian multi-cultural vision, and on the Right as a clash of civilizations fault line between the “Judeo-Christians” and the Muslims?
Ironically, the Lefties are always lecturing me about bringing a larger ideological agenda to this site on this issue, but now that the rubber is finally starting to hit the road, they're the ones engaged in all kinds of political calculus instead of soldiering on to the attainable Two State milestone.
Now is the time to act on behalf of the Two State. If you start getting all Machiavellian, this opportunity might not come around again for another 50 years, assuming no nuclear conflagration in the mean time.
Margaret,
Thank you for admitting that you want to remove the self-determination of the Jewish people, implode their state, and subjugate them to a neighboring Islamic power, either West Bankian or Gazan. Under such conditions, the relatively quiescent Israeli Islamic Movement, which might advocate for a common Israeli life, will meet the fate of Fateh in Gaza.
You desire the Jews to have the status they did under Omar ibn al-Khattab in the 7th century, with a preparatory genocide to behead all those who will not kneel to the Sword of Islam.
Such clarity is helpful in the extreme, especially since you neglect the conditions inherent in both the State of Israel and its Israeli-Palestinian Population, whom you also seek to sell out-"implode the State"–in favor of radical Islam.
Sorry, but the argument that a constitution would solve the problem is silly. The most elaborate constitution around, eloquent in its endorsement of human rights, was the constitution of the USSR. (I don't know how much was copied into the Russian constitution.) That didn't impede or deter Stalin. And England gets along quite well with no written constitution.
For the time being, we speak specific languages. Esperanto failed. Or let's try this: Should the Kurds of Turkey and Iraq have their own state, or should the Iraqi Kurds continue to be a state within a state and the Turkish Kurds continue to be a repressed minority? Is it all nationalisms that are to be abolished, or only the fruit of Jewish nationalism? Will advocacy of a one-state solution improve or worsen Israel's behavior?
Ergo: I stand with Ed, above.
Eurosbra, you can't continue to play the coy victim and be a State. You can't simultaneously be the leavening and the flour.
The leavening chooses to live in the diaspora and congratulate itself on its own dynamic and transformative powers. The flour must do the hard work of being the mainstay of the loaf. And that means making long term decisions, accepting limits, accepting humiliations, and moving on for the good of the future of the State.
Every State, every people, has its limits. And those who won't accept limits cannot be a State.
"Because their colonial state is completely dependent on the economic and diplomatic support of the U.S. government?"
Right. Like French Algeria. And dependent on Europe's governments too.
I'm in favour of the one-state solution, although I'd be happy with a workable and fair two-state one.
Separating Pakistan and India was a disaster that led to a couple of million people losing their lives. With the help of international institutions, you can have a Bosnia-style solution. Belgium and Canada also work reasonably well.
Plus, who said Arabs and Jews can't live together, with a bit of pushing
If the two-state solution results in the ending of settlement expansion, while the one-state solution allows the resumption of settlement construction (by allowing Jews to buy land in a color-blind manner in the West Bank), do you still prefer the one-state solution?
Eurosabra – We don't live in the 7th Century, nor the 19th. Translating "full equality under the law" to mean "remove the self-determination of the Jewish people" reflects a lack of understanding on your part both of who the Jewish people are and of what self-determination means. It appears you also misunderstand the meaning of the word implode. The people of Israel cannot be said to have much freedom for self-determination in a state riven by all the social ills that attend prejudice-based societies and it is those conflicts that might result in internal dissension sufficient to result in a collapse of social order. If Israel becomes further isolated because of the formation of two states, all the doctrinal prejudice previously focused on the Arabic people will refocus on targets within the Israeli citizenship, groups which even now struggle against prejudice of varying types.
Your lack of understanding, it seems, results in a lack of trust. That the people of Israel would be allowed to be subjugated rather than becoming part of an integrated society ignores the tremendous amount of support in the US for the people of Israel, if not the State. Unless you wish to discuss further what is meant by self-determination, and readdress the question of what Israel is versus what is meant by "the Jewish people," we don't have much purpose in talking with each other.
Israel does have a group of laws that state all citizens have rights; they are ignored for those not fitting into prescribed ethnic categories, while there is a lack of rights afforded those who are inhabitants of the area but not entitled to citizenship.
The arguments against multiculturalism IMO are time-limited. The world is multi-cultural. Technological advancements have created a situation wherein it is no longer possible for people of any one culture to remain separate from others.
"Israel expects the Palestinians to first recognize Israel as a Jewish state before talking about two states for two peoples," a senior official in Netanyahu's office quoted the new prime minister as telling Mitchell, U.S. President Barack Obama's special envoy to the Middle East.
http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/blog/netanyahu-conditions-talks-palestinian-statehood-first-recognize-israel-jewish
Some pertinent questions: What is meant by a "Jewish State?" Why have such a state?
The State of Israel, if the pressure is removed, will be free to resolve its internal contradictions in a spirit of equality, development, and openness. It is true that the social splits caused by the failure to integrate Mizrahi Jews led to a near-revolutionary situation, and that Palestinian terror directed against the rural Mizrahi population catalyzed the development of Israeli nationalism, but the survival of the state is not dependent on outside pressures. I find it very rich that YOU get to lecture me on my understanding of "the Jewish people" and "the Jewish state." Israelis include Jews committed to the establishment of a religious theocracy and Muslims committed to the establishment of a religious theocracy, and frankly, full equality of results under the law is not going to be enough for either those groups, and is going to be seen by Israeli Jews as a mechanism for disestablishing Jewish institutions in order to allow the greater demographic weight of the Muslim theocrats to determine the future of the state on a "level playing field."
Again, you are talking to someone familiar with the socioeconomic and communal divides within Israel, and your agenda assumes a secularization of society that encourages communities to moderate their own claims on the state and on other communities that does not yet exist, is not in the offing, and is not predicted by any current sociological trends.
"your agenda assumes a secularization of society that encourages communities to moderate their own claims on the state and on other communities that does not yet exist, is not in the offing, and is not predicted by any current sociological trends."
Good eye. All left-liberals have an agenda, conscious or sub-conscious, to smash religion. All religion. Because Jews have historically been a vulnerable minority (no need to go into characteristic that put big bulls eyes on their backs right now) many Jews developed an affinity for the secular State, often as a means of protection and later, employment. In fact, many came to see the State as their God, and directed it against their enemies by invoking it and using it the same way they formerly invoked the Hebrew God.
But this creates a dilemma: if the State has replaced God, what are they to do with their old God?
Kill it. And kill the people that harbor it. Hence the Communist Jews.
And this conversion to secular State worship obviously hasn't only been a Jewish phenomenon, hence the murder of millions of Christians by both "Jewish" and "Christian" Communists, and the targeting of both Christianity and Judaism (and Islam) by State-worshippers, including Neocons and Neolibs.
My problem with the Israeli Jewish Zionists is that they think they can get in bed with diaspora, nominally Jewish State worshippers like the Neocons and the Neolibs, take Big Government’s money, and provide it ideological cover for its larger Mideast agenda, but then they profess anger and dismay when the Leviathan they in many ways have enabled turns on THEM.
I have the same problem with Big Government conservative "Christians."
If you get into bed with an anti-religious Leviathan (and all secular, non-libertarian states are ipso-facto anti-religious) you can’t whine when its Left wing turns its guns in your direction.
It just occurred to me. The reason Big Government liberals and Big Government conservatives never question any of this is because they consider Zionism today's equivalent of the Church, trust its hierarchy eminently, and have blind faith in its integrity — or at least pretend to. Like the corrupt Church before it lost its monopoly after the Reformation, the two-party regime attracts the most noxious low-life’s to walk the face of the earth.
Zionism is moribund. Israel will suffer the same fate as all colonialist states – it is only a matter of time. While, for practical reasons, most likely preceded by two states, there will inevitably be one state between the Jordan River and the Med. Sea – a secular, democratic state with a constitution protecting the rights of all citizens. It will come about because both peoples want it. This one state will be fully integrated into the region and become an economic power house that may choose to form a confederation with Jordan. In short, there is no way an exclusionary Jewish state can survive. It's an historical anachronism based on a nineteenth century racist ideology comprised of mythology and lies, an ideology increasingly viewed by Jews everywhere as irrelevant and an unnecessary burden.
"I find it very rich that YOU get to lecture me on my understanding of "the Jewish people" and "the Jewish state."
Questions were asked.
@ Witty
"If the two-state solution results in the ending of settlement expansion, while the one-state solution allows the resumption of settlement construction (by allowing Jews to buy land in a color-blind manner in the West Bank), do you still prefer the one-state solution?
Posted by: Richard Witty"
If the two-state solution results in the clawing back of all settlements, while the one-state solution allows Jews to buy land, I am in favor of either that claws back the settlements first, then allows post-facto, either to buy land.
Eurosabra, you say:
"…Israeli nationalism was the result of palestinian terrorism directed against rural populations…"
Why you draw this conclusion isn't obvious to me. Wouldn't the seed of Israeli nationalism be Herzl's vision of Zion? (I have a broad rather than detailed understanding of nationalism and of Herzl's concept of Zion.)
Am I correct that you consider "self-determination of (for?) the jewish people" to be creation of a theocratic state?
I am interested in the response of other people to this statement; from experience it seems to indicate one perspective out of many.
To provide insight into my perspective: I am an American of Irish/Italian descent, living in a Pacific Rim state. I am not a deist, nor personally interested in theological controversies. I respect the importance religion holds for many people while being concerned that the practice of religion appears to require discrimination against others.