Bruce Wolman writes:
This Haaretz author (Tzvia Greenfield) is not very enthralled with the "universalist left"--
On the other side stands the universalist left, which is uncomfortable
with the Jewish identity of the Israeli state. Too many in that camp
are caught up in the illusion that Israel's Jewishness must be
exchanged for an open democracy that will protect the rights of all
those living between the river and the sea. This growing group knows
full well that the Israelis will sink to oppression, apartheid and
moral degradation before they hand their state over to the
Palestinians. But they still go on hoping that Barack Obama, the
Europeans, the rest of the world and sanctions will somehow shut down
the current Israel and build up a wonderful new democracy where
Palestinians and Israelis live in peace and quiet.
The notion
that we will all drown in a murky mire of Jewish dictatorship and the
entire region will go up in flames before Israel gives up its
sovereignty to the Palestinian majority doesn't appear to bother them
too much.
Interestingly, she thinks they are outshouting the supporters of the two-state solution.
So what is hindering Greenfield's "most decent and appropriate" two-state solution?
I'd gladly stay silent if they could assure me that would enable them to pull it off.
Weiss: Greenfield's piece shows that we really are winning this debate, cause we have the most powerful ideas. I'd add that one of my big problems with the Decent two-state solution types is that they proffer a process, and never any real idea of when things will change. And meantime, Israelis are living pretty well with no real incentive to change the status quo, and American peace types get to say, Oh we're for a 2-state solution. And right now in Palestine, the human rights violations are so horrifying and every child's horizon is darkened by oppression--that's what animates us. We want to do something!
About Bruce Wolman
Bruce Wolman is a citizen journalist who has lived in Norway and the Washington area.
"This growing group knows full well that the Israelis will sink to oppression, apartheid and moral degradation before they hand their state over to the Palestinians"
It's because Israelis have already sunk into oppression, apartheid and moral degradation that it has become obvious that their state needs to be handed over to the Palestinians.
By the way, that piece should tone down some of the Haaretz-enthusiasm around here.
Don't sell yourselves short, We ARE doing something. Arguments like Greenfield's hinge on accepting a lesser of evils out of fear. Not too sound, or inspiring.
i have wondered about this 'jewish state' insistence and some of its implications. while i am aware that the demand by israel on having the palestinians acknowledge and accept this prior to any discussion is driven by the desire to use it down the road re: the issue of the 'right of return', whereby acceptance of the idea also carries an implicit promise not to undermine (or work towards undermining) an agreed upon principle, which insisting on the right of return either wholly or partially undermines. furthermore, it is an acceptance of whatever inequitable system any remaining non jewish citizens may have to live in, effectively foregoing any solidarity with israeli arabs on these down the line (they may remain mute during times of future suffering like most arab states kept silent during gaza). finally, and perhaps more unclear to me, is that given the current 20%(?) arab israeli population and the demographics trends in both jewish and arab populations, what does this leave open in the future by means of methods of thwarting growing 'unfavorable' imbalances? ‘voluntary’ or insidious birth control methods targeted at these populations? (e.g. create conditions of grinding poverty then offering financial incentives for 'voluntary' sterilization procedures)? does it also provide cover for a future arrangement like south sfrica whereby the minority enjoy exclusionary privileges unavailable to the minority, except that the world at large, having subscribed to or accepted the notion of a jewish state now have their hands somewhat tied or their response complicated?
otto:
"It's because Israelis have already sunk into oppression, apartheid and moral degradation that it has become obvious that their state needs to be handed over to the Palestinians."
Handed over by who? The Arabs? the U.S.?
Left wingers always expect something to be given to them if they cry enough.
Handed over by the US and Europe, just as the US and European countries handed over South Africa and French Algeria to the native populations.
I have to give Phil credit. He sees a piece in Haaretz a far left, mostly anti Israel paper, telling him that his cherished "one state solution" will never happen. That Israelis are living great,the Palestinians are suffering and he's happy because he thinks he's winning the debate.
This is an excellent summary of the one-state/two-state debate. It captures by position exactly. Those who advocate for two-states have proven themselves as playing the delay game. Since 1992 throw two-state slogans about and expand settlements. Calling Peace Now "Peace Later" perfectly encompasses that position. Rational people must accept that Israel has no intention of relinquishing the West bank. If the Palestinians came to accept that fact, they can begin to advocate for civil rights within Israel.
This is a campaign that the entire world would eventually back — the Zionists would become isolated. Yes Julian, no one will offer the Palestinians justice without a struggle on their part. Israel will not volunteer anything, but will be forced to concede. They face the same dilemma as the French in Algeria and the Afrikaans in S. Africa.
Ha'aretz, an Israeli paper, is anti-Israel? How exactly does that work?
The one-state solution is the only realistic solution, it has always been that way. I'm still trying to understand why pro-Israeli's see it as such an evil idea.
The pieds noirs in Algeria and the Afrikaners in South Africa may have faced the same dilemma, but they chose different courses in the end, and so their fates were very different. The Afrikaners eventually chose to come to terms with their black majority, rejected their crazies, and so have been allowed to live on in their country, still in an economically privileged position. The pieds noirs, on the other hand, were intransigent to the end, chose to embrace their OAS crazies, and so were eventually forced to flee the country.
Israel should learn that lesson.
The one state solution will never happen. Organized Jewry is far too racist. If Israel doesn't grant non-Jews equal status in Israel proper where Jews are the vast majority, why would it grant them equal status where Jews are a minority after incorporating the occupied territories? Because it would have to per the mandates of democracy? Exactly, and that's why it will never happen.
Americans should demand that Israel set its borders, and pursue the two-state solution hard and fast. Immature Western Lefties with fantasies of a color/culture/religion scrubbed world attempting to turn the area into some kind of ideological crucible are just as flaky as Christian Zionists dreaming of Israel-centered Armageddon, and just wasting everyone’s time — and a lot of Palestinian skin.
Universalist Leftists are just as obnoxious and annoying as evangelicals who demand everyone convert to their faith. Probably as intellectually challenged, too.
Read an Israeli woman's pathetic excuse for moving into a settlement here and KABOBfest's reply here
Hand it over, already. Go ahead, demonstrate you contempt for the Jewish people by insisting that they are a dependent implant of the West. You don't understand that it's very likely that the Palestinians will get to play the role of pieds-noirs, as THEY are the ones without institutions, infrastructure, and money, and THEY are the ones wedded to a fascist, absolutist political culture based on racial and religious supremacism.
You assume that the relationship of the world to the Jews is the same as in 1939, and that you can divide the world into an Israel they may not have and places they may not enter to save their lives.
"We want to do something!"
The problem is that you are not. Because you don't know what your goal is, stated in positive terms that are compelling.
For me, the compelling positive terms include two components:
1. Optimal consent of the governed. (The single state does not accomplish that).
2. Equal due process under the law and equal civil rights in all entities.
You just complain. No prize to keep one's eye one.
On Bruce's point about process. The left is equally dogmatic about what process it is willing to approach. "Get the fuck out".
So, if that process turned out to be COUNTER-productive relative to your stated goal, would you adjust?
At some level you have to feel sorry for these people. They believe in a racist god and a racist ideology, and they justify their immoral behavior based on those.
I shudder to think what these people's Seder dinner conversation is like. No, wait, what their dinner table conversation is like every night!
Zionist Mom talking to her kid: Thou shalt not steal, little Moshe, except what belongs to the Palestinians becasue as Marty Peretz and our religion of Zion teaches us, they are neither a nation or a people.
Saleema,
The cynical element of the expropriation of the Jerusalem suburbs in particular (moreso than the West Bank settlements), is that the transactions were structured in ways that conveyed to purchasers or lessees that their title was perfect, not contested.
So, you might call someone purchasing an apartment on contested land as racist, but the individuals are not in fact.
Its analagous to a White Plains, New York developer undertaking urban renewal, that displaces all of the Black and Hispanic former residents, in favor of affluent high rises. The developer is callous (not even as he/she is in it for the money), but the purchaser of a condo in that former neighborhood is shielded from any knowledge of the former status.
Its the state enterprise of the expansion that is the problem. To complain that the residents are racist, or worship a racist God, is just to NOT connect the dots.
I doubt that if you were in need, you would ask many questions as to who lived on the land before, wherever you live. Who did live on the land that you reside on? What tribe were they from?
I assume you live in the states, maybe I'm wrong.
RE: "So what is hindering Greenfield's "most decent and appropriate" two-state solution?"
FROM M. J. ROSENBERG @ TPM:
EXTRA!!!! From "The Neocon Times" (i.e., the Wash Post), the great Elliot Abrams in support of more settlement building. This is the guy who used his position at the White House to subvert the policies of Rice, Powell and even Bush in favor of Netanyahu's and Sharon's. A great American, loyal and true.
ABRAMS' POST COLUMN –
Shafiq:
"Ha'aretz, an Israeli paper, is anti-Israel? How exactly does that work?
The one-state solution is the only realistic solution, it has always been that way. I'm still trying to understand why pro-Israeli's see it as such an evil idea."
Read Hass and Levy in Haaretz and you will see how that works.
One state is not even an issue in Israel. All it is is a silly method to try to destroy Israel. Nobody is fooled.
I've been to Israel and several Arab countries, life is much better in Israel. The Israelis will keep it that way.
aristeides:
"The pieds noirs, on the other hand, were intransigent to the end, chose to embrace their OAS crazies, and so were eventually forced to flee the country.
Israel should learn that lesson."
Learn what? How to run? To be afraid? To give up the incredible country they built?
@ Julian,
Jewish triumphalism is unhelpful and could end up causing Jews ALL of their skin in the long run. Can't you Zionists ever win gracefully? Your constant rubbing of the Palestinians’ nose in it is probably the source of half Israel’s terrorism. Maybe that’s intentional, I don’t know. But if it is, don’t come crying to the West when you get whacked.
Learn what? Learn to strike a fair bargain with the other side, the way the Afrikaners did, as opposed to going the way of the pieds noirs.
Sorry Julian, but yes they may very well run away. At least, there is now net emigration from Israel and it is especially heavy among the more highly educated and productive members of society. Today, there are over 750,000 Israelis living over seas that also carry passports of different nations. Many are getting very nervous and ready to run. That looks like her fate.
This will be a dangerous time because the fanatics will stay behind. And they will be armed with 200 nuclear bombs! Scary times ahead. But whatever the outcome, it is difficult to see how Israel as a Jewish state can survive (unlless of course they are willing to withdraw behind the green line, but we all know that they will never do that).
The pieds noirs in Algeria and the Afrikaners in South Africa may have faced the same dilemma, but they chose different courses in the end, and so their fates were very different. The Afrikaners eventually chose to come to terms with their black majority, rejected their crazies, and so have been allowed to live on in their country, still in an economically privileged position. The pieds noirs, on the other hand, were intransigent to the end, chose to embrace their OAS crazies, and so were eventually forced to flee the country.
Israel should learn that lesson.
And it's interesting how you only quoted my last two sentences, thus leaving out any mention of South Africa and the Afrikaners (the example I was suggesting should be followed).
@ Witty
What settler or settler wannabe is ignorant of the Israeli state developer? The precise analogy would be to condo buyers who greedily take a good deal, knowing full well that their new home
is cheap, at the expense of local former residents and US taxpayers. They play the probabilities, mainly
that Uncle Sam will continue to underwrite their special deal as a practical matter, and G-D will
too. It's the Madoff investor syndrome. "Don't ask, sucha good deal! How can you go wrong? Besides, G-D said so!"
@ Witty
1. Optimal consent of the governed. (The single state does not accomplish that). Given that Palestinians had nothing to do with the Shoah, how about the original partition but reflecting the
more equitable reverse % allocation of the total land?
2. Equal due process under the law and equal civil rights in all entities. And, so, given all the aid
the USA & Germany have given Israel, a cut off of all funds to Israel, diverting it to the Palestinian state for, say, a minimum of 20 years?
Sound good, Witty? Do we agree? If not, why not?
"…and so have been allowed to live on in their country…"
Being in a position where one is dependent on being "allowed to live on in their country" is not a situation I would accept, and I certainly don't expect it of Israelis.
Ed's rhetoric is too harsh for my taste, but he is right. It seems that the conservatives here, whether Zionist or not, see serious problems with a single state solution that are too easily overlooked by our liberal commentators.
What exasperates me is that the Zionist lobby here and the government in Israel seem to be doing everything in their power to destroy a two state solution. Israel's "friends" are in fact digging her grave, and have been for some time. An aparthied one-state arrangement will not be sustainable; it will end with either war and massive ethnic cleansing or a single, non-Jewish state. Is this what American Jews and Israelis want?
Witty: "I doubt that if you were in need, you would ask many questions as to who lived on the land before, wherever you live. Who did live on the land that you reside on? What tribe were they from?"
This is the "good German" argument. "Oh my goodness. We had no idea what was going on behind the barbed wire."
All of Israel knows that these new subdivisions in the West Bank are built on land taken from Palestinians. I mean, how could they not know? The whole world knows. Where do they think all those olive tree stumps came from?
As for the Israeli colonists moving into those new houses they don't so much have such a "need" for the land as they see it as an incredible bargain. When you take someone else's land in circumstances like these, it's not need that impells you–it's greed.
I do not see how one state can possibly work….given the nature of the Israelis it would be an aparthied arrangement.
But then I don't think Israel will last either way….'Unless' they reform themselves re Palstine…'But' they won't…ipso facto…Israel is taking a long walk on a short pier.
@ David F.: "What exasperates me is that the Zionist lobby here and the government in Israel seem to be doing everything in their power to destroy a two state solution. Israel's "friends" are in fact digging her grave, and have been for some time."
Jews are famous for their powers of denial and procrastination. Apparently they believe those characteristics have served them well, although I have yet to see any geopolitical evidence of this. The Israeli government and Zionist-American fanatics covet the West Bank, but don’t want the Palestinians that come with it. So the Israelis blunder on, apparently making up their "plan" as they go along. "God will provide." Unless the Holocaust is a myth, sorry but that's not always the case.
The Israeli government and the Israel lobby need to start getting real about a long-term resolution. If Obama truly is considering a push for a two-state solution, now is the time to jump on it, save face, and get it done. Only Nixon could go to China, and perhaps only Netanyahu can give up the West Bank, just like only Sharon could give up Gaza.
Of course, insane ideologues like Elliot Abrams will be opposed, but that's where the supposedly more rational Democrat Zionists should step in and push it through. We all know that if the majority of the Zionist fifth column got behind a push, the Liebermans and the Abrams couldn’t do squat to stop it.
And it may be now or never. The stars are aligning, but the window won’t stay open forever. American patience is running out, and so is European patience, and so is Islamic patience. The Israelis better start getting real, or sooner or later they’re toast.
Exactly right, we'll shut the fuck up immediately upon implementation of the two-state solution. Otherwise, there's just the "peace process", with no prospect for actual peace, indefinitely, while the Palestinians continue to suffer under Jim Crow and apartheid.
good god – it's Holy Thursday
south Africa is still a sort of crypto-apartheid, really, in that the middle-class whites live in 'gated communities,' with expensive security, and the working-class whites presumably live in defensive racist ghettos and get hypocritically condemned for doing so by everybody else, black and white alike. The 'coloureds' and 'half-castes' still have a pretty rough time too, I gather.
Life will end up like that everywhere, unless we somehow reverse the trend. This is an aspect of racist colonialism that no-one has mentioned in this thread: it creates both cultural and 'security' templates for the rest of the world to emulate.
good comment Rowan. What is to be done with with remnants of colonial disintegration that is not good for those decent "whites" who, not having been original colonialists, are just trying to carry on with their lives. Is it racist for them to even be there ? I do not buy the racist argument myself but that argument is what we have to deal with when talking about post-colonial re-orientation and it's ideologues. Unfortunately, this might be said to apply to the "settlers" in Palestine as well. In their case I have little sympathy perhaps because the issue is so close to home what with the Zio manipulation of US resources as well as constant war-mongering and subversion (w US $) of any other country that the Zios have in their sites.
Rowan, I saw a very powerful South African film a year or two ago called Tsotsi. It was very powerful indeed, and I believe won some awards. The characters were nearly all Blacks, well-off and poor. The main character was poor. I recommend it if you have not seen it. Netflix has it, but don't know another source.
fultronix, I have exactly zero sympathy for Israeli colonists (I do not accept the term "settlers"). If they do not know what their real purpose is living illegally on illegally confiscated land in occupied territory, they certainly should, and if they are OK with it, then they are not worthy of sympathy.
shirin – -
I agree totally – I thought that was clear – "settler" is not my term for them
American regimes have been fully complicit in sustaining what they and Israel call "the peace process" which translates into ever more expansive "facts on the ground"–Bush Jr signed a memo
acknowledging these settlements late in his last term, including the trailer camps meant to be bargaining chips. On the other foot, he never changed official policy against the settlements.
Kafka's books anticipate and depict the process.
A South African-type one-state solution need not mean that the (presumably Palestinian) majority can do anything it wants and that the (presumably Jewish) minority is totally at its mercy. Certain rights of the two groups can be constitutionally guaranteed. Minority power could be institutionalized, perhaps along the lines of Calhoun's concurrent majority. The details of all this could be the subject of negotiation. And it could all be guaranteed through UN resolutions and international treaties with guarantor powers and made enforceable through something like an international military force on scene.
De Klerk tried to negotiate something like this, but in the end he got very little. Partly because he put it off for too long. Partly because of the state-sponsored violence he permitted during the last years of white rule.
aristeides:
"And it's interesting how you only quoted my last two sentences, thus leaving out any mention of South Africa and the Afrikaners (the example I was suggesting should be followed)."
I can go through a long dissertation on the vast differences between Israel and S.A., but it's pointless. There was a strong movement of South African whites for majority rule. There is no movement and no desire for Arab rule in Israel.
Julian, why is that? Did the whites feel less vulnerable imagining life in a country where they'd immediately be a much smaller group than the Jews would be in an instanter one state?
If the Israelis choose to go the way of the pieds noirs, I guess that's their choice (although one that I wish I didn't have to support with my tax dollars).
But I have suggested a way out of that trap.
@ Rowan,
I've heard right-wingers make a variation of your argument, only using Israel as an "under siege" example of what Western whites face at the hands of the dusky hordes instead of S. Africa. But Jews don't proselytize, and so in many ways have always isolated and "ghettoized" themselves. This probably will never change.
S.African colonialists and imperialists were much like Zionist Jews — money oriented, not interested in mixing, considered themselves superior, "racist," etc. Both are examples of “Right-materialist” thinking societies.
So you’re comparing the plight of two groups of extremely difficult peoples with a lot of "attitude" striking into foreign or hostile lands, and projecting their experiences onto what the Christian West can expect.
The Christian West can indeed expect such an experience, but only if it continues to turn its back on its Christian identity, and instead attempt to utilize Big Brother to “unite” us, to police and settle our differences, and to centralize and then re-distribute the material needs of day to day existence — the classic Left-materialist "vision," which also leads to hell on earth, as we saw with the Soviet Union.
The other route is Christian assimilation. The growing number of Christian Koreans in the US, for example, are assimilating quite well, and contributing tremendously.
Anyway, both the left-wingers and the right-wingers are wrong to project the experiences of the Zionist and Colonialist group personality types onto the Christian West. It’s apples and oranges.
Anyway, back to the one-state vs. two state. Because Jews don't proselytize, they could expect the one state solution to ultimately lead to their ghettoization and probable ultimate demise within Israel, too. Which is why it well never happen.
Besides, don't liberals profess to be multi-culturalists, appreciative of cultural variegation? So why are they so obsessed with snuffing Israel? I’ll tell you why: because Israel has become a big problem due to liberal incompetence and indulgence from the West, so now they want to deal with it the same way liberals deal with all other inconveniences: abort.
That’s not very grown up now, is it?
" Israel has become a big problem due to liberal incompetence and indulgence from the West, so now they want to deal with it the same way liberals deal with all other inconveniences: abort."
That's crap Ed.
The problem that Israel has caused in West and in the ME has nothing to do with liberalism. Nor is it an 'inconvenience.'
Christianity has more do with Israel's ability to blackmail the entire planet into supporting it's evil than liberalism ever did…
Richard,
You are attacking a strawman when you state the left's position is "Get the fuck out." Even among the "universalist left" this is a the position of a small minority. Even among the "universalist left" many would accept two states.
My point about process is that there is no process. At least from the West. Only eight years of obfuscation while behind the scenes the status quo is managed.
The broad left has been shut out of negotiations and its input ignored. For a long time Israel-Palestine has been a dispute among nationalists and rightists of every imaginable sort.
Pardon us if we take some offense at being blamed as the obstacle to a solution.
@ stevieb
"Christianity has more do with Israel's ability to blackmail the entire planet into supporting it's evil than liberalism ever did…
Posted by: stevieb"
Please clarify. Do you mean to suggest that Liberalism has stayed ideologically true in principle regarding the I-P conflict? Or that they have not, and wish to abort? That seems Ed's point to me.
On the other hand, Ed's big on his sense of Christian principles being the litmus test, as opposed to diluted Christian principles–are you defending Ed's sense of these as enabling
blackmail by Israel? |
@ stevieb: "Christianity has more do with Israel's ability to blackmail the entire planet into supporting it's evil than liberalism ever did…"
Wrong. Israel's immense, disproportionate power has always been a function of the Jewish-American Zionist fifth column's influence on the US government, and its ability to extract a blank check from American taxpayers, and vetoes for Israel. And the Democratic Party has always provided the Jewish Zionists a prominent place at the table and a safe operating base, in part due to their money, and in part due to liberal tenets of anti-Christianism and post-Christian, government elevating multi-culturalism. The Israel lobby has historically always been the strongest in the Democratic Party. Also, Judeophile leftists are legion, and go all the way back to Communism.
Christian Zionism as a mass movement is a relatively recent phenomenon, and is more along the lines of Christian charlatans saying: "If we can't beat 'em, let's join 'em."
Without the left-liberals midwifing Zionism and indulging and encouraging coddled Jewish American Zionists, Israel would be nowhere near as dangerous a menace as it currently is.
I guess the next question is, which branch or interpretation of Christianity is steveb talking about when he says that branch allows Israel to blackmail the entire planet into supporting Israeli evil?
Ed seems to think it's the end timers. I see why. Do you mean to suggest some other, more comprehensive Christianity form, stevieb? And what is that?
Bruce,
I agree with you about the last 8 years of obfuscation.
Resolution is dependant on the willingness to acknowledge that the other is there, and will be indefinitely, and therefore the best approach is to reconcile, assertively even, but reconcile.
The next four years won't be obfuscation from the US, but likely will be very skillful obfuscation from the Netanyahu administration.
The Netanyahu obfuscation will be couched in a way equating helping USA blacks with economic perks with helping Palestinians in the same way. This approach of the new Israeli regime ironically tacitly admits there is Jim Crow inherent in Israeli policy, where ever its power domain. But simultaneously, it ignores the structural component, as if to say, "Yes, we owe arabs within our power domain more equal economic opportunity, just so long as they never get equal rights, either on a one state or two state solution. It is a smokescreen. No afro-America would ever accept it, so why should arabs constricted within the current jewish domain? Let's hope Obama sees through this, although I personally don't see him acting on it until (he hopes, time is on his side) his second term.
Are all universalists purists?
I don't think so. They realize between the ideal and the real falls the shadow. It would go a long way if Israel would simply say, "We've been caught between a rock and a hard place because as you know, Hitler taught us a lesson. We apologize to the Palestinians, as they have paid the price
we had to exact, through no fault of their own. So, let's compromise, even though we Israelis don't have right on our side because 2 wrongs don't make a right. You Palestinians can have 60% of all of the original mandate, and Jerusalem can be divided with a UN enforcement proviso. Let's get back to that. We will join with you in this recognition of the moral ambiguity, and Germany can
pay for the logistics of all this entails, combined with whatever financial aid provided by the rest of Europe, the Arab states, and places like the USA, Canada, Australia, and the lands formerly governed by the USSR, as well as Russia. They can each preface their contributions by
telling us why they are giving.