On Monday Hussein Agha and Robert Malley published an op-ed in the Times, "The Two-State Solution Doesn’t Solve Anything," that many people have sent along. The piece was both elliptical and elusive. Its argument was that the essential battle lines in Israel-Palestine are 1948: non-recognition by both sides. It spoke of a "Jewish state" as representing the profound aspirations of most Israelis, but didn’t offer a solution. Steve Walt called the piece "frustratingly ambiguous", and in harping on the question, What kind of Israel do you want, reminds me that Lyndon Johnson asked Levi Eshkol this question more than 40 years ago,as Gershom Gorenberg has reported in his book. Walt:
the most significant lines in the entire essay were the last two, where they write "the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel." Again, they didn’t explain what they meant by this, so it’s hard to know what they were trying to say. The implication, however, is that Israel still has to decide what kind of state it is going to be. Will it be a modern secular democracy with a certain Jewish character, but where non-Jews are fully equal citizens both de jure and de facto? If so, then two states will work, and the two conflicting narratives about the past could gradually cease to matter very much. In the most optimistic scenario, the whole sorry history of the Zionist-Arab conflict might eventually be regarded as a painful historical episode but not part of anyone’s future agenda, much as Alsace-Lorraine eventually ceased to be an issue between France and Germany. Or will Israel continue to pursue the dream of Greater Israel, increasingly fueled by ethno-religious claims and the growing political power of religious extremists? If so, then it will become an apartheid state and will eventually face a Palestinian struggle for democratic rights. Again: what sort of state will it become? Needless to say, these different visions will have far-reaching implications for relations between Israel and its neighbors, the rest of the world, and between Israel and the Jewish diaspora. Again, I wish Agha and Malley had been less coy in raising this important set of issues.
The Zionists who bought Truman (paid for his whistle stop campaign) assured him the state he would recognize would not be a Jewish state. When the prepared recognition letter was given to Truman, before he signed it, he crossed out the words “The Jewish State” and wrote in replacement “The State Of Israel.”
“What kind of ___ do you want?” is democracy.
Isn’t that what politics is about? and should be?
Not if we’re talking about the fundamental nature of a state. Israel hasn’t decided if it’s a liberal democracy, a theocracy or an ethnocracy, which you can tell simply by looking at it’s immigration policy. Israeli’s don’t know what kind of state they want, all they do know, is that they don’t want the Palestinians as part of it.
I’m sorry, but that kind of answer is no longer good enough for people looking for a solution palatable to everyone.
Israel has decided that it is a national state, adopting equal due process under the law as fundamental principles, equivalent to a constitution.
Both you and Israel is confused how to do those two things at the same time. It doesn’t make it a contradiction. It compels thought and self-inquiry to remind of the dual principles simultaneiously.
For it to be a national state, you have to define ‘nation’. That is the question that must be answered by Israel, and only from that answer can it be decided whether both principles are contradictory
Why? Every definition of any identity would be contradictory. Certainly, definitions of democracy contains contradictions.
Functionality, coherence, are relative terms, NOT absolute.
So, Phil, if you think it is your place to comment.
What kind of Israel do you want? (Please, give it some thought, not just a flippant formula.)
You know very well what kind of Israel he wants. One ruled by the Palestinians.
Easy. No ethnocentric or theocratic state. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to the Lord what is the Lord’s.”
Thats what you personally don’t want.
A different question that easily avoids proposal (and the inevitable conflicts inherent in ANY proposal). You know adult decision-making.
More like you don’t want a truly democratic Israel. Equal protection and due process
before the law for ALL citizens. A “color-blind” nation. In other comments here you said you supported this. Now, you beg the issue, saying that’s what I want–of course I agree; you add adult decision-making is what is really needed. I don’t get your drift, Richard Witty. Do you, or do you not want an Israel that is not an ethnocentric or theocratic state? You can’t have it both ways. What’s your adult decision?
I thought that op-ed was fine. Not the most poignant, but OK. If I may interject my two cents: A two-two state solution, even under terms of complete freedom and sovereignty for the Palestinians, wouldn’t solve the basic problems:
1. Right of return could not be achieved, as many Palestinians would have to live within the finally-defined Israeli state.
2. This Israeli state, I can only imagine, would crack down even harder on any Palestinian within it, in order to “gently” (as Hertzl would have it) attempt to have them move to the Palestinian state. Thus, in fact, strengthening the apartheid within Israel.
3. This solution denies the reality of the apartheid state of Israel, and only strengthens the myth that the Jews belong in Israel. Insensitively denying the Palestinian history of being expelled from their land, again. In other words, justice won’t be done.
The article was pointless. If the whole point was an unchanged position since 1948, why did Israel occupy the West Bank in 1967? Was that a Palestinian trick? Did anyone ask Israel to plant over half a million Jews in the West Bank ? Did the Palestinians lure Israel into occupying Gaza so it could lose on the demographics ? The idea that the Palestinians have any control over what Israel is doing to them is ludicrous. The whole framework is wrong.
Agha and Malley are paid up members of the peace process industry. They string the process along. It’s all process and zero peace.
They’ll never acknowledge that the Palestinian state has been strangled by Yesha. Or frame Israel in terms of Jim Crow. Just as the black people of the US finally achieved their civil rights, so too will the Palestinians. Israel is stuck somewhere back in the 1930s.
RE: “Israel is stuck somewhere back in the 1930s”
MY COMMENT: “It’s 1950 and Israel is the Jim Crow south.” (a play on Netanyahu’s “It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany.”)
I think most people who search for something to compare Israel to do so because they are afraid to simply call Israel what it is, which is a state founded on the land of Palestinians, using myth, aggressive WAR and the political treachery of diaspora Jews to achieve the goal of a Jewish state. How is that comparable to the treatment of blacks in any part of the United States during Jim Crow?
I’m unaware of Lester Maddox or George Wallace having ever called for military actions against anyone, and there was never any effort to dispossess blacks. If anyhthing, the segregationists in the South wished to extend the privilege of segregation that the wealthy in every corner of the nation bought to the average person. That’s not exactly nice towards blacks, but it is a far cry from dropping napalm on innocent Palestinians in order to drive them from their land.
Maybe it’s time that all comparisons between Israelis and Americans be stopped, no matter the region, era or intent. It’s time to separate the two nations, or at least be honest about the similarities.
Interesting idea, Todd. Perhaps the question could be asked, with equal urgency, what kind of US do you want? We could spend some time talking about the changes we feel most necessary for our leaders to make, perhaps not just in the US, but of the US and allied nations where there are readers of Mondoweiss.
I know many would like more rapid progress in changing US relations with Israel. The reaction to even the minimal change required as a beginning by President Obama occupies those who support Israel with great energy – an indication perhaps of why the initial steps of diplomacy seem so little, when expectation is so high. It is apparent, though, that even that small movement has been sufficient to capture the attention of, and encourage a response from, the Palestinians and their associates . It is apparent, also, that attention must remain focused on those involved, to serve notice that the Palestinians will not be forgotten, nor left to stand alone.
But many of us who come to Mondoweiss are not inhabitants of Israel or Palestine. There are frequent suggestions here about activities we can undertake personally to increase support for Palestinian freedom, but I am beginning to wonder about changes that would make a difference to our lives within our own countries. As I commented, I am deeply concerned about US foreign policy. I am also concerned about health care, which is an area in which I have greater experience than any other.
It seems to me that there are two factors holding back change that would make a difference for us as individuals. The first is fear. We are told to fear harm because of who we are as nations. We are trained to fear the powerful within our society, and to fear that our laws will be used against us.
But even more important than fear, I think, is that we have such difficulty agreeing with each other. As large as the population of the US is, unified it holds potential power sufficient to demand change from its leaders, if only agreement could be reached regarding what that change should be. Since such great emphasis is placed by heads of state of alliance by the US with other nations, there is also reason to emphasize the power of an active polity that is encompasses more than one nation.
What changes are important to those who participate on and read Mondoweiss? What else is it possible for us, with our diverse views, to agree on?
What purpose do you think would be served by ending comparison between Israel and America, Todd? What similarities do you consider more important?
What kind of U.S. do I want? I could write a book on that. To be honest, Margaret, I have given up on the U.S. and expect it to implode eventually. I would like for there to be real shared interests and cultural connections between the elites and the masses, but that can not exist at this point because that system was overthrown, and the majority population is under constant attack from above in order to cement the overthrow. The United States is not a democratic republic where the masses of actual citizens have a bit of influence, and support of Israel is a glaring example of this fact.
Israel is not an interest of mine, and should not affect my life in any way. Instaed, there are massive machines at work in government and media making sure that Americans think what is required to support Israel, and don’t complain when huge amounts of money are taken from them to support Israel. The subversion of law required to allow AIPAC operatives and Jane Harman to be free is sickening enough! But to constantly draw parallels between the U. S. and Israel is nothing more than a phoney tactic to keep the nations joined at the hip.
At best, Israel is compared to the ideal America that government propagandists support, and at worst, Israel is compared to the South of the Jim Crow era, or our errant little brother that we must band together and fix for his own good. As someone who has spent time in Israel, I reject both notions, and would probably do so anyway, because Israel is a foreign nation that is of no interest to me at all.