I’m a J street supporter, and I’m glad you are trying to keep them honest from the left flank. However, I don’t think this latest post — "J Street seems to avoid the term Palestinian"– is on target. In the J Street statement about Palin, I read "the lives of those actually living the conflict" to refer to Israelis, not Palestinians.
More generally, while J Street’s consensus statements are sometimes too cautious for my personal taste, I understand the value of that consensus, and I have still been positively impressed at the organization’s willingness to use the word "Palestinian" and even the word "Palestine". (As many of us have seen, some people who are comfortable using the word "Palestinian" are not comfortable with the word "Palestine" — as if actually recognizing that there is or should be a legitimate state called "Palestine" goes a step beyond recognizing that there are people with a legitimate national identity that can be called "Palestinian".) You can see this comfort level on the "Issues" section of J Street’s website, where they refer to "Israel-Palestine: The two-state solution" and also have many references to "Palestinians". Perhaps the best statement comes from Victor Kovner, one of the organization’s key funders and community leaders, in his address at J Street’s banquet where he received J Street’s first recognition award. I find these lines of Victor’s particularly inspiring:
But our nation’s commitment is to the State of Israel. And, ladies and gentlemen, to restate the obvious, the ‘settlements’ are not within the State of Israel. The so-called settlers may be citizens of Israel, may pay taxes in Israel, may vote in Israel – and they certainly do vote – but they do not reside in Israel. They live in another land. And the name of that land is Palestine.
This is the clearest possible recognition by one of the most important politically active American Jews, speaking at J Street’s most visible place and time, that there should be — and indeed already is — a land of Palestine whose national identity is legitimate and fully on par with the land of Israel in the vision of a two-state solution.
I take the point, and appreciate your sending in this post, Supporter. I also was moved by Victor Kovner’s speech, and agree that it represents an important step in American Jewish organizational consciousness. The one thing I’d say for my original post is that I sense that J Street has sent some mixed signals, in order to keep its righthand flank on board.
Assuming that a two-state solution is successfully implemented, what is your position, anonymous, with regard to Palestinian-Israelis? Specifically, is it possible to offer full rights of citizenship to Palestinians in a Zionist state? And by Zionist state, I mean ‘Jewish homeland’.
I agree with Phil here.
But, I would say that even Kovner’s statement is problematic.
They live in another land. And the name of that land is Palestine.
In other words, he is defining the land of Palestine as the West Bank and Gaza. Well, that is not really accurate. Or at least it does not acknowledge what Palestinians consider the land of Palestine to be, as that includes all of present Israel.
This is sort of the double-edged sword of most two-state advocacy. “Yes, I support a state for you, but then inside the Green Line you have to drop all of this ‘Palestine’ talk.”
I believe that Kovner is talking about states, not land.
Anyone who supports the existence of the state of Israel, as J Street does, would not consider the land within its boundaries the land of another state, ie Palestine.
I mean, if he’s talking about states, then he’s being factually inaccurate because there is not yet a state of Palestine. But I’m going by his words here, and he specifically refers to “the land” of Palestine.
And it’s an important distinction to recognize: that the proposed state of Palestine would at most be on only 22% of the land of Palestine. This is more than the formation of “natural” nation-states. It’s a land donation from Palestinians, of the majority of their country, to Jews.
Pretending otherwise, as Kovner appears to do, is dishonest but morally convenient for those who believe in imposing the “Jewish state” construct.
I agree with you robin. Why should the Palestinians donate all but 22% of their ancestral land to foreign usurpers? The simple answer is that they have no power to do otherwise, and Israel is backed by the only superpower, the same one who twisted the impoverished arms of a few economically dependent UN member states to pass the demographically unsupportive UN partition disproportionately favoring the colonialist jews over the objection of all the UN member states
local to the region.
Wow! You used the word Palestine. What do you want, a Kadima Kookie Cookie?
J. Street is Kadima to AIPAC’s Likud. No real difference between these Gun Zionist camps.
Especially when one considers that “moderate” Kadima was behind the slaughter in Gaza.
I think the most obvious point is not what any of us think or posture about, the real question is – what does that nation “you love” think? It is almost like the statements do not understand, or try to make the settlers autonomous, from the state of Israel. Lets get over the false dichotomy, Israel supports those settlers, it sends its armed forces in there to protect them, and it has taken the decision to treat them like full citizens taxes and all, etc. So the fantasy world of some independent movement in the OT is just that, a fantasy.
It was not the settlers that just massacred 1400 plus people in Gaza, and it was not merely the settlers that have propped up patently fascist elements in the government. It is not the settlers that imprison thousands of Palestinians. It is not some alter ego government that takes the decision to commit atrocities in the OT, if a decision were taken to arrest those involved in the crimes in the OT they would arrest the same people in Tel Aviv. Lets just cut the “settler” bifurcation out, it does not carry on a life of its own independent of the state of Israel.
Just to set the record straight. There is currently no state called Palestine. There is a geographical area, historically called Palestine. The State of Israel was founded on part of that area, and is considered an occupying power on the remainder. Areas of extremely limited and constantly disrupted autonomy, without sovereignty, have been designated the Palestinian National Authority. Areas “beyond” the Green Line are thus no more or less “Palestine” than areas “within” the Green Line. Pretending that 22% (at best) of Palestine is “Palestine”, without serious attention to the rights of refugees or Palestinian citizens of Israel, is worse than lip service. It perpetuates the basic inequality between Jews and Palestinians that lies at the heart of all two-state “solutions” proposed thus far, taking Jewish sovereignty and privilege in 78% of Palestine as a non-negotiable given.
I thought that “Palestine”, covering roughly half the territory of Palestine was defined by the united nations in 1948.
UNGA Resolution 181 (27 Nov. 1947) refers to the entire area as Palestine, and to the respective states as “Jewish” and “Arab”.
Ah. Thanks for the additional info. Should have looked it up myself.
My pleasure. The date of the resolution should read “29 Nov. 1947″ (not 27).
Ah, thank you Shmuel. This is what I was trying to express in my comment above.
But it is possible and reasonable to speak about a state of Palestine, in anticipation. And in that case, it will be confusing to speak of the “land of Palestine” without intending or seeming to intend the land of the state of Palestine.
Just as “land of Israel” ought to mean the land of the state of Israel – and no more.
Right now, these terms are so politically charged as to be meaningless in any reasonable discussion.
Potsherd,
I’m actually pinning my (admittedly unrealistic) hopes on the fact that the Land of Israel and the Land of Palestine can co-exist, whereas the State of Israel and the State of Palestine can’t. A single democratic state can accommodate the legitimate myths and hopes and dreams of both sides in ways that two political states never will.
Exactly. The Land of Israel and the Land of Palestine are one and the same. The fair solution is not to divide it up (and quite unequally), but to share it within a framework of equality.
This is why I suggest calling it the Land of Canaan.
But I take the opposite point of view. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine, can co-exist, each within their own, mutually recognized borders. Each will have a share (probably unfair) of the Land of Contention.
If we call it the Land of Canaan, won’t that underscore the original biblical inhabitants rights, and in an anti-Joshua narrative straight from the Jewish-written Torah? Talk about undermining the claim of Israel’s right to exist, this would really do the job, no? OTH, it sure would put the kabosh on Zionism at its own narrated legitimacy source. That would be helpful. Looks like the
Palestinians paid for Egypt’s activities, and now they’ve been paying for Germany’s activities. Talk about a 2-time loser! No wonder Dick Witty puts
Justice in quotes. Which raises the question, why isn’t he a Hamas supporter?
Well, that narrative is pure fiction, according to archeology. Which may indeed delegitimatize the religious roots of Zionism, but then I would have all religion delegitimized.
On the other hand, renouncing the biblical narrative renounces the history of genocide that it relates. The fact that the Zionists actually take pride in the idea that they invaded the land of another people and slaughtered them to the last infant doesn’t speak well for the morality of their claims. If anything, this narrative delegitimatizes any moral claim they have to the land.
But in fact, the early Hebrews were a tribe of Canaanites, like all the other Canaanites, and as such, were indigenous occupants of the land. Accepting this narrative actually legitimatizes their claim to it – they are the descendants of Canaanites in the land of Canaan.
The first step to overcoming Zionism is admitting you have a Palestine.
Great! Now we have Jewish groups playing universalist at home, and supporting TWO ethnic-based states abroad.
Okay, maybe I’m being unfair. Does J-Street take a position on America’s national identity?
That would be… an amusing exercise, certainly. Heh.
An early experiment on ethnic exclusivity in the USA
I’M A REAL AMERICAN!
former coMMenter writes that the first step to overcoming Zionism is admitting you have a Palestine.
Shlomo Sand in his NYU talk said that the Zionists before 1948 referred to the land they were in as “Palestina.” Here’s his October 2009 talk: link to z.pe
All of you might be interested in Sand’s reply to Simon Schama’s critical review of his book from last Saturday’s FT. The FT wouldn’t let Sand reply with more than one short paragraph, so he said screw you, and put it up on his book site. The topic of Palestine comes up. Here: link to z.pe
Also known as “Palestina-Eretz-Yisrael” (or “Palestina-A”Y” for short), which brings me back to my comment above: Palestine and Eretz Yisrael can co-exist in the same territory, with neither being diminished in any way. Separate states will necessarily leave both sides poorer and less satisfied.
It’s a novel concept that deserves some merit, actually. On both a rational and emotional level it still strikes me as an unfair solution — but then, how do you pay the Palestinians back for what they have suffered without inflicting a lot of suffering in reverse? And from what I’ve seen and heard, in spite of it all, most Palestinians don’t want that.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re suggesting, Shmuel. Are we talking two seperate intertwined states, with jurisdiction established by citizenship? You’d still need some sort of “federal” authority to handle anything that takes place between two such states. Or something more akin to the political system that ultimately took shape in Lebanon?
Not at all, Chaos. Neither the Land of Palestine nor the Land of Israel need be political entities. A common political framework with equal citizenship and maximum cooperation, with each side (and in fact each individual) free to find whatever religious, spiritual, historical, mythological, emotional meaning it may like. The beauty is that we can share the same political status and civil rights, and even the same physical space, but one of us may see Al Quds, another Yerushalayim, another a mixture of the two, and another something else entirely.
Shmuel, is there any operating structural model for what you envision? Past or present? It appears Chaos suggest two, a confederacy and Lebanon; yet you say “not at all.” Please clarify. Thanks. And what might be the name of this presumably
UN recognized entity?
Citizen,
I’m talking about a single, democratic state in which all citizens share equal rights. There are certainly enough examples of those around the world – many of them with two or more dominant cultures or religions. There is nothing unusual in this approach. It is classic a classic one-state – one-man-one-vote concept.
There are however, some very strong national feelings on both sides here, which cannot be ignored, and which are generally seen as mutually exclusive. What I am suggesting is a de-politicisation of Jewish and Palestinian nationalism. In theory, this should not be too difficult, since neither Jewish nor Palestinian nationalism were political in any real sense, until the twentieth century. In practice however, it would involves some very significant mindset changes.
As for names, I think Palestina or Palestina-A”Y (short for Palestina-Eretz-Yisrael) has nice ring to it, but I’m not fussy.
What are the examples you mention, Shmuel? Most examples of nations sharing dominant cultures and religions involve peoples who have historic, genetic or ethnic ties, but are divided along religious or cultural lines. I don’t see Israelis and Palestinians morphing into the Swiss.
I know it is a dream of elites and a certain type of intellectual, but I don’t believe that many people would willingly submit to mixing cultures, languages, territory or anything else with an obviously foreign and outside group.
Mixture within a physical territorial unit (all of Palestine, at this point) is a fact, as are the separate cultural, religious and linguistic groups. It is not inconceivable that cooperation on equal footing could be achieved, without compromising separate identities. Cultural autonomy of some kind would be an obvious step. By the way, Jews and Palestinians do, in fact, have quite a lot in common (not least a deep connection to the same land – all of it).
The really hard part is the “control thing”, which is the basis of Zionism and some forms of Palestinian nationalism. I gave Jerusalem as an example (the hardest perhaps, but the most symbolic). Is political control really a prerequisite for feeling and/or expressing one’s cultural, religious or historical ties to the city? The same idea can be extended to the country as a whole.
Not nearly as many Israelis share the deep connection to the land as do Palestinians, I’d wager, but you are probably right that there are a significant number of sincere Israelis
I suspect that any sort of cooperative arrangement that puts the Palestinians on equal footing will trigger “white flight” from those who do not. Which, incidentally, isn’t something I consider a bad thing — white flight did a lot of harm to American cities, perhaps, but in the case of Israel it will not leave sincere Israelis like the ones you describe (not to mention you yourself) far less dilute.
The only question of course, is getting there.
Correct analysis, Chaos. Although, if the experiment succeeds, I’m guessing some of the Jewish flight would be reversed. There is also a Palestinian diaspora with a tremendous amount to contribute to a new “Palestine-Palestina”. Just a curiosity, but one example of the Jewish connection to Palestine – my maternal great-grandfather’s surname was Palestine. His first name was Shmuel.
What are the examples you are basing your future state on?
I’m not sure that precise models are necessary, but the closest I can think of is a modernised, self-ruled version of Mandatory Palestine or even Ottoman Palestine. Lessons can be drawn from all multiethnic/cultural/religious/linguistic states: Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Ukraine, etc. I/P is unique in many ways, and requires unique solutions. One such solution is the one I have suggested: allowing the Land of Israel and the Land of Palestine to co-exist in the same undivided territory (because they do and will anyway in the respective popular imaginations), while creating a viable, non-descriminatory framework that will be neither and both.