What if it ends, not with a bang but a whimper?
The LA Times seems to be the only big American paper dealing with reality: The reality of the collapse of the Obama initiative, of the unending occupation, of the Israel lobby in our lives, of apartheid and ethnic cleansing and an anguished Palestinian people. The best op-ed page in the country, edited by the brave Nick Goldberg, features a very-logical piece by Palestinian lawyer Jonathan Kuttab arguing for the one-state solution as the natural falling-out of everything that has come before. Who will follow the LA Times’s lead and start printing such calm thoughtful ideas in the American press? Excerpt (emphases mine):
unless continued military occupation and all-out apartheid is the desired path, now may be the time for Israelis to start putting in place the kinds of legal and constitutional safeguards that will protect all minorities, now and in the future, in a single democratic state of Israel-Palestine. This is both the right thing and the smart thing to do.
In recent years the idea of a one-state solution has been anathema to Israelis and their supporters worldwide. This has been fueled by the fear of the "demographic threat" posed by the high Palestinian birthrate. Indeed, many Israeli supporters of a two-state solution came to that position out of fear of this demographic threat rather than sympathy with Palestinian national aspirations.
At the root of their fear was the belief that despite Israel’s best efforts to push Palestinians from land and property and to import Jewish settlers in their stead, the Arab population would keep climbing. And that, when the Arabs reached the 51% mark, the state of Israel would collapse, its Jewish character would disappear and its population would dwindle into obscurity.
Yet that scenario is not necessarily the inevitable result of either demography or democracy. Religious and ethnic minorities have successfully thrived in many countries and managed to retain their distinctive culture and identity, and succeeded in being effective and sometimes even dominant influences in those countries. Those who believe in coexistence must begin to seriously think of the legal and constitutional mechanisms needed to safeguard the rights of a Jewish minority in Israel-Palestine.
It is true that the experience of Israel with its Palestinian minority does not offer a comforting prospect. The behavior of the Jewish majority toward the Palestinian citizens of Israel has not been magnanimous or tolerant. Where ethnic cleansing was insufficient, military rule, land confiscation and systemic discrimination have all been employed. The relationship was not helped by the actions of Palestinians outside Israel who resented losing their homeland or by the behavior of some Arab countries, neither of which accepted the imposed Jewish character of Israel.
Yet it is possible, especially during this period when Jews are still the majority in power in Israel, to begin to envision the type of guarantees they may require in the future. Other countries have wrestled with this problem, and while each situation is different, the problem is by no means unprecedented.
Zionism will ultimately need to redefine its goals and aspirations, this time without ignoring or seeking to dispossess the indigenous Palestinian population. Palestinians will also have to deal with this reality, and accept — even enthusiastically endorse — the elements required to make Jews truly feel at peace in the single new state that will be the home of both people.
“Zionism will ultimately need to redefine its goals and aspirations,”
Because Judaism is simply inconceivable without it? I mean, how on earth will we survive if they take away our country?
Heh.
My question is, if you redefine Zionism, doesn’t it effectively cease to be Zionism. I don’t care how many times Witty tries to butter both sides of the bread, you can’t have Zionism without ethnic cleansing because Zionism function on Jewish exclusivity.
“Palestinians will also have to deal with this reality, and accept — even enthusiastically endorse — the elements required to make Jews truly feel at peace in the single new state that will be the home of both people.”
Please show me anywhere where that is the case among those that advocate for a single state, to a level of rational confidence.
That gets to the point of it being a possibility. The question of which is preferable politically, still remains.
You wouldn’t know “rational confidence” if it whacked you on the side of the head and told you to finish eating your greens before you could have dessert, Witty. What’s the point of trying to show it to you when anything Palestinian is completely invisible to you?
You know, like this:
link to mondoweiss.net
That’s what your “two-state solution” is today Witty, and until you care what Zionism does to Palestinians? You’re going to stumbling around with that Jewish supremacy blindfold, copping a feel of the elephant and thinking what you’re grabbing is a snake.
RE: “Please show me anywhere where that is the case among those that advocate for a single state, to a level of rational confidence.”
So, there’s no place in the world where Jewish citizens are not cowering behind their door, waiting for Fear’s knock?
The quality of the LATimes’ editorials is particularly praiseworthy given Sam Zell’s apparent determination to kill the paper.
I’m sure the Israelis will be happy to give up their beautiful country and become dhimmis in a Hamas state. I can just see Israeli woman having the freedom to cover themselves from head to foot. How liberating.
This new “one state” can be modeled after… Egypt? Iran?, Saudi Arabia? Maybe one of you progressives can give me a Muslim state worth copying.
… dhimmis … [static]
… dhimmis … [static]
… dhimmis … [static]
… dhimmis … [static]
The Julian broken record
RE: “I can just see Israeli woman having the freedom to cover themselves from head to foot….” – Julian
FROM YNET NEWS – Rabbi Aviner: Women must not wear pants even when alone, O5/02/08
One of Religious Zionism’s most prominent leaders defines trousers as a ‘self-prohibition,’ says women ‘must dress modestly also when alone and in the dark’
(EXCERPT) Women must not wear pants even when they are home alone, Rabbi Shlomi Aviner has ruled.
Aviner, Beit El’s rabbi and one of Religious Zionism’s most prominent leaders, was asked in a cellular Q&A session published in the “Small World” bulletin, “When a girl goes to relieve herself at night, is she allowed to say the ‘Asher Yatzar’ (‘he who formed’) prayer while wearing a short-sleeved shirt and trousers?”
The rabbi replied that it is permitted to say the prayer in such a case, but added that “in general, a woman must always wear modest clothes even when she is alone and in the dark, because the Holy one blessed be he is everywhere. And yes, trousers are a self-prohibition even when a woman is alone.”…….
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to ynet.co.il
RE: “the Israelis will be happy to give up their beautiful country and become dhimmis…” – Julian
VIDEO / “Ultra-Orthodox ‘Modesty Guard’ suspected of beating Jerusalem woman”, By Haaretz Staff and Channel 10, 09/08/2008
A group of men who police suspect were hired by an ultra-Orthodox gang recently broke into a Jerusalem woman’s home and beat her because they deemed her immodest.
The so-called “Modesty Guard” is suspected of being behind the incident. The gang has been known to unleash extortion, mercenaries, violence and surveillance on less religious Jews they deem sacrilegious. They claim to do it all in the name of God.
The incident may be one of a string of signs of rising ultra-Orthodox violence. Last year, five Haredi Jews assaulted a woman and an Israel Defense Forces soldier because they sat next to one another on a Jerusalem bus.
VIDEO – link to haaretz.com
RE: “Maybe one of you progressives can give me a Muslim state worth copying.” – Julian
FROM Ynet News (Israel): ‘Modesty patrol’ suspected of spilling acid on teenage girl, by Neta Sela, 06/05/08
Religious tensions at boiling point in Beitar Illite as 14-year-old girl attacked by member of town’s ‘modesty guard’
(EXCERPT) A 14-year-old girl from Beitar Illite was taken to the Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Jerusalem after an unknown person spilled acid on her face, legs and stomach, causing light burn wounds. The act has been attributed to a representative of the so-called ‘modesty guard’ in this town where religious and secular residents are increasingly at bitter odds…. …According to the paramedic the focus of the threats has largely been the victim’s 18-year-old sister and some suspect the attacker mistook the younger girl’s identity for that of her older sister’s… …An ultra-Orthodox teen from Beitar Illite who is in contact with the girl’s family spoke with her sister who described the incident. According to the boy, the attacker stopped the girl and first asked her for directions. Then, after confirming her surname, he spilled a bottle of acid on her….
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to ynet.co.il
RE: “Maybe one of you progressives can give me a Muslim state worth copying.” – Julian
HAARETZ: “Government okays ban on sale of alcohol from 11 P.M. to 7 A.M.”, By Nir Hasson, 12/21/09
(EXCERPT) The cabinet decided yesterday to ban the sale of alchohol between 11 P.M. and 7 A.M. The ban, which is part of Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch’s campaign to minimize alcohol consumption, will go into effect pending Knesset approval. Once the ban goes into effect, police officers will be authorized to confiscate any alcoholic drinks in a public place during the hours it cannot be sold….
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to haaretz.com
You’re assuming ethnic domination when the one-state solution in itself means an end to state domination by one ethnic group (against others). You’re missing the beautiful and unique potential of the one-state solution: that it would not create an “Arab state” per your paranoia, but a state Jewish and Palestinian-Arab in character. Officially Palestinian and Jewish, or alternatively, officially universal, a non-ethnic “state of its citizens” as in the U.S.
This is exactly what Kuttab is proposing in the article Phil quotes. Do you have anything to say about that? Or are you only interested in attacking straw men?
robin- I think the vision of a one state solution is beautiful and having read Jonathan Kuttab’s article, I think that it is a good beginning at fleshing out the idea. But it is not attacking straw men to raise the issue of reality when confronting something that is still in the dream stage. And reality indicates that this vision of a one state solution is a long shot.
Fair point. Just understand that, if our idea of the one-state solution is a long shot, it is far less so than some kind of chauvinist Arab or Islamic state necessitating the defeat and subjugation of an equally numerous and much more well-armed Jewish population. That really has no chance of happening, especially given U.S. politics.
With Arab birthrates declining and Jewish rising, demographics should not be the reason for one state solution.
There may be other reasons that I’d be interesting in exploring further, but I wouldn’t count on Jews becoming a minority between the Jordan and the Med.
…BSDNow? Sometimes, you’re so painfully ill-informed, it hurts.
You know what? You just go right on believing that. Go ahead.
i too read the study at the institute for zionist strategies bds, it doesn’t mean i take it at face value. keep in mind propaganda is a valuable zionist strategy in itself.
link to ynetnews.com
Likud MP proposes one-state solution – of sorts
As Lebanon has now endorsed the Hezbollah militia as being at one with Lebanese policy, I think the comparisons that Kuttab makes to Lebanon do not strengthen the case for one state but rather weaken it. And if Julian’s references to dhimmi are repetitive, his challenge to “show me an Arab country that the new Israel-Palestine- one- state should emulate” is a real challenge and cannot be adequately answered.
Julians usage of the word “Dhimmi” is highly dishonest.
Dhimmi’s were a construct of Medieval Abbasid and Ottoman law. The translation of which was a “protected people.” For its time the concept of the Dhimmi was highly progressive in that it gave religious communities their own autonomy and the ability to regulate themselves even down to the legal level. By today’s standards and due to the fact that the “Nation-State” is the predominant form of nationhood, the Dhimmi is no longer appropriate or progressive as the nation state gives everyone in the nation the same common national identity.
Furthermore, the concept of the Dhimmi was abolished quite a few hundred years ago. So to even suggest that Jews could be turned into Dhimmis is incredibly preposterous as most Muslims around the world today are completely unfamiliar with what the word even means. Ironically enough its Islamophobes that seem to have a monopoly on the term.
Finally, it is true that in some Muslim majority countries there are laws and cultural attitudes that are discriminatory towards minority groups. However, in virtually all the Middle Eastern countries where there is a pluralistic community there are virtually no laws that discriminate against minority communities in the same way that current Israeli laws do today. (Yes it is true that Saudi Arabia does not allow for the construction of Churches, but lets be honest here, are there any large permanent groups of Christians in Saudi Arabia?)
Even in Saddams Iraq, you had a Christian as Vice-President even though Christians made up less than 3% of the population. In Syria, the President belongs to a sect of Islam that is considered heretical because it is believed they worship Ali instead of God. In fact many of the people who created Arab Nationalism were in fact Arab Greek Orthodox Christians. Prior to Zionism, Jews held incredibly important positions in Arab culture, economics, military, and as Arab intellectuals, and today a Jew is the Primary Adviser to the King of Morocco.
So in the end, the Middle East and the Levant region that Israel is currently located in has a long history of tolerance and co-existence to draw upon for a future one state which would accommodate both Jews and Palestinians as equals. In fact I believe that the two people can teach each other a lot of things, and can become a beacon of something great not just for the region but for the entire world.
Great response, James Bradley, and accurate.
The status of Jews as simultaneiously protected and blamed and subordinated, is in Koran.
It has continued in some form since the beginning of Islam.
Yeah, Witty, because we’re going to trust your take on what’s in the Qur’an about as much as we’re going to trust what your take on factual information on Israel’s economic relationship to Europe is.
The status of Jews as simultaneiously protected and blamed and subordinated, is in Koran.
Can you show me a single verse in the Qur’an, which states that Jews are in a subordinate position on a legal level Witty?
Here is a link to an online Qur’an with a search function and multiple translations:
link to studyquran.org
The Qur’an recognizes the Jewish tradition as being consistent with the Abrahamic legacy. It also considers Jews to be “ahle-kitab” meaning people of the book. There are verses in the Qur’an that criticize the actions of the Hebrews who followed Moses out of Egypt, particularly the transgressions they committed that were popularized in the blockbuster Hollywood film “The 10 Commandments.”
Also, if you ever take the time to read the Qur’an, you’ll realize that HUGE parts of the book are dedicated to the trials and tribulations of the Hebrews who followed Moses and their descendants. In fact the entire 2nd chapter (the longest chapter in the Qur’an) is virtually dedicated to them.
Finally the Qur’an has only ONE position on those people who chose to follow the Jewish faith.
2:62
“And verily those who believe, and those whom are Christians, and those whom are Jewish, and the Sabiens, and all others who believe in God and do good deeds shall have their reward from their Lord, nor shall they grieve.”
So please spare us the Islamophobe bullshit.
Julian’s usage of the word “dhimmi” is highly ignorant, doubtless taken from Islamophobic sites like Little Green Footballs, whose owner has since expressed repentance.
I would ask anybody interested in the concept of dhimmi’s to pick up a classical book of Islamic law (prefereably written at last 150 years ago to avoid any Western colonialist influences) and read it for yourself.
I would suggest the “Reliance of the Traveller” written by Ibn Naqib Al-Misri and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller as a good start because of its comprehensiveness and its clarity (not to mention it being only one volume, since advanced works of Islamic Law tend to be quite massive).
And better still, compare it to what European Christians were doing to non-Christians 150 years ago.
Are you trying to imply that *gasp* European Christians were not as enlightened as they say they are?
Implying? Hell no. I’ll just come right out and say it. European Christians were racist immoral bastards. That really didn’t change until after the World Wars when Europe got the proverbial glimpse of the abyss.
Julian’s usage of the word “Dhimmi” is not only highly dishonest, but more of the maudlin lack of logic that characterizes so many arguments for Israeli actions. Sort of a ‘let’s throw it at the goyim wall and see if it sticks to these dumb motherfuckers’.
It’s a buzzword meant to insight emotional over rational response, that’s all. It’s comparable to if someone came on to the blog and started throwing anti-Semitic epithets around, or went on about blood libel and the like.
It’s shallow rhetoric that’s merely meant to breed fear and racism against Muslims (because one cannot ignore that targeting the followers of Islam has a nice side effect of singling out a specific set of ethnicities.)
Thank you for bringing that up Chaos.
Its sadly true that more often than not, when the word Muslim is tossed about most people don’t think “Indonesian,” “Albanian,” “Russian,” but rather think “Arab,” “Paki,” and maybe “Black!”
Hence, why the term has effectively been racialized in the common discourse.
What legal safeguards for the citizens of the one state are in question? Would all individual property rights created by Israeli law have to be entrenched?
There would presumably have to be legal safeguards for religious practice. Marc Gopin in his book ‘Holy War, Holy Peace’ suggests a peace among religions. He thinks that if the future of the Al Aqsa/Temple site were agreed then there would be a way for everything else to fall into place. But this seems quite a tall order to me, considering that Jewish religious use of the site would surely have to involve reconstruction of the Temple and a political upheaval within Israel. By the same argument, a legal guarantee of the continuation of Muslim worship would be an in-principle renunciation of aspirations and ideas that many religious Jews, who may be perfectly content not to press those ideas in practice, might regard as definitive of their faith. Western-style human rights won’t take hold easily.