A scene from the protest in Sheikh Jarrah (Photo: Yotam Ronen/ Activestills.org)
Last night’s huge demonstration against the Israeli government’s program of Judaizing East Jerusalem, which took place at Sheikh Jarrah, looks to me like it could become one of those historic symbols that mark a fundamental turning point. It’s not the first such moment for Israel/Palestine, by any means, but it’s big and striking and (I hope) will take its place in the history of the struggle. For other contexts, think Stonewall. Think Rosa Parks. Think Selma. Think Little Rock. Think the great march on Washington.
I have tried in recent months to convey my own sense of how the discourse about Israel/Palestine has been changing and also about how thrilling it has been to see it getting play internationally, at last. Most especially, what has stood out has been the voices of Palestinians, people like Omar Barghouti but also many others, who have seized the struggle against occupation and apartheid and redefined it. And in fact it’s been in the air for years now: BDS, the weekly demonstrations against the Wall at Bil’in and then at Na’lin. And now, in response to yet more grotesque Israeli policies to Judaize East Jerusalem, in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan. The participants have been Palestinians demanding an end to occupation and oppression and supporters from the Israeli Jewish and international communities–including the Anarchists against the Wall, those defined as "crazies" by the establishment. Crazies they are not. And they have never misunderstood that it is a Palestinian struggle to which they lend their voices and bodies.
For decades Palestinian voices in the United States, while present, have been ignored.
The discourse in Washington certainly was set for the US Government by the most right-wing pro-Israel Jewish groups (and in the Bush years by evangelical Christians as well). Insofar as the right-wing, pro-settlement narrative was challenged, new Jewish groups stood in the forefront, most notably, J Street in the past two years. But it’s still been a Jewish story. Not a single speaker at the J Street convention opened his/her remarks without the requisite profession of love for Israel–to the point, I thought, of being embarrassing. Further, J Street’s mandate–to achieve a "two-state solution" by US-led diplomacy–has been overtaken by the Israeli-manufactured realities on the ground: first, the Israelis have colonized Palestine to the point where a Palestinian state could exist only in the virtual world of a computer game, and they produce the public rhetoric to match what they’ve done; and second, Barack Obama has not defined an agenda to achieve such a goal and, indeed, has capitulated to the Israeli program. So those who talk diplomacy are living in a fantasy world. I’m sorry to say. I used to believe in two states for two peoples, but I don’t see it as a possibility anymore. And more and more Palestinians don’t either–for good reason.
That’s because two states as an option is dead–and that’s because the Jewish nationalist regimes in Israel (all of them), supported by a massive consensus of Israeli Jews, killed it, actually long ago. Realization, however, has taken its time catching up with reality.
Back to last night at Sheikh Jarrah. There’s a great account on from the Web site Coteret (which offers translations of a lot of valuable material otherwise available only in Hebrew). The Magnes Zionist also offers some terrific material.
Relatedly, I listened the other day to a fascinating conversation on Democracy Now, about the BDS (Boycott Divest Sanctions) movement, with Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of BDS, and Rabbi Arthur Waskow, founder of the Shalom Center and a civil rights activist and left-wing activist regarding Israel, who opposes BDS. Barghouti, whom I’ve heard many times before, is very impressive; he tells a Palestinian story. Waskow came across as a sad apologist who is very well intentioned but profoundly out of touch. I was again taken with how significant it is at last to have Palestinians seizing agency, telling their story as they want to tell it, from the perspective of those who are the victims of Israeli oppression.
That other story told by hand-wringing Jews worried about the fate of Little Israel and therefore of "trying to save Israel from itself" is still out there, of course, but the big story belongs to the Palestinians. How they tell it–how effectively–and how they bring in allies is another question. But the new discourse is about how they advance their resistance to the occupation and the injustice. The path will be strewn with obstacles for sure, but it’s got to be taken. Making mistakes doesn’t mean that the effort is not worthwhile and it surely doesn’t mean that it will fail. The Barghouti/Waskow conversation gets to the heart of the matter.
As Palestinian activists who are rightly fed up bring fresh ideas and leadership to the matter, many Jews, even sympathetic ones, are bewildered, angry even. It is my hope that that small kernel of the Jewish and Israeli populations that truly abhors the obscenities carried out in its name will take a deep breath and think through what’s happening. We’re at a crossroads. The demonstration at Sheikh Jarrah last night was remarkable for its size (not that settlers can’t bring out the numbers). It should not be compared with the much larger annual Rabin Square demonstrations marking the anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin: those are organized by the establishment for the "left wing" of the consensus (also establishment): when the speakers are Peres or Barak (or both), you know it’s a self-congratulatory event about nothing. But Sheikh Jarrah was huge, and the spread of demonstrations in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem represents the future.
A friend and her family attended last night. Following (with her permission) are her reflections as I received them this morning. She captures exactly what I’ve been talking about; indeed, she left feeling "disheartened":
We were at the demonstration last night in Sheikh Jarrah (with the girls and [a bunch of friends]). Despite the "large" numbers (if the police say 5,000 it can’t be less than that) and the encouraging showing from the "consensual" Zionist Left, I was nonetheless left disheartened. There is such a disconnect between the Palestinian rhetoric and the Israeli rhetoric, even at such a gathering. Israeli Jews don’t want to hear that Palestinians are angry, they don’t want to be told (by one Palestinian speaker who, admittedly, could have been more sensitive to his audience — only for the sake of rhetorical effectiveness) that the Israeli flag (waved by some in the crowd — with the word "Shalom" in place of the star of David) for him could only be a sign of oppression, that the Judaization of Palestine and the struggle against it is happening all over — including in Jaffa, Lod, Ramle, in the Negev, and — coming soon… — Umm al Fahm.
I was talking with [one of my friends] afterwards about just this question (she of course lives and breathes these issues since she is working at Bimkom–Planners for Planning Rights), and two things came up. The first thing she said was "I must have been sleeping — because I woke up one day and realized that no one on the Palestinian side talks about the two-state solution anymore." This is from firsthand conversations she’s had in the framework of her job.
The second thing we discussed was the question of rhetoric — i.e., should this same Palestinian speaker have been more aware of the sensitivities of his Israeli/Zionist audience? I said that although I would, to some degree, feel better were the rhetoric at such events and in general all about coexistence and working together, this is truly not the issue most pressing on Palestinians. Secondly, I said, let’s take a case in point of another speech, a few minutes earlier, by Prof. Dafna Golan (introduced as "one of the regular activists in the Sheikh Jarrah struggle, along with her children). Now, Prof. Golan’s speech was very irritating, in that she spoke entirely (albeit saying her lines in Hebrew, English and Arabic) about how proud she was of her own children and of the many young [Israeli] people who have come out week after week and led this struggle in Sheikh Jarrah. I said that her speech was equally dismissive of and insulting to a Palestinian listener. Although the question of the growth, strength or even existence of a "left" or of "civil disobedience" in Jewish-Israeli society is a relevant intra-Israeli question, it completely misses the point of the untenable daily reality of the Palestinians themselves.
p.s. despite the "parve" quality of the demonstration, the haredi gawkers and insulters standing outside the protected area (just as in the gay pride parade in jerusalem, such gatherings cannot take place in the middle of the street) were frightening indeed. One of them apparently said to [a friend], "I wish you a stroke and brain cancer!"
Talk to you later,
You hear the dissonance. I hope that in the coming period, this discussion will continue, openly and thoughtfully, because the issues are not going away. Jews of good will need to understand that Jews no longer get to decide for Palestinians. They’ll also need to come to terms with the fact that it is Israelis who have obliterated any possibility of two states.
The fact of a new resistance to the occupation and of how it plays out will be, I think, the most important piece of the process going forward. It will not be Obama or Mitchell or indirect talks or direct talks or four months or punishing those who don’t cooperate; the American government has written itself out of the script.
The narrative needs more Palestinian voices, and it needs them allowed into the mainstream channels.
Thanks for the description and the two perspectives. I think the two sides of what is going on – or isn’t going on – in the Israeli left today are reflected in articles by Avraham Burgand Gideon Levy, in today’s Haaretz. It’s ’67 vs. ’48 (as Yehouda Shenhav also put it). Burg is encouraged by the protests at Sheikh Jarrah, Levy does not even consider them worth mentioning. Note however, that even Gideon Levy stops short of questioning Zionism directly, writing that it is “old fashioned” and that it has “run its course” – even as he points to 1948 as the root of the problem.
Regarding the protests themselves, it is true that there is a “disconnect” between Jewish and Palestinian protesters – one that has been going on for as long as I can remember. I was actually a little shocked the first time I noticed it: I had thought the demo was about Lebanon, but it suddenly turned into a memorial rally for the Kafr Kassem massacre, just as the language of the speakers switched from Hebrew to Arabic. What I find somewhat encouraging today (Sheikh Jarrah, but perhaps more so at the time of the Gaza massacre) is that there are now more Israeli Jews on the Palestinian side of the disconnect than ever before, and they are there because they have weighed both sides and made a conscious, principled choice about where they would rather stand.
A comparison with the flag situation – suppose during the Civil Rights movement a sympathizer had come to a rally with a Confederate battle flag, with “freedom” written over it. How would the black crowd have likely reacted? Would the sympathizer have been able to understand why they were offended?
you’d think the Hamas and Fatah leadership would at least agree that they can unilaterally declare a Palestinian state along the ’67 or ’48 lines and start creating facts on the ground like recognition from other states … power isn’t given, it is taken
It’s easier said than done.
Could you explain in detail how they could go about achieving what you propose, when Israel is the stronger party, one that can declare any movement by any Palestinian as “terrorist activity” and quash it with military might?
on the PR level a simple press-release will suffice … in terms of formal declaration they need merely let their people know this is coming, issue a map and declare certain areas “occupied by a foreign power” and begin making entreaties to the UN for recognition and for help as a nation does in settling occupation issues, and seek out other countries to recognize their sovereignty … if a unified Palestinian leadership can at least come up with a name (Palestine I assume), borders, a map, a list of demands, a declaration of sovereign rights, and begin acting like a nation under siege rather than a subject people and use strict non-violence as a reaction to israel’s no-doubt-to-be-unleashed-horrific-carnage in response to the declaration then we get an India vs. Britain situation where the world sees the hideous crimes israel unleashes upon a subjugated people which no amount of spin and propaganda can manipulate and mask and distort … sympathy grows for the Palestinian nation and “facts on the ground” accumulate to broad recognition of Palestine and then the international work shifts to getting israel to stop behaving like a monster and retreat to the long-established borders of ’67 and/or an amalgam with ’48
I think you are vastly simplifying the issue.
Currently, all of Palestinian territory is under the subjugation of a brutal military regime. It is hard enough for Palestinians to live on with their daily lives due to the settlement movement and the occupation, or even to protest the dispossession of their own homes, lands, farms; let alone to carry on a national revolution against a power that is firmly backed by Western leadership in deed and political impunity.
In any case, your proposition has a lot of merit, but the outcome of that is likely why Israel decisively separated the West Bank and Gaza, in order to divide and rule and preemptively stop any such movement in its tracks.
The US would simply veto any resolution brought to the UN, even if Europe were to support it. Such a move is likely to drive the right wing nut jobs in Israel to start a war or something equally psychotic.
Sill, O tend to agree that the Palestinians have nothkmg to lose by making such a decleration. After all, that’s what Ben Gurion did in the face of opposition in 1948. Israel’s opposition to it could really backfire on them.
Radii,
Palestine has already declared independence on 15th of November 1988. It has full diplomatic relationships with Ambassadors in over 100 countries. It has special quasi official status in UN. Its full recognition will never happen without USA’s approval.
The Israelis would take that as a declaration of war. Don’t forget, palestinians have two goals they must puruse. One is to be free, and the other is to live through this.
Jews of good will need to understand that Jews no longer get to decide for Palestinians.
Jews of good will need to understand that this isn’t about religion, but about a colonizing power that has run its course and needs to cease to be viewed as a permanent solution for the coming decades or centuries.
Many Israelis, especially on the so-called left, seem unable to grasp that basic concept. They still believe that the state of Israel from its very inception was a morally sound and just enterprise. They still see this impasse as one between two equal parties. But, the fact is, it isn’t. It was never symmetric. It is between a colonizer and an oppressed. The vast majority of Israel still hold on to the racist notion that the Palestinians are merely an oppressed minority, without recognizing the Palestinians’ historical ownership of the land. It’s as if the Israeli left is doing the Palestinians a favor.
That acknowledgment would be the first step in moving forward. It requires a paradigm shift in thinking.
The second step would require the acknowledgment of the events of 1948 as delineated by professor Shenhav numerous times.
“Many Israelis, especially on the so-called left, seem unable to grasp that basic concept. They still believe that the state of Israel from its very inception was a morally sound and just enterprise.”
Well, that is hardly surprising. It means that for Israeli leftists, concern for human rights doesn’t trump their own support of Israeli nationalism. But at least they are acknowledging that the state is committing crimes, which is more than can be said for the rest of the population which lives in complete denial or utter indifference to the actions of their state.
But the acceptance of the moral illegitimacy of Israel’s inception, it’s not something you can realistically expect of them to acknowledge. It’s not so much that the denial of that historical narrative means that they have to avoid accepting blame for their actions, but that it’s only consequence can be a one-state solution, and unless the Israelis are ready to promote the idea of a secular, human rights-abiding state (or the outright abandonment of zionism), that fact will continue to be suppressed.
And of course, even as of now Israel and its Western supporters are more than happy to along with the charade of a secular, shining beacon of light in the Middle East that is Israel’s “secular democracy” – so it’s not like there is any push on the Israelis to conform their worldview with facts relegated to the obscurity of scholarly journals and historians.
I had the oppossite impression of the Barghouti/Waskow discussion. I thought that Barghouti was out of touch, ideological, and that Waskow spoke to practicalities and clearly.
On Sheikh Jarrah. I think you are accurate in describing it as a turning point. For example, Bradley Burston (hated here for his condemnation of excessive and demonizing dissent), stated his respect and support for those that supported the rights of East Jerusalem Palestinians. Others have similarly, liberal individuals that have posted here.
I think you are innaccurate in describing the message to solidarity of “we are with you no matter what methods or attitudes you adopt”.
To me that would represent an abdication of my moral responsibility, and therefore political effectiveness in a civil world.
The other irony that I see in your comments, is if you truly desire that East Jerusalem remain an Arab/Palestinian community. In a single-state, there is NO legal basis for ethnically defined exclusion. In the US, that takes the form of prohibiting discrimmination even by sellers of property. (The only exception is to a related party.) In that setting, money talks, NOT politics.
There is no protection of Palestinian majority in the West Bank in a single state. There is in a two-state solution.
It seems that no discussion, no debate, no ridicule, no facts, no persuasion, nor mockery are ever going to change you and your views.
Perhaps the best thing you could ever do for yourself is to simply get on a flight to Israel, get in touch with the good folks at Shovrim Shtika, for example, and ask if they can take you along for a tour of the West Bank.
If you come back, still holding on to your old fashioned, out-of-touch views, then let us know, we’ll all chip in for a good psychiatrist with a private practice of his/her own who can dedicate more than 40 hours a week for you.
Until then, I’m done with you. You’re just a stubborn old man, like the white supremacists of the old south who still can’t comprehend how a n**** has made into the oval office.
Again, out of touch, old fashioned views, like self-governance.
You confuse criticism of vague and punitive BDS with acceptance of specific Israeli policies.
“Again, out of touch, old fashioned views, like self-governance.”
Whenever your hypocrisy and biggotry is called out, tour reflexive response is to parrot the term “self governance” whole simulteneously endorsing policies that deny it.
“You confuse criticism of vague and punitive BDS with acceptance of specific Israeli policies.”
Was the boycott of South Africa too vague and punitive for tastes Witty!
“vague”? what on earth is “vague” about BDS? it’s utterly clear: impose non-violent pressure on israel in the form of BD&S until they respect the basic rights of all palestinians, in israel, in WB&G, and outside. it couldn’t be clearer or more principled. if you are opposed to those rights being respected, that’s unfortunate if unsurprising. but to call BDS vague gives the impression that you think you’re arguing with a pack of woolly-headed fools who can’t formulate, much less articulate, a clear argument. get real.
You’re talking to Witty. He thinks international law is also “vague.” And of course, so is ethnic cleansing where it doesn’t involve Jews as the victims.
It’s also vague when Israel get caught I’m the act starting wars, or rnthnically cleansing Palestine, or stealing land.
I believe that the article has confused Omar Barghouti with Mustafa Barghouti. The two are distant relatives.
Sorry, I got it wrong. It WAS Omar and not Mustafa Barghouti.
A few points-
The confederate flag was designed as a result of the secession from the Union and could only represent one attitude: separation from the United States and its laws (and ideals). The Israeli flag predated the establishment of the state and represented Zionism in its various manifestations, including those who saw statehood as an impossibility given the presence of indigenous Palestinian Arabs. The Israeli flag with the word “peace” today stands for the two state solution. The rejection of the Israeli flag with the word “peace” implies the rejection of a two state solution.
The two state solution is not impossible. “If you will it, it is no legend.” The obstacles are there, but they are not mountains that cannot be moved.
The Palestinian masses never really liked the two state solution. They saw it as a necessary evil. Now that they sense the world on their side and time on their side, they no longer see it as necessary and so they (the masses) have tossed it aside.
Obama’s Cairo speech encouraged a degree of optimism that he was unable to fulfill and therefore was a mistake, particularly with the demand for a settlement freeze, which he was not able to fulfill either. The chances of a Palestinian- Israeli agreement/peace treaty of two states, while Netanyahu is in office are minimal. The other problem is the division between Fatah and Hamas. Certainly Israeli attempts to marginalize Hamas play a role in this. But the division is not only Israel’s fault.
I attended the rally in Sheikh Jarrah. The neighborhood happens to be ten minutes walk from where my parents live, but it is somewhere that I never ventured until last night. Because Jerusalem’s buses only run an hour after the end of the Sabbath I arrived after the rally had already begun, but from the descriptions I didn’t miss much.
I attended for two reasons: I oppose the eviction of the families from their homes. This is different than opposing the Judaization of Jerusalem. Moving Jewish families into Arab neighborhoods on the other side of the green line can be opposed on the grounds of provocation, but is certainly less troublesome than kicking families out of their homes. Since these families cannot reclaim homes that they lost in 48, evicting them because of pre 48 ownership is unfair. So I went to the rally to oppose the evictions.
I also went to the rally to see if I fit in. Although there was a small contingent of leftist Meretz types, which Magnes Zionist describes as entirely old, who flew the Israeli flags that the speaker from Jaffa condemned, I did not find that I felt kinship with the Israelis there, who were mostly one staters. So I did not fit in. A nighttime rally in a strange neighborhood surrounded by red flags and Palestinian flags and on stage a group of rappers extolling “Falastin!” is not conducive to conversation, dialogue or even argument. So I left without engaging. Maybe I will find my way in the future to a Friday afternoon demonstration when it will be warmer with better lighting.
On my way out of the rally I passed the right wing Jewish demonstrators. They did not inspire kinship either and also did not evoke in me any will to engage in debate.
Instead of leaving the rally and heading towards the Jewish part of town immediately, I followed Saladin Street towards the Damascus Gate, a path with which I am familiar because of its proximity to my parents’ abode. The streets were rather empty and I engaged in my usual pastime while passing through Arab neighborhoods: attempting to read the Arabic signs with my fledgling knowledge of Arabic. (I always get a kick that they spell Pizza House- Bizza House and Pilgrim Taxi- Bilgrim Taxi.)
I did not feel optimistic based on the rally. Peace was still far away and certainly no closer because the Palestinians reject the presence of the Zionist flag in their midst. The essence of a coalition is the ability to tolerate those who share one goal despite their divergence on other goals. The inability of the speaker from Jaffa to deny his own urge to condemn part of the coalition indicated that ideological purity outweighed coalition building in his scheme of things. This is a bad sign not a good sign.
WJ – you are incorrect about the flag. To the people who designed it a century and a half ago, the meaning might have been succession, but it has long since taken on strong racial connotations. To the people to display it now, one of the strongest meanings is “white power,” white suppressing blacks. To the black Americans, it means only that.
When that flag is brought into a racial confrontation, it has only one meaning now.
potsherd- I was not meaning to whitewash (sorry) the racism of the confederate flag, I was attempting to explain that the Israeli/Zionist flag can have more than one meaning.
But to the Palestinians, it has only one meaning, no matter what it might mean to Israelis.
Israelis will not will the goodwill of Palestinians by the display of this flag, even modified.
What will the flag of the one state look like- the Palestinian flag? Both flags together? Some neutral background and both flags together in the right hand corner? If the Palestinians are proposing a one state solution they better have something to offer in terms of symbolism and in terms of governance.
Inspiring that you went and saw with your own eyes.
And, sad that you didn’t see the hope of reconciliation, but only militancy.
When I was last in Israel, I was urged not to walk Arab neighborhoods at night. I could not tell if that was an exageration or description. You feel comfortable there?
In the old city I get scared in the Muslim or even the Christian quarter. But those are mazelike warrenlike alleyways, where it’s impossible to retrace your steps and quite easy to get lost. Usually I don’t walk through this specific neighborhood of Saladin Street except when it’s light out and I usually avoid it if there has been tension lately in the news. (There was stone throwing at the Temple Mount last Friday and tension because of the Heritage trail decision by Netanyahu, so I normally would avoid it.)
The place where the rally was held is about three city blocks from the main thoroughfare (Bar Lev street aka Highway 1) which separates West from East Jerusalem in that area of North Jerusalem. Also there were lots of soldiers and police around when I entered. When I exited the streets were almost empty, it was around 50 degrees and windy, not conditions that inspire troublemakers to hang out in the streets. But normally I would avoid it after dark.
Gee, yeah, the Holy City is looking so much better with militant Ashkenazi Jews and dilettante Russian Jews knocking down centuries old (or older) architecture to make way for all that Bauhaus “flying brick” crap.
WJ: What will the flag of the one state look like
As with every other aspect of a solution in I/P, it doesn’t really matter, as long as the principle of equality is maintained. In a single state, it would not be difficult to find a symbol (olive tree?) or colour combination (red, green, black, white and blue?) capable of representing all of the people of I/P.
Occupation aside, the Israeli flag and anthem are symbols of the exclusion of Palestinian citizens of Israel – an issue that has been raised a number of times by Palestinian intellectuals and political leaders in Israel. I don’t recall any specific suggestions regarding the flag, but I believe it was MK Muhamad Barakeh who suggested replacing Hatikvah with Shaul Tchernichowsky’s beautiful humanistic poem, (for which Tuvia Shlonsky composed an equally beautiful melody): Sahki Sahki (I Believe).
Shmuel- Not that I support a one state movement, but currently the flag proposed by the one state movement seems to be the Palestinian flag, which plays into the concept that the one state movement wishes to erase Israel, period. If the one state movement indeed had a flag (your proposals seem fine to me) other than the Palestinian flag, they might be taken more seriously as a peace movement rather than as an erase Israel movement.
Israel’s problems regarding their/our current flag and national anthem are hereby acknowledged by me. I am not wedded to either (not even engaged).
The current anthem says: Lih’yot am chofshi- to be a free “people”, in my interpretation means not oppressing, for oppressing limits the oppressor’s freedom as well. The path to freedom does not appear easy or quick from this angle to me.
WJ,
I think you confuse the Palestinian flag (illegal in Israel and even the OT until only a few years ago) as a symbol of all aspects of the Palestinian struggle – with a symbol of a desired final outcome. I have been involved with the one-state movement for years, and never have I seen any intimation that one state would fly the Palestinian flag. I suspect that you misunderstand the movement altogether, and project that misunderstanding onto the meaning of the Palestinian flag flown at protests.
There are certainly Palestinians who dream of turning the clock back, the Jews going back where they came from, and the establishment of a glorious Palestinian nation from the river to the sea. These are Palestinian nationalists (and sometimes Pan-Arabists), not one staters. They also fly the Palestinian flag, but mean something quite different by it. I doubt very much that these are the people you saw at Sheikh Jarrah.
By the way, Palestinian flags often appear at left-wing demonstrations in Tel-Aviv, where they generally indicate support for two states.
Shmuel,
I think you are taking my critique of the Palestinian flag too literally. While I don’t think coming up with a new flag to represent the one state solution would dissolve all fears and opposition from left wing (sincere two state) Zionists, I do think that symbols matter and if a symbol of coexistence existed (such as a flag representing both Israelis and Palestinians) that this would exhibit that thought has gone into it from the one staters and prompt thought if not full fledged consideration from the two staters.
The same can be said for an anthem: Does the one state movement have a national anthem other than “Biladi”?
(Certainly while Netanyahu and Lieberman are doing their best to make peace a distant prospect, little acts of symbolism might seem trivial, but a flag and an anthem might prove useful.)
Although the two staters widely are considered to be from the “us over here and them over there” school of thought, there are two staters who see it as a means towards an end: first two states and then a federation. I am not that optimistic, but living in Jerusalem makes the “us over here and them over there” a little bit silly when the city is almost half Arab and the city’s symbol: the golden dome of the Dome of the Rock is Muslim.
I think the primary reference for single “state” should not be around the issue of state, but around the issue of society.
The promise of a vibrant single society seems most likely ecologically, in loving the land. Those that love the land in fact, have an ecological right to live there, and those that despoil the land don’t. It doesn’t matter what religion or ethnicity.
In a high population world, the only way to live lightly on the land is by plan, by intentional design. And, that is a big shift for those that advocate for prior traditional ways of life. They are sustainable only with low populations, which is NOT the reality now.
The BDS movement makes that social integration less likely, for the distrust engendered by antagonistic politics, and for the forced isolation of the two communities. Its bad enough that the governments’ policies engender that separation. It needs to be multiplied by activists?
“I think the primary reference for single “state” should not be around the issue of state, but around the issue of society.”
In other words, because a single state cannot be both Jewish and Democratic (as Barak has warned), you want to avoid discussing the fact that Israel would innevitably become apartheid right Witty?
“The promise of a vibrant single society seems most likely ecologically, in loving the land.”
Loving the land, but killing the people right Witty?
“”Those that love the land in fact, have an ecological right to live there, and those that despoil the land don’t. It doesn’t matter what religion or ethnicity.”‘
Only that Jews have more of that right, correct Witty?
“”In a high population world, the only way to live lightly on the land is by plan, by intentional design. And, that is a big shift for those that advocate for prior traditional ways of life.”‘
So you’re tryign to argue that becasue the Israeli Jews are more likely to achieve that, only they should be enetitled to remain.
I see where you’re going with this.
”The BDS movement makes that social integration less likely”‘
Less likely than the status quo? For that to be even possible, there would have to be evidence of integration happening now. What evidence do you have of that Witty?
I’m not asking for your opinion, but for evidence.
” Its bad enough that the governments’ policies engender that separation. It needs to be multiplied by activists? ”
It’s bad enoughm, but you’re willing to live with it, right Witty?
“but currently the flag proposed by the one state movement seems to be the Palestinian flag”
Could you please provide evidence to that statement? I have been active in the One State movement since before it has gained the momentum in the last few years and never have I met one in this movement who proposed the Palestinian flag as being the flag of the movement. In fact most who are active in this movement are not-nationalists and many in fact are anti-nationalists where flags, the national ones are symbols of oppression and transgression. Having said that, the Palestinian flag has gained another meaning other than being an expression of Palestinian national identity. It has become the symbol of anti-zionist and anti-colonial struggle and that is why you see it raised everywhere such struggle manifests itself. For us Palestinians the Israeli flag has one meaning and one meaning only: it is a symbol of settler-colonialism, of occupation, and of Apartheid that is what the Zionist State is about and that is what its flag means.
The Palestinian flag is not the flag of the one state movement and Biladi is not its anthem. To the best of my knowledge, the one state movement has neither flag nor anthem, nor do I see any reason why it should. It’s not an exercise in utopian nation-building, but an approach to the conflict that seeks to establish democratic ground rules for relations between Israeli Jews and Palestinians in I/P. If and when a more specific shared national identity – beyond a connection to the same land – becomes necessary, it will undoubtedly be addressed.
Your presumption that Biladi and the Palestinian flag represent the one state movement in any way would appear to reflect your understanding of the one state idea as advocating the erasure of Israeli-Jewish identity and the “Palestinization” of Israel, turning it into “another Arab country”. This is a misconception. Palestinian advocates of the one state idea, such as Mazin Qumsiyeh (who sometimes refers to it as a “human rights-based solution”), clearly tell hardline Palestinian nationalists and Pan-Arabists that the Jews aren’t going anywhere, and that coexistence (not reversing the balance of power) is the only way forward.
As I have explained before, two state, federation, one state, all at once or in stages, can all be perfectly reasonable solutions – on condition that the principle of equality is respected. A first-stage two-state arrangement that merely offers Palestinians grudging, humiliating, take-it-or-leave-it concessions will never progress to higher levels of co-existence but will, in all likelihood, simply lead to further and greater violence.
Thank you, Aref. That is exactly what I was trying to explain, but you have done a much better job of it.
Shmuel and Aref,
I’m not sure if I’m not being clear or if you are deliberately ignoring my point. I am saying that if the one state movement were to come up with a flag and an anthem that this would provoke thought in those that oppose the one state movement. To merely state that the one staters will come up with an anthem and a flag when it is necessary is to assume that provoking thought in those that oppose it is superfluous. Is that what you are asserting?
I guess you missed my point. You have me pigeon-holed as enemy in some regard and not as an independant thinker motivated for good.
I don’t see a politically driven single-state as possible. There is too much rational and irrational loyalty to the current Israeli regime, and much much stronger rational loyalty to Zionism in general.
As such, the only means to force a single state would be through harsh punitive threat. At the current level of isolation, people like Naomi Klein and even Phil or Norman, have the out that it has not affected much, has not introduced much hatred into the world.
At some point it will cross the line of effectiveness in which its success will be humanity’s failure.
I teach a class in management accounting emphasizing sustainability. For an assignment, students have been researching company’s annual reports, and attempting to discern if their sustainability and good citizenship statements are in earnest. One student chose Alcoa Aluminum, which is a leader in its field in energy conservation and engineered elimination of toxics from its production processes (to the extent possible), and going into the recycling business as a core business. At the same time, for Alcoa to succeed, it must mine, manufacture, promote the use of aluminum. Its success is then a failure for the world.
The movement for BDS is similar. Its tactical success is a failure for the world, for its introduction, its promotion of distrust RATHER than actual integration in practice. Its early yet. Its a fanatic diet, ignored in practice by even its most adherent proponents (everyone will see Ajami rather than boycott it), that has not yet done its severe health damage.
One can then only hope that the world sees that airetarianism is really an eating disorder.
A two-state solution that offers Palestinians real sovereignty, economy, democracy however IS a good option.
WJ, there are more pressing issues to think about other than a flag or an anthem. One Staters who believe in the fundamental equality of all with complete disregard to ethnicity, religion, national origin or gender do not think in terms of flags or national anthems. Those are anathema to the idea of transcending the narrow ways human beings are defined. After all even at the individual level we all have different and multiple identities.
We want to provoke thought in those who oppose the idea of one state not with flags and anthems but with the consideration of the equal humanity of all. We do not care about names, flags and anthems that is what we are trying to tell you.
“As I have explained before, two state, federation, one state, all at once or in stages, can all be perfectly reasonable solutions – on condition that the principle of equality is respected. A first-stage two-state arrangement that merely offers Palestinians grudging, humiliating, take-it-or-leave-it concessions will never progress to higher levels of co-existence but will, in all likelihood, simply lead to further and greater violence. ”
I agree. The struggle for One State is in fact a struggle for the recognition of the equal humanity of both Israelis and Palestinians. It is a call for the transcendence of artificial divisions which are in fact fabricated myths with no roots in reality.
Aref,
I accept your answer, but I think you (not you specifically, but someone from the group of one staters) need to learn to communicate with the humble human beings who are not yet ready to make the leap into the utopia you propose.
I accept the equal humanity of all. There are many (too many) Israelis who don’t. There is no need or use in trying to communicate with those who do not accept this basic idea.
My objection to one state is not ideological, but practical. I fear that forces of hatred from Hamas specifically, but from nationalistic Palestinians as well, are not ready to share a country with those they consider infidels or interlopers.
When I attempt to convince others to let go of such fears I find myself unconvinced that their fears are baseless and become reconvinced that the fears are valid.
It is because of these fears that such things as a discussion of symbols: anthems and flags, might begin to replace fears with thoughts of a common future, that a phrase like “equal humanity” is too ethereal to relate to.
(Let me amend the: “I accept the equal humanity of all”. This is more aspiration than fact. In the course of a day or a week, racist or sexist or ethnocentric thoughts and fears arise. I accept my own imperfections and accept that I am an unfinished person.)
Aren’t most Palestinians young? When given a chance, don’t they usually do very well in school, including university? Do’nt those two factors project
a high potential for soci0-economic integration in the context of modern
land planning?
It’s Israel’s occupational settlement and seige policy most especially that has long fertilized antagonistic politics. BDS aims to rescue tolerance from this rich Israeli manure.
When given a chance, don’t they usually do very well in school, including university? Do’nt those two factors project a high potential for soci0-economic integration in the context of modernland planning?
That statement sums up the reason for Israel’s anxiety. Despite delusions of grandeur, Israel recognizes the intellectual and economic legacy and potential of Palestinians and Lebanese, for example. For the most part, Jewish-Israelis have no interest in competing with Palestinians within their country any more than the so-called meritocracy in America has an interest in competing with the left behinds. Their exalted position is proof positive of their superiority and the validity and efficiency of meriticratic principles. It wouldn’t enter their minds that rigged system maintains their position. The WSJ, before its descent into complete subjectivity, labeled the phenomenon ‘the glass floor’, beneath which no idiot nephew or fellow Harvard alum could fall despite his (and it’s usually a he) incompetence.
Since the Israeli flag originated with the early Zionists and reflected that colonial movement, and the Palestinian flag originated as the flag of Arab resistance to Ottoman rule, wouldn’t an entirely new flag divorced best represent a new single state?
Perhaps the colors of both flags in an abstract pattern?
The only obvious symbolism there would be equality (of equal-attribute colors), yes? If it were layers of different color stripes, there might be a
fight over which color stripe is on top? That could be white, a currently shared color; however then the fight would be about which color goes next under the white? How about the colors laid out vertically instead of
horizontally? A flag with colour columns, maybe from left to right:
blue/white/red/black/green
Thank you WJ. Communication is extremely important I agree. However, communication is not only speaking it is also listening with an open and receptive mind.
I know that most Israelis reject the One State idea. A lot of Palestinians do too. Those of us in the One State movement (and it is not entirely homogeneous) have to talk and convince both. In many of the discussions I had with Jews in the US (where I currently live) or Israelis I found that the underlying reason for rejecting the One State idea is fear. It is a fear that has been largely maintained and cultivated by the Zionist political establishment. Yes given the history of Jewish persecution in Europe I can certainly understand.
However, one question I keep asking myself is when can we collectively let go of our fears? Our lives as human beings is full of risks at every moment of our lives we assume all sorts of risks. If we allow our fears takle over and dictate our lives then we cannot survive. I am not saying that we should ignore the fears but what I am saying is that while acknowledging them we can take precautions to minimize the effects or the chances of occurance. That is what we do everytime we cross the street or go behind the wheel to drive a car. Collectively however, we seem to develop herd mentality and stop making good decisions and stop our critical thinking because we have been brainwashed by the political establishment and its social institutions to think a certain way which only benefits them not us.
Of course in any society there are those who cannot accept differences and those who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else through coersion and force. Yes there are Palestinians who would not and do not accept the idea of a secular democratic state. Some are motivated by biogotry and racism others because they see Israelis as those who have been responsible for their misery, lose, persecution and daily humiliation. They have not known anything different. Does this mean that things will always be that way? Can people learn and adapt to changes or do we continue to think the same way from cradle to grave generation after generation? The dynamics of society are too complex and are affected by many factors which must all be considered as the dialectical generator of progress. Society and people change and they respond to changes in their environment as well as they affect that change.
We are all imperfect and that is why we are human beings not gods. Being aware of our imerfections, prejudices and shortcomings is essential to being able to change and learn–that is part of the communication process (communication with oneself).
Thank you.
I hope you see the impracticality then of the isolating influence of BDS. You state clearly that communication is needed, but BDS prohibits that directly.
So out of curiosity, Witty, what’s your stance on economic sanctions against Iran, vis-a-vis your stance on BDS? Just trying to measure your moral consistency again.
I have made a conscious attempt not to respond to you Mr. Witty. I just wanted to point out to you that you need to read beyond the first sentence. When you show a propensity to have an open mind and engage in a meaningful and intellectual dialog then I will answer you. However, to date you have shown nothing of the sort and therefore I do not think I will waste my time with you.
It is a call for the transcendence of artificial divisions which are in fact fabricated myths with no roots in reality
No roots in reality? Don’t kid yourself Aref, these two groups have spent the last 60 years at war w/ each other. Israel has been an occupier for the last 40+. The last 3 or 4 generations, on both sides, have been raised to hate the opposing groups. to say the divisions between them is a myth is not reality.
This is the main argument for the one-staters, “there is no real division” well maybe there wasn’t 100 years ago (still false, but for the sake of argument) but now there is a huge division. We won’t be able to just ‘start over’ with everyone living in peace and harmony.
I’ve been a proponent of a cooling off period where they two can living separately for a few generations, where they can learn to live in peace, and then unite. The idea of united them w/ out this cooling off period will only lead to a deeper and more bloody civil war.
Yonira? Are you willing to also acknowledge that the current conflict was instigated by Zionist European colonists?
Yonira baby,
I repeat what I have already said before before you jump oh your high horses and go wagging your fictitious sword take the time to actually read what others write and think about them a little bit. Show me where I said or anyone said that the one state has to happen now and immediately. What do think we are born yesterday with no experience? What we One Staters are talking about is the fact that a solution –in the long run–must address the real causes of the conflict and the grievances and claims of both parties. The two state idea does not address the essential issues and does not go to the roots of the conflict. Combined with the current reality on the ground, this makes the TSS a postponement of conflict not its resolution. The only solution is the OSS. How does that happen is matter of debate and discussion.
Everything has more than one meaning, schmendrick except death, which is the same for everybody.
“I repeat what I have already said before before you jump oh your high horses and go wagging your fictitious sword take the time to actually read what others write and think about them a little bit.”
Have you been around here long? As much as I value your comments and writing, hope is spring eternal in your breast if you think you’ll get that from Yonira.
“Yonira, baby…”
Don’t feel bad, she fooled me too.
“No roots in reality? Don’t kid yourself Aref, these two groups have spent the last 60 years at war w/ each other. Israel has been an occupier for the last 40+. The last 3 or 4 generations, on both sides, have been raised to hate the opposing groups. to say the divisions between them is a myth is not reality”
Gosh, I never would have expected such a clear-headed indictment of Zionism from you, Yonira, baby. Good work.
Oh sure, I know, the problem goes back further than that. So if the anti-Semitism of the Arabs was already well-known, all the more reason to move there?
“beneath which no idiot nephew or fellow Harvard alum could fall despite his (and it’s usually a he) incompetence.”
Oooo, ouch! That one stung!
Hi Mooser,
I have been reading this blog for a little while and have no illusions where Yonira is coming from. Will he actually listen to me? Of course not just like Witty they are here to make a point and not to learn. But hey I can always try :))
If you say something that is possible to learn from, I’ll learn. I’ve learned much here.
The language of dissent though escalates posturing for warring, rather than seeking paths to reconciliation.
It does not say “we accept Israel”. It says “Israel is illegitimate and always has been.” And, as Zionist suicide is impossible, that war then gets fought.
In contrast, if solidarity were to state, “we accept Israel at 67 borders” clearly, consistently, then there would be a basis of reconciliation.
It doesn’t happen consistently enough to rely on. The suspicions bear out not the confidences.
WJ,
We are not talking about a utopian or ethereal concept. Human rights and international law are pretty down to earth, and we are discussing a strategy that also involves a lot of cost-benefit analysis and an idea that is not patently obvious, but it is not naive or wishful thinking either: arming oneself to the teeth, building walls and oppressing one’s enemy is not necessarily the best way to attain security (quite the contrary, I would argue). Racist, sexist, ethnocentric “lapses” are thus irrelevant, as are symbols and gimmicks and fact-twisting and point-scoring. This is one of those ideas that demands actual convincing of heart and mind, and we’re working on it. Precisely because it is an eminently un-fuzzy-touhcy-feely idea, it is not always “nice”, but it does require a fundamental respect for those who are truly willing to listen and challenge themselves.
Great comment, Aref. Thanks.
Witty, Israel doesn’t accept Israel at 67 borders. So who will?
And an very creditable job you do at it, too. You’ve got a lot more patience for those characters than I could ever muster!
Shmuel,
Thank YOU. It is always resfreshing and a pleasure to read your comments. They are thoughtful, clear and level-headed. Thanks.
Try Aref.
You too state things that appear to me to be humane and plausible, but then resort to us/them dichotomies, intentionally avoiding content presented by me and others that you disagree with.
You seem to have a litmus test of whether someone names themselves as Zionist. If they do, they are not trustable even to discuss ideas.
Its an arbitrary position, a closing of eyes.
” I hope you see the impracticality then of the isolating influence of BDS. You state clearly that communication is needed, but BDS prohibits that directly.”
On the contrary Witty. BDS is the best communication device we could have. It would send a very clear and unambiguous message to. Israel and in a very practical way.
“A two-state solution that offers Palestinians real sovereignty, economy, democracy however IS a good option.”
So is a threesome with Angelina Jolie and Scarlet Jonansen, and both options are just as likely to happen.
WJ,
Your impression of Sheikh Jarrah is different from the ones I have read in the Israeli press and elsewhere, which placed more emphasis on the Zionist component of the protests (in the context of which, people like Moshe Halbertal felt comfortable). This would be nothing new, as similar campaigns have been spearheaded by Meretz and Gush Shalom in the past, in Ras el-Amud, Jebel Abu Ghneim (Har Homa) and elsewhere (although Halbertal was nowhere to be seen). I have a friend who has been involved in organising the Sheikh Jarrah protests, and he was definitely a Zionist last time I checked.
I hope to see for myself in a few weeks (my mother also lives a short distance away), and hear my friend’s impressions of the whole phenomenon.
. “If you will it, it is no legend.”
Now there’s the traditional and respected Jewish attitude towards God, right there.
Gosh, what a humble and God-fearing attitude! Yup, nothing like a Jew saying that the force of the human will overcomes God!
On the other hand, remember who the last people were who said the “force of will” was the big factor?
Yup, you Zionists are in good company.
An interesting question. I’d think it would have to be something altogether neutral.
Wow, great piece. This conversation, albeit it happening in some, is long overdue in many places. Way to go (Anonymous?)!
here are some details from the JPost:
”
Absolutely not,” Avner Inbar, one of the rally’s organizers, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday. “I think we’re just Left enough.”
“I think that [Jabarin’s] comments did make some people feel uncomfortable,” Inbar said. “However, the thing that has made the Sheikh Jarrah protests so successful, is the willingness of various groups to come together and take on this single issue.”
Inbar acknowledged that Jabarin’s comments did not reflect such a unity, but repeated what Jabarin himself had said during the rally – that he had witnessed the wounding of a Palestinian child the day before during a rally in Nebi Salih, 20 km. northwest of Ramallah, and was angry.
“This is also a man who was until recently under house arrest for nine months without charges,” Inbar said. “Maybe it wasn’t the best idea to have him speak in such a state, but what I think is really unfortunate, is that the Israeli media has focused on this part of the rally and blurred the real issue here, which are the families affected by the evictions.”
“…there were a bunch of red flags.” Courtesy of the The Magnes Zionist site. Gee, I wonder who these guys were? hehehe
You missed a great demonstration in Rome yesterday, VR. Lots of red flags and raised fists :-) For the USians on this site, wherever there is a good cause in Europe – from Palestine to workers’ rights, democracy, health, education, freedom, environement, etc. – red flags and raised fists dominate. Yesterday’s demo was in defence of the constitution and equality before the law.
Yes Shmuel, good morning. I find it interesting that in order to build a movement of solidarity, which will have to be global in scale to face off on this issue and many others (seeing that at least in regard to this conflict, you have several nation states backing these atrocities), that you have to know who is on your side. How much impact do think can be acquired by a splintered group here in the states, not even speaking internationally – just domestic? Must be that “rugged individualism” which is a persistent myth.
I say the chances are pretty slim for success, especially if they have all sorts of myths in the minds about socialists, communists, and anarchists. They do not seem to realize that these barriers which have been built by “elite ideas” cut them off from major support – and this is what their “leaders” depend on. Maybe they need a wake up call –
WAKE UP!
They need to understand that there is a certain calling card that has identifiers, and that this is what they are facing. So it is a little broader based than they might imagine.
It is late here, and as much as I hate to run and sleep, I need to because I have been going since the wee hours of the morning. Goodnight
Of course, the idea of states themselves, separate from one another, helps to keep the global population apart from each other. This is why one state right next door to another one can be starving, while the other prospers. It is quite a franchise for the elite, the ultimate in their (elite) exaltation and to the ultimate exploitation and degradation of humanity.
REALITY
This (above)is magnified in the Israeli-Palestinian scenario
“Jews of good will need to understand that Jews no longer get to decide for Palestinians.”
whoa!…but what will Phil, Gideon, Bradley, Jews for Justice in Palestine, etc etc etc what will they all do? those poor palestinians better damn well take their elitist Jewish charity or else they will have to deal with Jews like Avigdor!!
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
elitist Jewish charity
What are you talking about? Justice is now a domain of elitist.
I thought you were gone. Don’t you have somewhere else on the ‘net where you can pretend to be something you’re not?
I m sure Einstein is not happy in his coffin, because somewhere in the world a pro-Wars Zionist like steal his name. Zionists stole lands, homes, but also the merit of descent people.
As an aside the red flags, they were the majority there at the protest
The greatest problem is that “the good will Jews” have long been marginalized by the powerful Zionist Lobby groups. For example, Lenni Brenner wrote in his book that there were hardly 5,000 Zionist Jews in Germany while the majority of Jews were against the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
Now, there are close to 7,000 Jews listed in Hasbara “Self-Hating Israel Threatening” document. Furthermore, we all have seen how Richard Goldstone, though a confessed Zionist Jew – is being hounded by the Western mainstream media for following his conscience.
Human Rights – Theirs and the others
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
. “If you will it, it is no legend.” Wondering Jew
Antybody else remember who else was so big on the triumph of the will?
Say Wondering “Jew” where does the will of God come into it, or if He’s not around, the instructions He left us about how to live with others?
Yeah, but you and the few million Jews who feel this way, who can’t even keep up their own birthrate, you just keep blathering about “will”
And we can just go on reading “will” as “US money”. That’ll make Rabbi Waskow feel good, anyway.
Mooser, your argument is ridiculous, where has God said he doesn’t want Jews in Palestine? Are you guys golfing partners? does He tell you these things in confidence?
Here’s a towel, Mooser. The recent outbreak of yoniraspew should fade into the woodwork again in a little bit, just ride it out.
A deity is a prolific speaker to every settler state entity, especially for those that do the grunt work – the elite make sure of this.
“Mooser, your argument is ridiculous, where has God said he doesn’t want Jews in Palestine?”
And I never said that, ass, you are lying through your caps and crowns, as usual. I said that as far as I know God does not want a Jewish State. Two completely different things, and you know it.
There’s no point in discussing anything with you, you are a liar and a timewaster.
Anyway, let’s both play:
So you are saying Yoni, that the Jewish God wants the Jews to take a state in Palestine for themselves by murder, theft, and colonial minipulation? Can you get a statement from Him to that effect? Cause as far as I know He is pretty explicitly on record against a Jewish State, and pulled the last one out from under us, starting the diaspora. Or did the Romans simply beat the Jewish God? Maybe He had a golf date that day and wasn’t around to hold up the sun, or do any tricks with tidal waves?
Yessir, a Jewish religion with a bloodthirsty God who wants a warring expansionist theocracy for His people. You just keep arguing along those lines, baby. You’ll go far. Maybe we could even attract a few of the Jews running from that as fast as they can back, if you give them a free DVD player, or something.
For Christs sake, idiot, you’re a Jew, not a Christian, at least learn the rudiments of your own religion. So you really think Goid wants to give the Jews a State at the expense of the Palestinians? That’sa some Judaism!
Well, whadayuknow! An hour’s gone by, and no answer. Now I’ll never know if Zionism is a Jewish religious effort, and the Jewish God is concerned only with Jewish problems and nobody elses (I guess there were too many Jews at the time, so He permitted the Holacaust) or whether Zionism is as sucessful, and only as sucessful, as the human will can make it.
So which is it? Yoni? WJ? Witty? C’mon guys, I’m worried, darn it! Will I go to hell if I’m not a Zionist?
Zionists, are the luckiest people! They’re the luckiest people in the world….
Not only can they have it all, but they can have it both ways, too!
I told you, yonira’s fled. He does this every time. He just drives by fast enough to egg your house, then zips off to go get drunk behind the proverbial high school bleachers.
same with witty i asked him this question link to mondoweiss.net
and he disappeared
Mooser- Your argument seems to be “Since God abandoned the Jews to the Roman destruction (when they were on the Land) and to the Nazi genocide (when they were off the Land), therefore the Jews should take heed and realize He wants them to submit to the whims of history without taking the initiative in any military way. (or in any military way that involves the Land or in any military way that involves hurting innocents).”
If I have understood your argument, please confirm and I will attempt an answer.
I thought you were a “secular Jew,” WJ. Aren’t you?
Chaos- I usually restrict my arguments to the secular.
Pingback: Jews of good will need to understand that they no longer get to decide for Palestinians