NYT’s Mackey questions whether Partition is possible

(Alex Kane picked this up.) Robert Mackey of the Times is using his noggin.

In light of the continuing effort by negotiators to settle on a map that satisfies both Israelis and Palestinians, it is interesting that what Gandhi and Buber apparently did agree on was their opposition to the essential logic of what is now called the “two-state solution,” the concept that partitions drawn along ethnic or religious lines would eventually resolve conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in South Asia and Muslims and Jews in the Middle East. As Mr. Mishra pointed out, “This post-imperial imperative of the nation-state was anathema to Gandhi, who saw India as host to many communities whose overlapping cultural identities could not be regimented into a single religion or ethnicity.”

From the perspective of 2010, it is easy to dismiss Gandhi and Buber — and contemporary activists who still advocate a one-state solution — as idealists, but, after six decades of violence following the partition of India that created Pakistan, and the still-to-be-completed partition of Palestine that created Israel, the idea that any amount of force will soon create two peaceful states in either part of the world is also looking less convincing by the day.

The beauty of this post is that Mackey is an American Everyman and he is asking the same Everyman questions that were asked 63 years ago– when the State Department said that Partition could only be established by force and preserved by force. And now, after 63 years of a promised Palestinian state, and no political representation, and endless Israeli expansion, why should Americans nod their heads when they hear the words "peace process"? For all the battles between India and Pakistan, the Pakistanis are no longer stuck in a national struggle. No, they got their state.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Beyondoweiss, One state/Two states

{ 55 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Are you sure he is saying that a single state is desirable or more analagous to his friend Kurtzer’s statement, “I give up. No peace is possible in any structure.”

    In India, only in Hindu mythology was there ever a unified India. Bengalis (now Bengladeshis and Indian Bengalis) identified as Bengali. And, now there is peace between Indian Bengal and Bengladesh. I have more than a few friends that travel between them freely and regularly.

    Russia is an example of partitions. Yugoslavia, Czechoslavakia. Now relatively peaceful.

    If the people think of themselves as one nation, then one nation is the most democratic and just. If the people think of themselves as two nations, two peoples, then rule by either slim majority is UNJUST.

    • Dan Kelly says:

      There were many peoples living PEACEFULLY in Palestine until the Zionists came in and VIOLENTLY decided to create an UNJUST state that favored people who weren’t even indigenous to the area.

      • Schwartzman says:

        DK, that is one of my favorite anti-Israel talking points. For the sake of argument, lets say it is a valid point. It is not the reality of the situation today, repeating that over and over is not going to solve anything. There is no rewind button, we need to deal with the reality of the situation today. The reality is partition will lead to much less bloodshed than would a bi-national state.

        The saddest part about it is you rabin anti-Israel/anti-Jewish propagandists just can’t accept it, even if the Palestinian people were willing to accept it.

        • Dan Kelly says:

          The reality is partition will lead to much less bloodshed than would a bi-national state.

          Since when does a Zionist care about bloodshed, other than “Jewish blood?”

          The reality is that there will be no two-state “solution,” the Zionists never wanted two states, and you’re just here to keep people diverted and to obfuscate while Israel continues to create “facts on the ground” in order to fulfill your fantasy of “Eretz Israel.”

        • Schwartzman says:

          Since when does a Zionist care about bloodshed, other than “Jewish blood?”

          This is my favorite of all anti-Israel tactics, look at any other war/occupation in the world and compare the bloodletting to that in Israel.

          Do you believe that nonsense or is purely for propaganda purposes?

        • Dan Kelly says:

          This is my favorite of all anti-Israel tactics, look at any other war/occupation in the world and compare the bloodletting to that in Israel.

          This is my favorite hasbara tactic, deflecting criticism to every other event happening in the world, in order to sidestep culpability for one’s own crimes.

          “Judge, lots of criminals have stolen and raped, why are you concentrating on poor little me?”

          I’m not talking about “any other war/occupation in the world,” I’m talking about Israel and Zionism. Stay on topic.

          And, you don’t deny the Zionist goal: “Eretz Israel.”

        • Schwartzman says:

          I am a proponent of the a 2 state solution…. Eretz Israel?

        • pjdude says:

          ah yes the we must do what is feasible. screw feasible lets do what the LAW demands

        • Avi says:

          Schwartzman,

          First, you seem to be blinded with your love for Israel to the extent that you view anyone who questions it as “anti-Israeli”. You’ll need to transform your thinking process if you are to convince anyone that your intentions are reasonable. The other day, you posted a list of initiatives that you said would support. Among them you listed a federal bi-national state, did you not?

          How exactly did you manage to bring yourself to write that when you do not foresee anything but two-states in preventing what you call “bloodshed”?

          Second, the bloodshed has already been happening for the last 63 years. From the perspective of a Zionist, I can see how the only perspective that matters is that of Israel and its Zionist Jews, but from my perspective, I look around and all I see are a people living a normal life on the one hand, and a people living in daily persecution on the other hand. So when you speak of bloodshed, it seems to me you are only concerned with Jews. The bi-national stat model scares many Zionists especially since for the first time, Jews in Israel will be on an equal footing should the bi-national state model come to pass. In other words, convince me you’re not a hypocrite.

        • Avi says:

          Schwartzman July 12, 2010 at 11:44 pm

          I am a proponent of the a 2 state solution…. Eretz Israel?

          See my post below. Hopefully, this time around you’ll answer the questions I posed.

        • Dan Kelly says:

          You claim you’re “a proponent of a 2 state solution” while the ideology you follow and the state you support have continually, by design, made it impossible for 2 states to be viable. Some among you have seen this over the years and have tried to prevent it, but they’ve been killed or effectively marginalized. You subscribe to an ideology whose darkest elements have gotten stronger as it has progressed. Time to check your conscience and reevaluate where you’re headed.

        • Avi says:

          And just like that……poooof…Shwartzman was gone. Why stick around and answer tough questions when you can whine about anti-Israeli rhetoric every waking hour?

        • tree says:

          The saddest part about it is you rabin anti-Israel/anti-Jewish propagandists…

          Freudian slip?

        • Shmuel says:

          I am a proponent of the a 2 state solution

          Fine and dandy, but the real question is are you a proponent of equality between Palestinians and Israeli Jews?

        • Shmuel says:

          The reality is partition will lead to much less bloodshed than would a bi-national state.

          It’s not exactly about bloodshed; it’s about vulnerability. Palestinians will, in all likelihood, be more vulnerable in a 2ss than a 1ss – and the perpetuation of Palestinian vulnerability is in fact a key element of all 2ss proposed thus far. What Schwartzman means is that a 2ss (as he envisions it) would preserve all of Israel’s advantages, and so make it less vulnerable (so he believes) than any solution that would put Palestinians and Israeli Jews on equal footing. This is the logic of “the best offer ever” and “the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”. It is not the logic of peace or conflict-resolution. Its basic design flaw will actually guarantee bloodshed (if it ever gets off the ground), but that’s OK as far as its proponents are concerned, as long as “they” suffer more than “we” do. It is still rooted in the false messiah of force and subjugation and, on a fundamental level, offers no real change. At its very best, it offers Palestinians another Gaza – to be pounded and punished at will, with the ever-present option of re-occupation. It offers Israelis the illusion of peace and the conviction that they are OK, ever the peace-seeking good guys. In the words of an old Israeli underwear ad, lalekhet im ulehargish bli – you’ll have it (occupation, oppression, discrimination, dispossession, domination) on, but feel feel like you don’t.

        • potsherd says:

          Schwartzman, I understand that Lindsay Lohan is in need of a defense attorney. Your argument is tailor-made for her. “Why should poor little me have to go to jail when when there are so many other drunk drivers out there!”

        • Mooser says:

          “The other day, you posted….”

          ROTFLMAO.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      Because Seperate but Equal worked oh so well in the United States, didn’t it?

  2. Dan Kelly says:

    The saddest part about it is you rabin anti-Israel/anti-Jewish propagandists just can’t accept it

    Sayanim Schwartzman, that’s my favorite Zionist hasbara tactic: equating responses to Zionist/Israeli barbarity that any humane person would have with “anti-Jewishness,” whatever the hell that means.

    • Dan Kelly says:

      This was supposed to be a response to the sayanim.

      • Dan Kelly- I appreciate that you don’t want to call Zionists Zionists, because the word Zion reminds people of the Old Testament and might conjure up some positive feelings and instead wish to use the Arabic term.
        No expert in Arabic am I, but it seems that the singular would be sayani and the plural would be sayanin.

        • Shmuel says:

          WJ,
          I think the word Dan Kelly used is say’an/im (samekh-yod-ayin) – collaborators. Nothing to do with Zionists (which would be sayuni in Arabic). For some reason, this word has caught on in anti-Zionist circles, and is inevitably used in the plural form.

        • rmokhtar says:

          Interesting.

          So sayanim in Hebrew means collaborator?

          Btw,

          Sah-yoo-ni is how it’s pronounced.

    • Cliff says:

      The robotic, knee-jerk responses consisting of the allegations of ‘anti-Israel’/'anti-Jewish’ for whatever is a testament to the mental deterioration of a human being from the prolonged usage of Ziococaine.

      That or, people like yonira just don’t care about these labels and use them as ideological bludgeons (they hope).

      It’s emotional blackmail. Zionist Jews know ‘identity politics’ well. So they exploit it.

      They think if they cry antisemitism enough, people will stop thinking.

      What’s weird about the antisemitism card is how one-dimensional it is. I remember an episode of Seinfeld where Jerry starts questioning the authenticity of his dentists new-found spirituality (he has converted to Judaism and seems like a poseur).

      Kramer goes nuts and starts calling Jerry a ‘rabid anti-dentite’.

      That’s how all these Zionists sound like. No need to take them serious. I think they lost that consideration a very long time ago.

    • Schwartzman says:

      When I am referring to anti-Jewishness, I am referring to the people who blame all of the world’s problems on the Jews. I don’t think you are one DK, but many of them comment here on Mondoweiss.

      The Zionists don’t want a one-state solution either, what makes that more tangible than the two-state solution, or does your total lack of reality include a rewind button?

      • “The Zionists don’t want a one-state solution either”

        And who killed the 2 states solution if not Israel and the Zionists? Who made it impossible by creating facts on the grounds so overwhelming that no hope a viable Palestinian state can ever see the light? The 1 state solution, though one of apartheid, segregation, discrimination and subjugation, is what the state of Israel is actively working to achieve. Don’t blame the anti-Zionists for that, blame the Jewish state.

        • Avi says:

          Don’t blame the anti-Zionists for that, blame the Jewish state.

          You’re asking a Zionist to see past his belly button. That’s too much to ask. Israel keeps blaming the victims, all Shwartzman did was follow in its footsteps and blamed the victims. The Palestinians FORCED colonists to build on land they owned so that later on, they could claim that the colonists took their land. Those sneaky Palestinians.

        • Walid says:

          TGIA, we, along with Alex are losing sight of the fact that the NYT article with the inclusion of the name of Gandhi discussing the one versus the two state solution is just another Zionist gimmick to lend legitimacy to Israel. Gandhi’s disagreement went much beyond the question of “to partition or not to partition”, he was downright against what the Jews were up to in Palestine and fell short of calling it immoral, unethical or un-something else. He said that although he felt deep sympathy for them, Jews that already had homes or nationalities in other countries did not have the right to claim another country as their national or natural homeland.

          This type of Zionist subliminal messaging, like with the inclusion of Gandhi’s name taken out of the blue and for no good reason by Mackey in the NYT, has been going on for over 80 years day in and day out and is very nauseating. Contrary to Mackay’s message being conveyed about Gandhi’s having accepted the Jewish fact in Palestine. here are Gandhi’s real thoughts on the subject addressed to the Jews and published in Harijan on November 26, 1938. Full article linked at end:

          “… My sympathies are all with the Jews. … Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. …. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews.

          … But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?

          Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and in-human to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

          The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colourable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.

          link to hartford-hwp.com

        • “If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colourable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.”

          I’d like those who view Israel as the “national Jewish home” to answer this question.

        • Walid says:

          TGIA, this brings to mind the alleged collusion of the Zionists with the bad guys to empty the Jews out of Germany and other horror stories that resulted in the Jews’ catastrophic fate. The terrible outcome that Gandhi foresaw would happen if the Jews kept claiming the need to return to the natural and national homeland in Palestine, and by extension their recognition that Germany was not, finally came to pass and played into Hitler’s hand. Did the Zionists fumble on that one or was it intentional?

      • Avi says:

        I don’t think you are one DK, but many of them comment here on Mondoweiss.

        I think your mind gets fogged sometimes by the paranoia that which permeates through the Zionist mind, and many a tribal Jew’s mind. If someone took your parking spot, it must be because he knew you were Jewish, so he must be an anti-Semite. There are anti-Semites around every corner. So, yes. I’m quite familiar with that mentality.

        But, you know what, for the sake of fairness to you, why don’t you post some specific examples of the types of commenters on Mondoweiss who blame Israel/Jews for every ill in the world. I’m really curious.

      • RoHa says:

        “I am referring to the people who blame all of the world’s problems on the Jews.

        Who are they? I don’t think even I blame all the world’s problems on the Jews.

      • potsherd says:

        I am referring to the people who blame all of the world’s problems on the Jews

        And Schwartzman plays the straw man card again!

        • RoHa says:

          “Schwartzman plays the straw man card again!”

          So he likes the classics! Don’t we all?

        • Mooser says:

          “So he likes the classics! Don’t we all?”

          I’m sort of a safety nut, so I want to remind everybody, NO SMOKING!! The place could go up like a hay-barn.

  3. Chaos4700 says:

    Witty? You’re on the same page as Schwartzman.

    Looks good on you.

  4. Schwartzman says:

    Avi,
    I have a different problem. My problem is that those few rich Jews who interfere with American government have fucked up non-rich, non-Jewish, Americans, THEN they call us non-rich non Jews who complain about it, antisemitic.
    They won’t stop. Nothing I can do in a civil realm stops them: they’ve bought or blackmailed my representatives, they shape laws that can result in harm to me or mine if I rise up in opposition to them; they have the corporate ability to spy on my personal transactions and communications.

    You complain because as a Jew you are unfairly tagged with the opprobrium that results from the action of a few rich Jews. I’m sorry for you. But I repeat, that’s your problem, not mine. You have more levers of power to change the situation than I do. Become active in Jewish groups and PRESSURE YOUR FELLOW JEWS to rein in the rich and powerful — don’t take your fight to Obama or to Washington, take it to Haim Saban or Sheldon Adelson.

    That’s your job and your responsibility, joer, and whining that you didn’t cause it doesn’t cut it. I didn’t cause it but if I want a better world for my children, I am compelled to spend my time and money fighting a battle that I didn’t start.

    Talk like that scares the shit out of me.

    • tree says:

      I’m afraid you are mistaken there. There is still an ample supply of “sh*t” in you, mostly in your head.

      Here’s the thing. Arabs, and Muslims are constantly told that they have to disavow those few Arabs/Muslims that express hatred or bigotry or violence. Similar disavowals are requested of blacks, or whites, or Christians or any other ethnic, racial or religious group. Why is it different when the request is made of Jews?

      Unfortunately, some of these few idiotic and bigoted Jews claim to speak for all Jews, and yet few Jews are publicly compelled to disavow their brethren’s bigotry and hate, and the few that do step up are often denigrated and called self-hating Jews or even anti-semites. If you don’t want all Jews to be smeared with the views of the few but bigoted ones then it is really counterproductive to claim anti-semitism when these individuals are criticized. (Unless of course you actually believe that those beliefs are due to some inherent “Jewishness”–in which case, YOU are the anti-semite. Likewise if you think that Jews are somehow not capable of handling individual criticism. )

      • tree says:

        And of course you failed to quote the sentence right before the ones you quoted. Here it is.

        I agree with you 100%, joer; it’s unfair, genuinely crappy that ALL Jews are lumped into the boatload of shit that has been crafted by a FEW Jews. That’s your problem. That. is. your. problem.

        Zionists are fond of stating that Jewish critics of Israel aren’t “real” Jews or they are “self-hating”. They are also fond of stating that all “real” Jews have a love of Israel. The people who are most vociferously claiming that all Jews bear responsibility for what Israel does are the Zionist themselves, so its utterly hypocritical of them to bemoan the stereotyping of Jews, when its something they themselves do with mad abandon. That’s what should scare you shitless.

        • potsherd says:

          But when others generalize about “all real Jews”, then people like hophmi triumphantly throw down the antisemite card.

        • Mooser says:

          “And of course you failed to quote the sentence….

          Ah, that good old Zionist rhetorical integrity! It never fails. At least he didn’t put quote marks on imagery quotes, as Witty constantly does.

    • Avi says:

      The first one is actually quite reasonable. But, I’ll remind you that you said “many of them”. These are only two examples.

      The second example is more specific, it mentions Haim Saban or Sheldon Adelson. But, here’s where you did yourself an injustice, instead of dismissing them as anti-Semites, why not point out that many Jews with moral courage sacrificed a lot when they stood up to the so-called Jewish elites (more accurately, Zionists like Dershowitz)?

      For example, take Norm Finklstein and how he lost his tenure because he dared question Israel. Then the question becomes, do you agree with the persecution that which Professor Finkesltein was subjected? If you do, if you are on the side of those who seek to abuse their power to silence others, then frankly, that second poster’s comment is quite reasonable. The bottom line is, you have to pick which side you’re on, the Jewish side or the Zionist side. What’s more important to you?

      • Sumud says:

        It’s one comment Avi, not two. In full, I also have a problem w/ it, and I wrote a response to PG about it a little while ago.

        Schwartzman ~ I can understand you being bothered by the comment. Do you think it’s representative? Or is it one person posting on the net? I think it’s somewhere in between, but, I believe it’s an attitude that is overwhelmingly in the minority. FYI I’ve been reading Mondoweiss for over a year now and PG’s comments haven’t stood out to me before. His attitude has hardened lately and I’ve asked him about it.

        Franky I’m more disturbed by those in positions of power such Avigdor Lieberman who seems to be priming the Israeli public for another Nakba.

    • Avi says:

      By the way,

      If you have the time, I’d really like to hear from you on your comments from the other day. See post #9 above for more.

      • Dan Kelly says:

        Avi, you’re an inspiration. You use straightforward logic to make the case against Zionism, while at the same time remaining open to dialogue. I’m not aware of a better way to change hearts and minds.

    • potsherd says:

      Exactly where is this analysis wrong, Schwartz?

      Nothing in the quote says that “the Jews” are the problem; it makes a clear distinction between the Jews who are the problem and the Jews who aren’t. It urges Jews to become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

      If the possibility of a rise in antisemitism in the US scares you, so it should. But don’t look at commenters on Mondoweiss as the cause. Look here: link to haaretz.com

      The trouble with those like Schwartz is that in their fear of antisemitism they would do anything to conceal the truth, the evidence of guilt. They are enemies of truth.

      Israel murdered a US citizen. Yes, this is true and, oh, it’s a shame, but revealing this might cause antisemitism, so we have to cover it up and demonize anyone who might try to reveal it.

      Take the test, Schwartz. When it comes down to the choice, what side are you on – the side of the truth, or the side of “the Jews?”

    • Mooser says:

      “Talk like that scares the shit out of me.”

      Is this todays Zionist? Surviving the Holocaust, establishing the Jewish State, beating off the Arab hordes, and now you’re afraid of talk?
      These are not the ZIonists I grew up with! They weren’t scared of nothing!
      You know, Shwartzman, you keep that up and I will begin to think all those civil-rights African-Americans are braver than Zionists.

    • Mooser says:

      “Talk like that scares the shit out of me.”

      Good, now you know what, or a fraction of what, it feels like to be Muslim in the US.

      • Mooser says:

        Shwartzman’s comments on Arabs, Muslims, Hezbollah, whatever, have always been of such exquisite moderation, and so free from prejudice, and so unequivocally factual, and so tender you could wipe a Jewish babies ass with them and not even wake it up!

        From brutal vicarious grandiosity, to whiney paranoia and then amnesia, and do it all again tomorrow. Classic ziocaine addiction syndrome.

  5. Berthe says:

    It IS a worry that the Israel enterprise and its domination of our government and our media will cause anti-semitism. It is a worry that all Jews are going to be tarred as a fifth column. The flotilla tragedy brought the attention of more Americans to the simple fact that our government will let Israel get away with anything and will even praise Israel for heinous acts. Then right after, they saw Barack Obama snuggling up to Netanyahu . . . because he had to; he had to do it for the campaign money from rich Jews.

    Yeah, it will cause resentment and distrust of Jews.

    • annie says:

      It is a worry that all Jews are going to be tarred as a fifth column….Yeah, it will cause resentment and distrust of Jews.

      by a small fraction of idiots maybe, but not in general. this is getting blown out of proportion. there will always be bigoted people in any society but nothing leads me to believe there will be any trend that will sweep americans into a frenzy of anti semitism. look at the carefully orchastrated islamofascism campaigned waged by powerful people some embedded in out government and media. we’ll get past that too. americans are resilient and for the most part independent thinkers.

      i would argue the masses out there are not preoccupied w/CT about ‘the jews’ and for the most part woefully uninformed and those who are informed for the most part are not anti semitic.

      look at what we just went thru after 8 years of cheney and the neocons and israel pushing us to war, if anything was going to escalate anti semitism it would have been that and i haven’t heard any such thing.

      charges of anti semitism are quite simply the most effective tool of beating back criticism of israel and that is why these charges will never die. my point s not that anti semitism doesn’t exist it is that this fear mongering it is on the rise or will escalate as more exposure is shed on the lobby or those working on israel’s behalf are thus far unfounded. remember

      “A lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”

      exposure kills the lobby. they will stop at nothing to remain hidden, even fear mongering.

  6. MHughes976 says:

    Mr. Mackey seems to say that partitions merely replace internal tensions with international ones – and I think that India/Pakistan, whose tensions are very serious, may illustrate his point quite well. Indeed the difficulty in ‘settling on a map’ is very well illustrated by the case of Kashmir.
    The dangers inherent in partition provide one reason why enforcing partition without general agreement is not one of the normal rights of a sovereign.