The following originally appeared as three consecutive posts by Jeremiah Haber on his blog The Magnes Zionist.
Last Saturday night there was a protest in Tel-Aviv, ostensibly in favor of Palestinian "statehood". For most Israelis, a two state solution means one real Jewish state, and a second, quasi, Palestinian state. Heck, that's true not just for most Israelis for successive American administrations. But even those administrations would not go so far as support the idea that in a future peace settlement that gives birth to a quasi state (which, I pray to God, will never come about – and so far He has answered my prayers), the large settlement blocs would be annexed to Israel and what's left of the West Bank (and Gaza?) would be part of a Palestinian bantustan, oops, I mean "state" with "land swaps".
Yet J Street has not only embraced the ridiculous notion that the large settlement blocs – and that has to include Ariel in the North – will be annexed to Israel, it has dishonestly interpreted this to be consonant with Pres. Obama's policy.
How so? I received an email from J Street praising a poster of the Nationalist Left movement (above and available through J Street in English here) in Israel that says, "We get the settlement blocs; they get a state." Now, no United States administration has said that in a future peace accord with the Palestinians, the settlement blocs would stay in Israel's possession, EVEN ASSUMING LAND SWAPS. By all accounts, the City of Ariel in the North is a large settlement bloc. Gush Etzion is certainly a large settlement bloc, and the Geneva Iniative's map of borders, left Efrat – part of Gush Etzion – outside of Israel. It's true that the Nationalist Left movement claims to support the Obama formulation of 67 borders with land swaps against Bibi's naysaying. It is also true that the National Left's idea of settlement blocs no doubt differs from that of Bibi. But let's make this perfectly clear – one either can annex the major settlement blocs OR have a viable Palestinian state; one cannot do both. And not surprisingly, the Nationalist Left's formulation is claimed to be valid whether there is a peace agreement or not. In other words, that movement holds that Israel can withdraw from the West Bank and annex the settlment blocs, even without a deal. Where J Street should be pushing the idea that the settlement blocs are the major obstancle to peace, precisely because they are illegal blocs of settlements, they have allied themselves with the Nationalist Left, which is not in the camp of the Obama administration, and which wants to purify the loathsome settlements as if it is not big deal – just "demographic realities", to use the Nationalist Left's term.
In explaining the Nationalist Left's slogan, J Street's Carinne Luck writes:
By settlement blocs, the poster means that the large Jewish population centers just over the 1967 lines that would be swapped for territory currently on the Israeli side of the lines. "Them" means the Palestinians. An Israeli political movement called the National Left (Smol Leumi) developed the poster.
This formulation mirrors the one that President Obama laid out in his speech and has been the policy of the U.S. Government for decades. Experts agree it is the most viable model for a two-state solution, as well as the only way to secure Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic homeland
Well, Efrat is a large population center over the 1967 line. Is J Street supporting making the annexation of Efrat a deal breaker? What "experts" is Luck referring to? Where has President Obama ever said that the "settlement blocs" will be annexed to Israel? I will be happy to make a contribution ot J Street if Carinne or anybody else finds that language there in an administration statement.
Heck, I haven't even seen J Street use the language of "settlement blocs," which is the Israeli phrase that maximizes territory (since you can be a small settlement within a bloc.) What J Street says on its website is as follows:
The borders should allow for many existing settlements, (which could account for as many as three-quarters of all settlers) to be part of Israel's future recognized sovereign territory.
That's hardly the language of "settlement blocs."
So what is J Street doing? Are they just clueless? Trying to put something over an uninformed American Jewish electorate? Hoping that a poster with Obama will make them look kosher?
Or…perhaps, like the Nationalist Left, they are proposing a ridiculous, non-starter of a solution, one that even the most pro-Israeli, pro-peace Palestinian government imaginable would rightly reject.
Has J Street abandoned a credible Two-State Solution? Or did they just make one of the gaffes for which they have become well-known?
What’s Wrong With Israel’s Keeping Settlement Blocs?
Some readers (and J Street folks) were puzzled by the tone and content of my previous post. After all, what's the difference, I was asked, between settlements and settlement blocs? And if there will be land swaps between the Palestinian and Israeli states, what difference does it make precisely where the land is swapped? At the end of the day, Israel and Palestine will have the same proportion of historic Palestine (without the Hashemite kingdom of Trans-Jordan) as guaranteed by the 1967 lines. Can't I cut J Street a little slack here – in order to get a Palestinian state off the ground? Both the Palestinians and the Americans want to focus first on borders. Doesn't that mean that an agreement is closer on the border issue than on other core issues?
So let me briefly set matters straight.
Settlement blocs vs. settlements. The moral argument for keeping Jewish settlers where they are, even though their settlement beyond the green line is recognized as illegal, is simply – it is too hard too move them. That, of course, refers to the settlements themselves. But if they are going to stay where they are, the argument goes, their security and growth require that not only do they stay put, but they be situated in "blocs". I am not sure who first came up with the idea of bloc, but historically it may have been related to the Ezion bloc of settlements, which fell to the Arab fighters in the 47-8 war. The Ezion bloc was one of the first areas to be settled after the 1967 war. The fate of the that bloc is instructive; in the name of returning to settlements that had been captured, the Ezion bloc over the years has tripled in territory. The land on which the city of Efrat, for example, was built, has nothing to do with the original bloc of settlements – and yet it is now automatically included in the settlement bloc (except in the Geneva Initiative map.)
If the settlements are illegal, then settlement blocs are worse – because they are a naked attempt to maximize not only the settlements but the areas between the settlements and – this is important – break up the territorial contiguity of the Palestinians state. Defenders of Israel always like to say that, in terms of percentages, the settlement blocs constitute a relatively small part of the West Bank. Even if that were true, the issue is not how much territory but where it is located.
This is particularly true of the blocs around Jerusalem and the Ariel bloc in the north. No Palestinian mini-state could ever arise were the Ariel bloc annexed, or were the Maaleh Adumim bloc annexed – much less if there is contiguous Jewish settlement in the E1 project linking Maaleh Adumim to Jerusalem
For a standard defense of annexing the five major settlement blocs, check out Mitchell Bard's explanation and map here. Bard writes
Would the incorporation of settlement blocs prevent the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state? A look at a map shows that it would not. The total area of these communities is only about 1.5% of the West Bank. A kidney-shaped state linked to the Gaza Strip by a secure passage would be contiguous. Some argue that the E1 project linking Ma'ale Adumim to Jerusalem would cutoff east Jerusalem, but even that is not necessarily true as Israel has proposed constructing a four-lane underpass to guarantee free passage between the West Bank and the Arab sections of Jerusalem.
Please look at the Bard's map, which is taken from the (pro-Israel Washington Institute of Near Eastern Policy). Look, for example, at Jerusalem prior to 1967, divided between Israelis and Palestinians, and the Jerusalem proposed now, which would leave East Jerusalem an enclave surrounded by massive Jewish settlement. But, more importantly, consider what constitutes "contiguity" according to Bard – a four-lane underpass!
Now consider why Israel ambassador Michael Oren recently considered the 49 armistice lines to be "indefensible" – despite the fact that not only were they successfully defended, they were expanded upon in 1967
Israel's borders at the time were demarcated by the armistice lines established at the end of Israel's war of independence 18 years earlier. These lines left Israel a mere 9 miles wide at its most populous area. Israelis faced mountains to the east and the sea to their backs and, in West Jerusalem, were virtually surrounded by hostile forces. In 1948, Arab troops nearly cut the country in half at its narrow waist and laid siege to Jerusalem, depriving 100,000 Jews of food and water.
How long would it take Israel to take control of a 4 lane highway, thereby cutting the Palestinian mini-state in two? Would Ben Gurion have accepted a state that had the contiguity afforded by a four-lane underpass?
The Palestinian state must be contiguous, which means that it must have contiguous and defensible territory between its various parts. Palestinian security needs are no less important than Israel's security needs; only a racist or tribalist would think otherwise.
To the argument that is immoral to move settlers, I reply that it is immoral to keep Palestinians in refugee camps. Let Israel absorb the settlement blocs, and let the Palestinians absorb Jewish owned territory in such a way that there is roughly parity in the resultant states. Any two-state solution has to take into consideration not only the demographic and security needs of the Israelis, but the demographic and the security needs of the Palestinians, including the refugees. We can start by settling half a million Palestinian refugees in choice Jewish state owned lands that have not been acquired from Palestinians Israelis – and then let's redraw the map of Israel to reflect the demographic realities of the Palestinian Arabs (including those of the diaspora), and the Israelis (including those of the Jewish diaspora.)
This would not be the ideal solution but a lot fairer than the one proposed by the Israeli "left" and the American administration. If their proposal is accepted by the PA leadership, then Jews and Palestinians should join hands to oppose the concessions of the PA.
Some of What’s Wrong With the Liberal Zionist Vision of the Two State Solution
Liberal Zionists in Israel and the diaspora have, for many years, put forth a vision of two states in historic Palestine, i.e., a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian state. The borders between the states would be the 49 armistice line (the "green line"), with land swaps to recognize "demographic realities," i.e., the half a million Jewish settlers who have settled over the green line since 1967. In exchange for the settlement blocs, the Palestinians would be given land within pre-67 Israel "of equal quality," a concept that is left vague. They would be asked to recognize the state of Israel as a Jewish state, to forego the right to return given them by Resolution 194 and international law, and to keep their state nonmilitarized.
This view is not only accepted by liberal Zionists (Jews and non-Jews are included within that description, as well as any one who believes in Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state – I can't think of any better description for that view than Zionist) It has also been accepted by some Palestinians and their allies who see it as preferable to the status quo. It is not half a loaf; it is more like half a slice. But, the argument goes, it is better than nothing.
What I would like to argue briefly is that the liberal Zionist vision of the two-state solution is not morally justifiable, and a peace agreement along its lines constitutes what Avishai Margalit calls, although not with reference to the liberal Zionist vision, a rotten compromise. Margalit distinguishes between bad compromises, which are justifiable or excusable for the sake of peace even when the principles of justice are violated, and rotten compromises, which either result in, or preserve, an inhuman system. The cases of inhuman systems he gives (slavery, racist tyranny) are worse, I believe, than the current system of Israeli occupation – but what that system shares in common with the more extreme versions is the dehumanization of those under occupation. I wish to argue that a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians that produces a Palestinian state that is only marginally better than occupation, and in which there is still a significant degree of Israeli control, hence, of dehumanization, would be, if not a rotten compromise, than something perilously close to it.
I grant that, at first glance, the liberal Zionist vision of the two-state solution tries to end the dehumanization of the Palestinians. After all, it is claimed, the withdrawal of the IDF would give the Palestinians control over their own lives. They would not be bound by all the restrictions, e.g., immigration, decisions taken without their representation, that are placed upon them now. They could stand on their own two feet.
But this is a liberal Zionist illusion, based on the underlying liberal Zionist myth that the Palestinians have nothing to fear from the Israelis provided that the former behave themselves. In fact – as the disengagement from Gaza has abundantly shown – the issue is not whether there is an IDF military presence, or even a settlers' presence on the West Bank. The issue is whether Israel has effective control over the Palestinian state by virtue of its military and economic power. By "effective control" I don't mean "total control". Israel has never had total control over the Palestinians – nor is that fact remarkable. American slaveholders never had total control over their slaves, as the slave rebellions and other acts of resistance amply show. But it is abundantly clear, and has been pointed out by many, that the liberal-Zionist vision doesn't take into account Palestinian security needs – beyond having them outsourced to countries friendly to Israel. And a truncated non-militarized Palestine with security guarantees for Israel would not guarantee a sufficient level of dignity, security, and independence that a peace agreement must provide in order for it not to represent a rotten compromise. If the Palestinian leadership accepts such a compromise, out of weakness, so much the worse for them.
The liberal Zionist vision is indeed motivated by moral concerns. The vision recognizes that it is morally wrong, not just inexpedient, for Israel to have day to day control over the lives of Palestinians. It is less concerned with the measure of effective control Israel will have over the future Palestinian state, and indirectly, on the lives of the Palestinians living within it. I don't think it is concerned with that at all.
The strange thing about the compromise offered by liberal Zionist groups like J Street is that it is not really a compromise at all. In a compromise, both groups give up things that are dear to them in order reach agreement. Yet in the liberal Zionist vision of the Two State solution, the Israeli side gives up things that the liberal Zionist wants to give up in the first place – the West Bank and Gaza. The liberal Zionist does not mind sharing Jerusalem, nor does it mind withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza – on the contrary, it argues such a withdrawal to be in Israel's long-term interests. The liberal Zionists, in order to sell the plan to not-so-liberal Zionists, argue that in the worse case scenario, Israel's security would not be seriously threatened after such a withdrawal. So in fact, the liberal Zionist vision combines moral concern with the Palestinians under occupation with concern for the future of the Jewish state if the occupation continues. It offers to the Palestinians things that it is not interested in to begin with – and presents these as painful compromises.
This comment has been made often by the West Bank settlers. When the Oslo Accord spoke of "Gaza first" a popular rightwing bumper sticker was, "Tel Aviv first." The framers of Oslo were criticized for offering things that the rightwing was interested in keeping, but that they weren't.
If the Palestinians are asked to make painful compromises, then so should the Israelis. That should take some of the sting off of what the Palestinians are forced, through their weakness, to offer.
Let me take this back to the issue of land swaps. The liberal vision of land swaps is to give Palestinians land as compensation for the land of the settlement blocs. Let's take one "uncontroversial" settlement bloc for liberal Zionists – the settlements over the Green Line near Jerusalem. Now I ask you seriously – what lands in Israel could possibly compensate for these strategically settled areas, areas that were settled not only to provide more housing for Jews but to keep Jerusalem within effective Jewish control for perpetuity? Before 1967, Jerusalem was a circle split in two (unequal) parts, Jewish and Arab. With the settlement blocs, Jerusalem is now a Jewish bagel with a bite out of it; a tiny part of the hole is Arab. Given Jerusalem's national, religious and strategic importance, what does Israel plan to give in exchange? Land contiguous to Gaza? Land from the Lachish district.?
The integration of the settlement blocs around Jerusalem into Israel radically alters Jerusalem – and even were the Palestinian state offered all of the Negev from Beer Sheva to Eilat, that would not be begin to compensate.
That is why I suggested that in exchange for the Palestinians losing most of Jerusalem and its environs – a painful compromise – it should demand that Israel receive a significant number of Palestinian refugees. Now nobody in Israel wants this – which is precisely why it would be viewed by the Palestinians as a sacrifice worthy of their sacrifice. Or if not the refugees, then prime territory around Tel Aviv, or in the area between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
The response to this will be that I am making peace impossible. But my response to that is that the peace is not the end game – dignity and self-determination are. It is about time that liberal Zionists stop arguing that "peace is so close, if only we could find out the way to it" and start looking not so much at principles of absolute justice – the weaker party will never get that – but the minimum requirements of an agreement for dignity, humanity, and self-determination.
And to my one-state friends, I want to make clear that I am not endorsing a two-state solution. I am calling for liberal Zionists to examine the adequacy of the two-state solution that they are endorsing, and not just from the frame of reference of the liberal Zionist.
I didn't always feel this way. On the eve of Camp David II, I went to a demonstration in support of Prime Minister Barak at the Prime Minister residence. I heard him talk about settlement blocs, and I said to myself – Heck, if the Palestinians accept it, who am I, an Israeli, to be more Palestinian than they are? Isn't it more important to end the occupation, get an agreement, and start working together again? Isn't any deal better than no deal?
Not when that deal represents a rotten, or near rotten compromise. As a liberal Zionist, ask yourself how you feel if you were asked to give up most of Jerusalem, settle a million Palestinian refugees, and accept external controls on your security.
What would you be willing to give up for peace?
“It offers to the Palestinians things that it is not interested in to begin with – and presents these as painful compromises.”
That emotionality is your emphasis, and Netanyahu’s. I am a liberal Zionist and I don’t bother with the emotionally laden language of “painful compromises”.
I’ve stated that I believe that Israel should just accept the latest PA proposal (submitted eight months ago, but never even opened).
Peace is constructed 80% of good relations between the parties, and 20% of defensibility.
The rectangle of river to sea is not defensible in an environment of animosity, and the literal 67 borders (I don’t expect Israel to EVER give up the kotel) are defensible in an environment of good relations.
The right of return of Palestinian refugees beyond a single generation (maybe children of provable Israeli former residents), is impossible under any government.
A million is out of the question.
If you value the term “shalom”, peace is the end game, not restoration of past wrongs, nor even current equal rights, but comprehensive mutual well-being.
If that is possible to achieve by well-meaning leaders, then to not seek it in favor of restitution is a distraction.
It is up to us to create good relations, actual ones.
How do our words, our actions, result in a restoration of emphasis of the 80%, of good relations as a substantive basis of peace?
It is already a single state.
A good way to get 80% good relations is to give universal human and civil rights.
Enfranchise everyone between river and sea. One person, one vote.
The rest can be determined on the floor of the Knesset.
Thus spoke a card-bearing member of the Nationalist Left
“The right of return of Palestinian refugees beyond a single generation (maybe children of provable Israeli former residents), is impossible under any government.”
A democratic Government for Erez Israel where everyone, not just the Jews, have a vote, would manage it. Face it, Richard, Jewish hegemony has a limited shelf life . Nobody asked the Zionists to occupy Gaza, you know. Throughout the days of the Jewish kingdoms covered in theholy books the Jews were the authors of much of their misfortunes and it is happening again in the Altneuland.
>> The right of return of Palestinian refugees beyond a single generation (maybe children of provable Israeli former residents), is impossible under any government.
Love how you refer to ethnically-cleansed Palestinians as “Israeli former residents”. Anyway, just “hold your nose” (like you would have done when the “former residents” were being ethnically cleansed from what is now Israel), consider the RoR to be “necessary” and you’ll do just fine.
>> If you value the term “shalom”, peace is the end game, not restoration of past wrongs, nor even current equal rights, but comprehensive mutual well-being.
1. Israel is the party currently engaged in an ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.2
2. Israel is the party which refuses to engage in sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.
3. Accountability for past wrongs is crucial. Jews expect it of others (“Remember the Holocaust!”), so there’s no reason to absolve Jews of accountability when it is expected of them.
4. You dismiss justice, universal human rights and now equal rights, too. You are truly a man of “peace” (just as you are a “humanist”).
did j street ever do anything for a just solution ?
J street has been a huge disappointment. Glad I only paid for one conference where I got black tote bag AND A LOT OF Phony TALK.
I think you are reading too much into the choice of language here. J Street and the folks demonstrating in Tel-Aviv are basically following the lead of Palestinian negotiators in allowing for some adjustments to the Green Line based on a fair exchange of territory. I don’t think the use of the word ‘gushim’ changes that, and mostly reflects an ever shifting linguistic battleground.
You can still oppose that view honorably; but I don’t think any newsworthy shift in thinking has occurred.
On the other hand, I can’t be the only one who thinks the phrase ‘National Left’ is creepy. Yes, I’m sure it was crafted by pollsters with the best of intentions, but still….
the phrase ‘National Left’ is creepy.
ROFL. It is indeed, but so is the mindset. It’s a perfect term, no doubt.
I know you are wrong.
How do you know they are “following the lead”? I thought you were against “interpreting” others, going by what they wrote.
That’s a meaningless statement. It’s newspeak, for sure.
What is truly creepy is reading contradictory comments from someone who on the one hand blames Palestinian movements for failure to effect change, and on the other hand rejects BDS by calling it a political tool.
I don’t reject everything about BDS. I do think some aspects are worth discussing. Count me as a supporter of the Gush Shalom led boycott of settlement products since the 90s, before the term BDS was even invented.
and
Naturally, I’ve never blamed the Palestinians for anything like ‘failure to effect change.’ Responsibility for that is very widely distributed, and as folks here now, Israel has most of the power (and therefore most of the responsibility.)
Avi, try nuance. It closer approximates reality.
Readers should note that I have already explained why I consider clenchner to be a fraud/a hack. See here:
link to mondoweiss.net
And I’ll repeat:
How do you know they are “following the lead”? I thought you were against “interpreting” others, going by what they wrote.
The hack has weaseled away again. He’ll strut back in a few days carrying his tabula rasa and denying he said X, Y or Z; like the criminal interviewed by police whose story changes depending on the questions asked. When inconsistency in his fabricated narrative does him in, he weasels out by accusing the interviewer of tricking him, or developing a sudden memory loss.
This commenter is of little concern to me, however. I am interested in the demented lengths to which some American Jews will go in order not only to contain Palestinian efforts for liberty, but also to deceptively lie to their fellow Americans by claiming to be progressive and assimilated Jews.
I could go for ONE STATE on the condition that the UN rescind Resolution 181 and abolish Israel and start at the beginning and recongize an entirely NEW One State and set up requirements for the creation of a entirely new One State government.
Which of course would include the right of Palestine refugees to return to Palestine and have a vote in the new government same as the Jews.
I would not count on it, the UN means the USA and Washington is in the pay of the zionists.
Since it is against international laws to conquer land in war, then annect it, all those settlements in the WB and Golan Hights are illegal!!
In my opinion there are only two possible solutions:
1. Israel withdraws to the pre 1967 lines, (we cannot call them borders as they were never declared as such), take all jewish settlers with them and turn over to the palestinians all real estate as compensation. This would be the easier solution.
2. Declare a single state with democratic laws and ruled by the majority.
In this case the settlers must give back all real estate as it was built on stolen land, (including Israel proper), return of the refugees and a free democratic elections where the best may win.
This would be harder as Israel must take back around a million refugees who want their confiscated properties back, a nightmare for any nation.
Or Niniyahoo and his clan can continue to suppress the palestinians until the time comes when the arabs have a leader and they take back their land.
We learned in Vietnam and Afghanistan, you can have the most sophisticated weapons, but still lose the war if your opponents greatly outnumber you and are ready to die.
I often wonder if a general amnesty for Israelis will be declared in connection with any of these solutions, or if an attempt will be made to find and prosecute Israeli military personnel who are suspected of war crimes or civilian crimes against Palestinians.
There is a third solution: war. More plausible than the first two.
“you still lose the war if your opponents greatly outnumber you and are ready to die”
for a cause
and that’s it in a nutshell
then why not address the cause?
in afghanistan?
u. s. troops occupying their land
in iraq?
same thing
in palestine?
same thing only it’s the u.s.-backed zionist entity israel’s that’s the occupier
troops out now from all these occupied lands and what’ll we have?
right away a better world
today’s being the best ever
until tomorrow
this is so, so, SO on point.
for later?
the what’s, why’s & wherefores of palestine
for now?
the when and the how
when?
now
how?
by our convincing the public that supporting justice for palestine is the way to go
and everything else?
to follow
Even if a super-improved 2ss were on offer, involving full withdrawal to the 67 lines and complete evacuation of settlements, it would still be a monstrously unfair privileging of the Jewish minority both because they would have such a high proportion of the available resources and because their activities of 1948 would be unconditionally rewarded. They would have managed this by sheer force and everyone would know that there’s a serious chance that the balance of power will change one day. This knowledge would make it very difficult for either party to accept the situation in any approximation to good faith, even if in some quite deep sense they both wanted to.
I am agnostic on 1SS/2SS, but it was time someone went after the J Street 2SS dogma.
This article has many rhetorical and substantive trump cards.
This is one of my favorites:
Now consider why Israel ambassador Michael Oren recently considered the 49 armistice lines to be “indefensible” – despite the fact that not only were they successfully defended, they were expanded upon in 1967
I’ve been waiting for somebody to say just that.
Thanks, Jerry
Thanks for a great post, Jerry.
I especially liked these bits:
“the peace is not the end game – dignity and self-determination are”
yes, for the indigenous people of palestine, as for all the world’s indigenous people.
“…a truncated non-militarized Palestine with security guarantees for Israel would not guarantee a sufficient level of dignity, security, and independence that a peace agreement must provide in order for it not to represent a rotten compromise. If the Palestinian leadership accepts such a compromise, out of weakness, so much the worse for them.”
I agree with you, Shmuel. This is great and trenchant writing by Jerry!
Jerry Haber- Please explain to me, with a one state solution and an Arab majority in the Knesset, before they vote to change the name of the country and the name of the parliament and the national anthem, how will they vote to handle the Jewish army? Will they vote to eliminate its budget? Will they establish a second army in charge of disarming the Jewish army? Will this second army take control of the nukes and the air force and the submarines? Will the Jewish army hand over these controls because the Knesset voted this second army into existence? How is that going to work?
WJ – Jerry doesn’t support a 1 state solution. He just has friends who do.
Anyway, we’re light years from addressing these questions. Once Israel addresses the core issues of giving the Palestinians their dignity, a lot of these questions will melt away.
If any of this can actually happen it will be done with international guarantees. The United States already has stockpiles in Israel, the 6th fleet in the Mediterranean, and satellite and drone monitoring of the region. Israel only needs its soldiers to take on the Palestinians and handle the low-level skirmishes with Hizbollah and Hamas. That will be resolved in the peace settlement and the rest will be the U.S.’s problem.
Your questions turn the subject away from the core issue: Israel’s refusal to accept the Palestinians as equals.
Elliot is characteristically on target. I’m in my late 50s, in excellent health, but I increasingly doubt I’ll live long enough to see a just solution, whether 1- or 2-state. With each passing year and each increase in size in Israel’s settlement/colonies, the 2-state solution becomes less likely, but the 1-state is not just around the corner either.
Meanwhile, as Elliot reminds us, how Palestinians live today matters. We have the power to join on with the strategy they themselves decided, BDS, which along with other pressure should reduce their chances of being bombed, arrested, tortured, imprisoned, and having even more of their land stolen.
Given that the land was taken by force from Palestinians, the only possibility of regaining it is through force. We live in a world where only the strong survive, whether we like that reality or not. Might makes right.
Jews in the west live in privilege and they won’t budge unless that privilege is threatened. That is the very reason why BDS has little support among American Jews. In fact, many of them are working to undermine the BDS movement.
This year, 2011, with the Arab Spring and new revolutionary grass roots movements demanding freedom in the region is the worst timing for Israel to attack Iran. That is why a regional war resulting from Israel’s attack on Iran can be a positive power equalizer.
I agree. I am 65years old and expect to see things get worse before they get better for the Palestinians because of the US support for Israel. The lobby is so powerful that it will probably keep Anthony wiener in office in spite of his nasty tweets.
It sounds like you are panicking at the mere thought of relinquishing that privilege to which you have gotten used. It’s a rude awakening, isn’t it?
WJ
What happened to the Army in South Africa? I’m sure they still have one! If a 1ss comes about, it’ll change and it’ll represent both peoples. Those of its personnel who can’t/won’t adapt will leave. In 1ss it will surely be downsized dramatically – the perceived threats will largely disappear. So US taxpayers will no longer be held over a barrel. Who needs a national anthem that pretty much excludes half the people under Israeli control already? Of course it would need a complete rewrite! I suppose a significant percentage of people will return to their home country, much as you plan to do. Once that’s tailed off, the remaining population will probably debate name change of the State, or compromise over which part of it will be called Israel and which part Palestine, maybe dependant on majority population in the area. It’ll still be the same land, won’t it? Or is the stronger connection to the recreation of the mythological stuff than the reality? A strong written constitution should protect the rights of all people, but can only do so with complete separation of religion and state – which will likely mean far less material support for the non-working ultra-orthos and their yeshivas, no state stipends for the rabbis, etc. Same would be so for other religions. Things now are hardly staying the “same” as there is an ever right-ward quick-march going on. That is surely the greater danger in the long run.
“or is the stronger connection to the recreation of the mythological stuff than the reality?”
& how to stop this “ever right-ward quick march”going on?”
how much time?
clock’s running down
doomsday?
staying the course
the way out?
justice for palestine + troops out now
and then what sort of world?
won’t it be up to us?
WJ raises a very interesting question:
Will this second army take control of the nukes and the air force and the submarines? Will the Jewish army hand over these controls because the Knesset voted this second army into existence? How is that going to work?
Nobody knows. Your implications here are right on. Israel has the power to end civilization as we know it. All of those nuclear weapons in their control. And there is really no one outside of Israel that can control them. What is the rest of the world to do? Cower in submission? Challenge them to a duel? Incinerate Israel and just hope they don’t take down the rest of the world? All very interesting questions. I certainly do not have any answers to these very difficult questions. But what is so amazing is that the US and Europe allowed Israel to gain this kind of power. One tiny country has imported superpower technology that is holding the rest of the world in hostage.
Jerry Haber- Please explain to me …
You’re not addressing real issues here, WJ, but seem to be voicing some deeper fear of an “Arab majority”. You treat changing the name of the country and its anthem to reflect the national identity of all of its citizens as an act of hostility by one group against another (such things would presumably be negotiated before ever reaching the Knesset or the Knesset/Majlis or the Barlaman/Parlament).
There are also real questions to be asked about the transformation of the IDF, in the context of a 1ss, to serve the needs of the entire country and all of its citizens – how to integrate Palestinians, change attitudes, strategic goals, etc. Not as an act of hostility or retribution against the “Jewish army”, but as a healthy necessity – more difficult perhaps than transforming the “Jewish post office” or the “Jewish foreign ministry”, but not fundamentally different.
Thus (from the responses) either a major war must take place first or the solution is light years away, if one wishes to avoid a major war or to expedite the process a 2SS would be the best way station on the way to reconciliation.
either a major war must take place first or the solution is light years away
The “solution” is light years away, which is why a rights-based approach is far more appropriate. Utopian solutions may help, to the extent that they offer trajectories and provide basic principles (equality, human rights, international law, mutual respect, etc.) for interaction.
There is nothing wrong with 2 states per se, whether as a waystation or a permanent arrangement, as long as it is is not a ploy or a rotten compromise. If it is a decent proposal that offers “dignity, humanity, and self-determination” (Haber), it will offer a trajectory for improvement and may help to diminish violence. If it is simply a ploy or a “rotten compromise”, it will do more harm than good.
Well, as that bearded fellow from Vienna said, “If you will it, it is no legend.” And may I propose a flag for the 1SS. In the foreground an olive branch, and in the background (in the two upper corners) one flag of Israel and one flag of Palestine. And as for a name I propose the United States of the Holy Land (if it is to be a federated country) or the United Peoples of the Holy Land (if there are to be no states). Currently advocates of a one state solution are flying the Palestinian flag and planning to call the new state Palestine and that makes those who are devoted to Jewish sovereignty and a Jewish army (unlike myself, whose devotion is somewhere between tepid and tepid) a little dubious about the reconciliation that you one staters have in store.
You say that like it’s possible to end the occupation just like that. Your country is its occupation, WJ.
Currently advocates of a one state solution are flying the Palestinian flag and planning to call the new state Palestine
Like who?
and that makes those who are devoted to Jewish sovereignty and a Jewish army … a little dubious about the reconciliation that you one staters have in store.
Those who are devoted to Jewish sovereignty and a Jewish army have have no interest in the kind of reconciliation “[we] one staters have in store”, i.e. complete equality between Jews and non-Jews, with sovereignty belonging to all citizens and the army serving the needs of all citizens. Another bearded chap from Vienna would have called such scepticism projection.
Edward Said:
Omar Barghouti:
Fantastic quotes, Shmuel. And your comments are patient and thoughtful as always.
wondering jew, I honestly can’t tell if your question is issuing a threat (‘because it is an army of and for Jews, the IDF will always block change’), or expressing the feeling of being threatened (‘change will leave Jews without an ethnic army and therefore defenseless’).
Have you honestly never considered the possibility of an integrated army? Don’t you think military integration could be a powerful means of fostering inter-ethnic cooperation and shared purpose? Surely that offers a better vision than perpetual rule by an all-powerful ethnic militia.
Great argument, especially about the inherent problems of the two-state solution.
The two-state solution perpetuates the basic problem of a tremendous power imbalance between ethnic groups in the shared space of Israel/Palestine. Zionist political strategies focus on maintaining exclusive Jewish ethnic control over the heavily armed Israeli state apparatus, which wields, as Haber points out, “effective control” over all of mandate Palestine (no matter where its forces happen to be deployed). Barring a dramatic militarization of the potential Palestinian state, that control (and the accompanying abuses) will continue after any two-state agreement. That militarization would not be possible, but anyway it wouldn’t be the best thing for both peoples, who won’t live in peace until they accept to live together as equals.
…..for both peoples, who won’t live in peace until they accept to live together as equals”
say it again
louder, louder
say it again
louder, louder
once more
say it again
louder, louder
til the walls come tumbling down
10 days too late. Or probably decades. We need to ask ourselves how much deeper Americans are going to allow ourselves to be forced down this dead end road. Likud Zionism is finished. Zionism is finished. The survivors are not our responsibility. Do we have a suicide pact with the Democrats on Israel? We only have weeks/months to answer this question and many others as the American Century is over. Choose wisely.
Hej!
vision + plan + spirit = change
vision?
how about a just and peaceful world?
plan?
to be decided upon collectively, based on one equals one
spirit?
that of those eighteen glorious days in tahrir square
easy as that?
better yet
provided everyone’s aboard
no bloodshed
Like a corpse in the sun, J Street didn’t take long to stink
A honey pot for those who thought it would be any different, siphoning off their time, money and goodwill.