Inside Israel there is a growing war against Netanyahu. Here is Zeev Sternhell in Haaretz trying to save the two-state solution. I think he is too late, but there is an important theme here, which the American press has failed to reflect: that the ideology of the settlers, having devoured Israeli politics, has thereby exposed the foundational ideas of Zionism as racist and expansionist; and Sternhell and other liberal Zionists mean to rescue the founders from that shadow. (As a Jew, I do see some of the idealism that propelled the early Zionists, the messianic response to conditions in Europe, but anyone who has seen the occupation can't read these sorts of arguments without having the feeling that they evade the essential issue, human-rights atrocities.) Sternhell:
[I]f we see the establishment of the state as a watershed event in Jewish national history - both because it engendered a new political and legal concept in the history of Zionism, that of citizenship, and because geopolitical borders were assigned to the new entity for the first time - then the enterprise of conquering the land has ended. And that, in the eyes of the right wing, is the real existential danger.
Indeed, the right wing considers recognition of the reality created in 1949 to be the chief enemy of Zionism...[T]he question of borders is only one aspect of the failure to recognize the War of Independence as a fundamental turning point; it also has a civic angle. The anti-democratic legislation that the Knesset has enacted over the past year, which targets basic civic equality and which borders on racism even if it is not actually racist, is a way of declaring that the essence of the state is that it belongs to Jews alone. At bottom, this view stems from seeing Jews as the sole owners of the Land of Israel. This means the state doesn't exist to guarantee democracy, equality, human rights or even a decent life to all; it exists to guarantee Jewish rule over the Land of Israel and to make sure no additional political entity is established here. Everything is deemed permissible to reach that end, and no price is considered too high.
See, now, we keep hearing about how there’s this “war” going on inside Israeli politics but from the outside, we see nothing at all of it. Except for Rabin, there have been no Israeli governments that have worked categorically to end the occupation (Begin only withdrew from Sinai after Carter cut him one hell of a sweetheart deal in foreign aid and agreed to give almost the same amount to Egypt to shut them up) and he was assassinated and the electorate replaced him with politicians who were his polar opposite so CLEARLY the majority of the Israeli electorate don’t approve of genuine peace.
I understand why even anti-Zionist Jews have some romantic notion of saving Israel (from itself, ostensibly…) but I think we have to face facts here. Israel hasn’t merely declared war on Palestine, they’ve declared war on international law.
Some anti-Zionist Jews aren’t so much about saving Israel (with the full package of racist practices currently in force) as supporting a next step forward that seems most in accordance with the wishes of Israelis and Palestinians.
That said, I agree with Phil that something interesting is happening. A decade ago, Israeli peaceniks argued that ending the occupation was necessary; but they didn’t come off as chicken little’s talking about the sky falling. Sternhell and others are now pointing at the short term horizon as a ‘last chance.’
What does it mean to screw up your last chance? What does that look like? How will ‘we’ know, and how will it obvious to ‘them’? I’d like to read more scenario planning exercises that articulate a vision of failure. I think it might be true that the point of no return is close, or just passed, but haven’t been persuaded by folks who see that point as a good thing.
“I think it might be true that the point of no return is close, or just passed, but haven’t been persuaded by folks who see that point as a good thing”
Sounds like some debate on Peak Oil, doesn’t it? where you continue to argue with environmentalists who you suspect actually believe it could be a good thing..
So you, instead of lending an honest hand to envisioning the world after and perhaps helping make it survivable – in however small or large ways – you prefer to question the motivations of those who’ve seen the end coming, accepted the verdict of history, and are hard at work to move forward and allay the worst catastrophies.
The trouble with you clencher is that you are smack in the middle of an imaginary shivah for the zionist “dream”. So even as you admit the dream has been a nightmare for those caught on the wrong side, you can’t bring yourself to accept that the dream has actually died.
You know that’s why shivahs were invented in the first place, right? so people can come to terms with an absence where before there was a presence? accept the inevitablity of the cycle of life? I am waiting for you to get up from the floor, where you seem to carry a mourning ritual all your own – through pretend debates with us – and go for the circle around the neighbourhood, which marks a rejoining with the living.
I don’t share the Zionist dream Danaa. On that alone, your whole comment is invalidated. I do share the dream of seeing a Palestinian state. Generally speaking, a higher proportion of Palestinians than Zionists have that particular fantasy.
Anyway, I’m not questioning the motives of, well, people who think the failure of a 2ss has already occurred in the sense of dismissing anything they say. Many are good people with important points to make. It’s more a case of a bias that makes them less trustworthy on the topic.
Yes, in exactly the same way that a primitivist anarchist survivalist eagerly anticipating the end of the oil age is not a good source for objective analysis on peak oil. And I’ve quite a very warm spot for such folks.
I don’t actually dismiss people because they come to different conclusions that me. The ‘dismiss’ muscle comes into play when I witness people attacking others on a personal basis, which is often paired with efforts to portray a sincere and reasonable opinion in the worst possible light.
Readers should note that denial alone does not amount to truth. Commenter clenchner’s comment history indicates that he is a Zionist.
Readers should know that commenter clenchner is in favor of a Palestinian state — without the right of return for Palestinian refugees into their previous land or homes — as it serves his Zionist dream
Readers should know that commenter clenchner uses meaningless phrases as a stalling tactic.
Readers should know that commenter clenchner is under the illusion that playing dumb will earn him credibility.
Note that when he is confronted with the erroneous conclusions that he posts, he usually refuses to accept those corrections or disappears for a few days.
Avi, ouch (for clencher, who must be doubling over somewhere and will soon come back and double down. He should have taken the out I provided…..)
Hope I never get on your bad side…..
Well, duh. Everything said follows from the conviction that Jews can never trust the goyhim, whether they are Palestinians or Americans, or indeed anywhere on earth. Considering the respective population of Jews and the rest of the world, there can never be an acceptable insurance policy except a state with vastly superior military power & control on as much land as possible and ruled by its Jewish citizens. Even the control of the sole superpower in the world by Israel is insufficient to put at ease this kind of core gut “thinking.” Remember, the USA is 98% goy. What if they change their political campaign funding laws and a really independent rich goy somehow gets a decent spot on primetime TV everyday?
A while ago I posed a question, which I’d like to come back to. It’s directed at those here who oppose the 2 state solution: What will be your position if a Palestinian state is declared in September? Will you reject it? Oppose recognition and UN membership? Advocate its immediate disolution?
It’s directed at those here who oppose the 2 state solution:
cute, no cigar. you’ve been here long enough, direct your question at someone. quit humping stawmen.
I’m not sure who’s supposed to address that. I don’t oppose a two state solution, myself. I just realize that people like jon have made it impossible and are now trying to blame us for the intransigence and moral bankruptcy of his nation.
yeah, it’s a set up question.
i’m coming here to this site with all the wife beaters specifically to address those who support abusing women. would all the wife beaters please tell me what you would do if your wife slapped you back?
I’ll admit to thinking that the 2ss, even with unmodified 67 borders (fat chance) is grossly unfair, indeed too unfair to last. It’s still possible – most things that are even vaguely imaginable are possible – that it may arrive with modified borders and that it may hold for a bit.
I would not welcome its arrival and I would not think that the resulting situation was just.
I might, I admit, warmly welcome some of the immediate consequences if there were indeed an immediate, significant and sustained improvement in Palestinian lives. But in the unlikely event that any Palestinian asked me for advice I’d probably say ‘vote No’. I would think that any short term improvement would be at a heavy price, beginning to be paid quite quickly – the first installment being the iron rule of people who were really Western nominees and would not have any thought of letting the situation change. The more the result was a handful of statelets, where ruling individuals and families could have a whale of a time, the more I would dislike it. I don’t think that the advancing years could bring anything except more and more problems associated with the absolutely dominant position ‘between river and sea’ that the Jewish minority would have, at least would have under any version of the 2ss that I’ve ever heard of.
I don’t expect the solution to come by this road, but we’ll see.
those here who oppose the 2 state solution
I don’t think I’ve ever come across any one-stater who actually opposes an equitable 2ss (as opposed to a time-wasting ploy or rotten compromise).
As for your question, I don’t believe the vote in September will change the situation on the ground in any way, and certainly won’t expedite the establishment of an actual Palestinian state. What it may do is raise awareness of the hopelessness and sham of the “peace” process, ongoing occupation and dispossession, and general Israeli intransigence. It may also put some European governments on the spot, domestically, on the I/P issue. The way I see it, every little bit helps.
Shmuel’s post crossed with mine. It’s not that I would oppose a 2ss that was equitable but that I couldn’t imagine one without resorting to fantasy.
MHughes,
Your point about the possible negative consequences of the UNGA vote is a good one, but I don’t think the motion itself implies an inequitable solution.
Shmuel, I’m somewhat puzzled by your comment: people who support one state also support two states? As if you’re saying “one state, two states, whatever…” I think there’s a really big, critical, difference.
I support both, two and one state option.
jon,
The number of states is a means to a an end: justice for Palestinians and a peaceful future for all inhabitants of the region. One-staters believe that this can best be achieved through a single, secular, democratic polity (federated or not) from the river to the sea. That doesn’t mean that they oppose a 2ss per se, just that they think that a single state would be more coherent and effective in achieving justice and peace – also considering the inherent unity of the geographical area in question, on various levels.
Since neither option is particularly likely to come about any time in the foreseeable future, the important thing is to establish the basic requirements for any agreement (and negotiations for that matter): dignity, humanity, and self-determination (as Jerry Haber put it in his recent post).
See, jon, you’re puzzled by the comment because Shmuel’s statement is rational and well thought out… whereas your question is nonsensical and baiting to people who don’t even exist here, as far as I can tell.
Why don’t you ask your question of someone specific who you know would actively oppose a two state solution and will only accept a one state solution? Find someone specific to answer your question. Good luck with that.
Shmuel, I have met one staters who would oppose an equitable 2ss. That said, I think that the argument over one or two states is a bit of a losing game – and you might agree. The main thing is to support concrete objectives, be they diplomatic, economic, human rights, or whatever. I’m doubtful about a one state solution; but if Palestinian one staters achieved political dominance internally, I’d consider a shift in my thinking.
Readers who wish to put the above commenter’s spin in context, may wish to read the following comment from September 2010:
link to mondoweiss.net
followed by:
Ha. I’ll happily amend my statement to:
“I hope one staters like Avi don’t increase in political power.” Folks like Shmuel are much nicer. Unfortunately, I’ve encountered three Avi’s for every one Shmuel….
clencher, have you asked Shmuel to describe what he thinks a Palestinian state should look like? What sort of sovereign powers it should have to be a real sovereign state? Do you think he agrees with Bibi’s description of it?
Note to readers:
Shmuel and I, both agree on the same principles regarding BDS and the so-called one state solution.
Shmuel has disagreed in the past and continues to disagree with ethnocentric, tribalist, Zionist Jews like clenchner – whether on matters of political or social equity. In that regard, Shmuel and I share similar views.
Also, please note that the above commenter’s modus operandi is to derail the discussion in order to divert attention from the subject matter, i.e. Palestinian rights, including the right of return and equality for all, whether Jews, Muslims or Christians.
Whether he likes Shmuel or dislikes me is irrelevant. When Shmuel presses him on similar matters, that commenter weasels out and disappears.
That said commenter is unable to distinguish between personal and principled issues, is testament to either deceptive tactics or a convoluted perception of the world around him.
I have met one staters who would oppose an equitable 2ss.
Palestinians or non-Palestinians? It’s a lot harder for non-Ps to actively oppose a Palestinian desire for independence, without having to share power with Israeli Jews – at least in a part of Palestine, at least for a while. It’s hard to say exactly how many Palestinians support a 2ss out of a sense of pragmatism (“the Israelis would never agree to 1 state”), and how many out of a desire for national independence. BTW, by equitable I mean an end to the ’67 occupation, equal rights for Palestinians within Israel and ROR for the refugees. As I said, I have never met a one-stater who would actively oppose such an arrangement.
That said, I think that the argument over one or two states is a bit of a losing game – and you might agree.
I have written as much on many occasions. I support a rights-based approach and negotiations based on the principle of equality.
I’ll happily amend my statement to: “I hope one staters like Avi don’t increase in political power.”
I don’t know whether Avi supports one state or not, but I think you would be hard-pressed to find substantial differences between Avi’s views on what would constitute an equitable solution, and my own. I’m sure you would agree that “nice” is really beside the point.
If you were being facetious (my snark-sense may not be awake yet – still nursing 1st cuppa), you’re rather odd remark that you are “sympathetic to the two-staters mostly because I hope that the one staters don’t increase in political power”, stands.
Shmuel, it’s hard for me to see things in black and white. Right now the camp of those opposed to a two state solution is a diverse bunch, but quite a few support an Islamic state or dream of reversing history and displacing many of the current inhabitants. The liberal forces among Palestinians are mostly for 2ss, and in Israel, historically, the political forces in support of 1ss are Matzpen, Sons of the Village and other shrill+marginal grouplets with no electoral pull, not even among Palestinians.
So yeah, there was a bit of snarky exaggeration in the original quote and my elaboration, with a kernel of truth. Making peace and bridging the gaps between Israelis and Palestinians is hard enough. I just don’t see the diplomatic chops on the 1ss side. It might not be fair to saddle all the Palestinians with the likes of Avi – but can you imagine someone with that mindset following in the footsteps of say, Mandela? One of the most gentle and inclusive leaders we are likely to see?
In that sense, ‘nice’ is a stand in for all the complex, human navigation of peace making. It’s not a replacement for the application of political pressure – but it is a necessary complement.
You know clencher, it almost pains me to see someone so civil and reasonable battling so uselessly against so many who wear their incivility and unreasonableness as a badge of honor.
You suggest that it “might not be fair to saddle all the Palestinians with the likes of Avi.” Permit me to add: it would be unfair to saddle anyone with the likes of Avi.
Your comment on the one-state solution is reasonable. It ain’t gonna happen. Ever. No Israeli government, no matter how generous or liberal-minded is ever going to agree to drown the Jewish state in a sea of demographic subversion by letting the refugees “return.”
As I’ve said previously here, a right of return to Israel of the 1948 refugees and their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren would number about 4.7–7.5 million, depending on who’s counting. Such a return would mean that the territory of pre-1967 Israel would swiftly or gradually acquire an Arab majority. Meaning, no more Jewish state.
If implemented, it would be a regional disaster, and a catalyst for instability the likes of which could scarcely be imagined. There would be instant pandemonium, as Arab and Jewish communities would vie for dominance and try to settle old scores, and as millions of refugees from 1948 and their descendants, now resident in the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon would attempt to repossess lost houses and lands in pre-1967 Israel creating an Arab majority in the bi-national state. If that state were democratic (and that’s a very, very big if), the majority would determine its character, and in fairly short order it would become an Arab state with a gradually declining Jewish minority. The PA and, needless to say, Hamas, who have shown precious little concern for either democracy, freedom, rule of law, or human rights where the Palestinian people are concerned, would doubtfully confer any of these on Jews, of all people, living under their domain. I have little doubt that the Arab majority would soon pass legislation blocking further Jewish immigration into the country, making life for them increasingly untenable to the complete indifference of the EU and the UN, and soon enough, Jews would begin to leave.
Both the Peel and UN Commissions of 1937 and 1947 understood that peaceful co-existence in a bi-national state was a non-starter. That was why they both recommended partition. Then the Arabs rejected both partitions, and the rejection of the latter led to the 1948 War, and, well, we all know where things went from there.
Jewish self-determination did not need to come at the price of the Palestinians’ exodus in 1948. The Palestinians, who also had a right to self determination that the Jews never denied, certainly would have had it if they and the surrounding Arab states had accepted the partition. Their self-determination was not only suppressed by the surrounding Arab states in the 1949-1967 period, but spurned repeatedly by their leadership on multiple occasions afterward. They have been the principal impediment to their own self-determination because they continue to insist that it can only be fulfilled by blotting the self-determination of the Jewish people living in Israel. This is “justice.” Having voided the partition arrangement in 1947 by opting for war, the refugee problem caused by the war was never going to be realistically solved inside the new Jewish state except on a limited basis, which the Arabs rejected in any case. Opting for war instead of partition and compromise had consequences, and it still does.
Clencher, please name names regarding those here you perceive as
“support an Islamic state or dream of reversing history and displacing many of the current inhabitants.” Since you say they are quite a few, that shouldn’t be difficult.
So the Palestinians opted for war in 1947 and 750,000 of them ran to other lands as a tactical power move by force of arms? And then Israel’s refusal to let them come back home was Israel’s way of showing they cared about Palestinian self-determination?
it’s hard for me to see things in black and white
Yet that would seem to be precisely what you have been doing. First you made a sweeping generalisation about 1-staters (“I hope that the one staters don’t increase in political power”), then an arbitrary distinction (“I hope one staters like Avi don’t increase in political power”), then more black-and-white generalisations with sinister implications – introducing 2 new categories (“those opposed to a 2ss” and those who “support an Islamic state or dream of reversing history and displacing many of the current inhabitants”) – then further generalisations about 2-staters (“liberal”) and 1-staters (“historically shrill+marginal”).
So who are these 1-staters you have met who would oppose an equitable 2ss? Were you referring to the Islamists you mention? To the turn-back-history crowd? Generally, on this blog, “one state” is shorthand for “one secular, democratic state”. Greater Israel advocates may also want one sate, but are not usually referred to as “one-staters”. As for Matzpen (does it still exist as a group?), I would imagine that people like Tikva Honig-Parnass would not oppose popular Palestinian will, were it to opt for two states, with full equality for Palestinians in Israel, and ROR for Palestinian refugees.
2 states by its very nature can not be equitable anything that validates jewish theft of palestinian land and could be used to prevent palestinians from getting their land back out side of the “palestinian state” is by is very nature inequitable.
Shmuel, it was wrong of me to categorically dismiss any and all one staters. As people with diverse views, my statement cannot be defended, though I’ve said a word about where it comes from.
I do not think that ‘one staters’ means only precisely what secular democratic one staters would like it to mean. It includes the Hamas vision of an Islamic Waqf state, it includes adherents to the now caduc PLO Charter that calls for removing all Jews who immigrated after a certain point, it includes those who think the ‘original sin’ of Zionism is authentic adherence to Judaism.
But my tendency is to NOT make it about individuals or vague tendencies, but instead political organizations, parties, and elected leaders. These structures give accountability, they offer touchstones more valid than mere anecdotes. Right now, nearly the entire Arab world is on record supporting the 2002 Saudi proposal that offers recognition to Israel and full integration to the region pending the establishment of a Palestinian state. One staters, to my mind, are the rejectionists of that approach – including Israel’s current political leaders.
Supporters of a secular democratic state, a binational state, are heavily over-represented in the Palestinian diaspora and Palestinian solidarity groups that from a strong left or far left background. They are an even smaller sliver of public opinion once we tease out the Islamist one staters from the secular ones, the Hamas/PIJ folks from the PFLP ones.
The world of diplomacy, public opinion, elections and representative organizations does matter. I identify the 1s approach with folks who choose an alternate playing field, where ideological coherence matters more than what the main actors are actually saying and doing.
That’s my opinion; but it does not mean that wishing for a 1ss is morally wrong. I’ve met Tikva Honig-Parness, and have a lot of respect for her. Mikado too. They are very different than Avi. (FYI, Matzpen does not exist any longer. They disbanded and sent the last remaining funds to the 4th International. But the Alternative Information Center will always be their lasting contribution.)
Robert:
“Then the Arabs rejected both partitions, and the rejection of the latter led to the 1948 War, and, well, we all know where things went from there.”
++++ Both rejected Peel commission plan, and ultimately both rejected also Res. 181. And because you dont know even that, its pointless for you to tell us “well, we all know where things went from there”.
Your history books cover only half of the story. And even that is faulty. Sorry to say but you proove it again and again.
And evidence of that :
PALESTINE
Statement of Policy
Presented by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Parliament
by Command of His Majesty
May, 1939
Cmd. 6019
In the Statement on Palestine, issued on 9th November, 1938,* His Majesty’s Government announced their intention to invite representatives of the Arabs of Palestine, of certain neighbouring countries and of the Jewish Agency to confer with them in London regarding future policy. It was their sincere hope that, as a result of full, free and frank discussion, some understanding might be reached. Conferences recently took place with Arab and Jewish delegations, lasting for a period of several weeks, and served the purpose of a complete exchange of views between British Ministers and the Arab and Jewish representatives. In the light of the discussions as well as of the situation in Palestine and of the Reports of the Royal Commission** and the Partition Commission*** certain proposals were formulated by His Majesty’s Government and were laid before the Arab and Jewish delegations as the basis of an agreed settlement. Neither the Arab nor the Jewish delegations felt able to accept these proposals, and the conferences therefore did not result in an agreement.
link to unispal.un.org
I cant say one state or two states. Thats something which Israelis and palestinians must decide. If they see that one state is something that suites both, one state it is. If they see that two states is best for both of them, then its that. And i cheer mutually agreed solution, if it is one or two states. Thats not my decision, its their decision.
“So the Palestinians opted for war in 1947 and 750,000 of them ran to other lands as a tactical power move by force of arms? And then Israel’s refusal to let them come back home was Israel’s way of showing they cared about Palestinian self-determination?”
Citizen, I did not say that the Palestinians “ran to other lands as a tactical power move by force of arms.”
In 1947 the UN voted to partition Jewish and Arab sections of Palestine where some 550,000 Jews and some 397,000 Arabs would be living in the proposed 55% allotted to the Jewish state, while some 800,000 or more Palestinian Arabs would be living in the 41% of the Arab Palestinian state, and some 100,000 Jews and an equal number of Arabs would inhabit the 4% international protectorate of Jerusalem.
The Palestinians and other Arabs rejected the partition, the principle of partition, along with the establishment of any sovereign Jewish state whatever its size, sought to abort the nascent Jewish state by force, failed, suffered defeat, and the Palestinian refugee problem was sired from the aggressive war waged by the Arabs.
The full return of the refugees to Israel with its 1949 borders with the surrounding states still in the midst of a state of hostilities would have put some 750,000 (or more) Palestinians along with some 160,000 remaining Palestinians alongside some 650,000 Jews, thus making the Jews a (41%) minority in their own state. This would seem to have blunted the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, and negated the entire reason for the creation of the Jewish state in the first place.
The Arabs chose war over partition and war changed everything, and made it unlikely that the refugee problem was ever going to be solved within Israel except on a limited basis, which was insufficient for the Arabs anyway.
Note to readers:
The above is mere speculation, born out of the above commenter’s ethnocentric and Zionist bias.
In addition, the aforementioned commenter has habitually posted about Israeli-Palestinian relations comments that showed a distinct perversion of the reality on the ground.
Further proof of said commenter’s perversion of reality, is his comment claiming that:
In other words, said commenter would have readers believe that reality depends on his own biased perceptions. This is the point where misconception and fact diverge.
Aside from the fact that American Jews — by historically supporting democratic administrations — have garnered a reputation for being liberals in America, they have also abused democracy in order to enable and support the Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
In other words, the Israel lobby and Zionist Americans have grown accustomed to using civility and platitudes in an effort to conceal their atrocious and heinous agenda — supporting Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.
To see Israel’s defenders flouting the victimhood card and using polite language as a yard stick for legitimacy/credibility or lack thereof is truly and utterly pathetic.
And finally, as Mooser has repeatedly said, if the owners of this website have you chained down to a keyboard, forcing you to comment here, then blink the address where you are held hostage so that you can be rescued.
Mig,
The document you quote is correct, but incomplete. It is certainly true that the 20th Zionist Congress made a qualified rejection of the Peel Commission recommendations—something I did not deny—but Ben Gurion and Weizmann did not reject it.
Said Conor Cruise O’Brien in “The Seige: The Saga of Israel and Zionism” (1986, p.229):
“Weizman and Ben Gurion, together, favored the principle of partition, because it carried with it the Jewish state, even in truncated form. Under their guidance, the 20th Zionist Congress, meeting in Zurich in August 1937, approved, as has been said, “a course of action which amounted to the acceptance of partition in principle without saying so directly.” The Zionist Executive was authorized to negotiate with the Mandatory for the purpose of “ascertaining the precise [British] terms for the proposed establishment of the Jewish state.”
As Benny Morris writes in “1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War” (2008, p.18):
“In their testimony before the [Peel] commission, the Zionist mainstream representatives had laid claim to the whole Land of Israel—the traditional Zionist platform. But in private conversations, Weizmann and others indicated a readiness for compromise based on partition as well as, quite probably, suggesting the “transfer” solution to the demographic problem posed by the prospective large Arab minority in the Jewish area. Zionism’s leaders had periodically proposed—in private letters and diaries—transfer as the requisite solution to the “Arab problem.” But transfer had never been adopted by the movement or any of the main Zionist parties (including the right wing revisionists) as part of a platform or official policy. Once the Peel Commission gave the idea its imprimatur, however, the floodgates were opened. Ben Gurion, Weizmann, Shertok, and others—a virtual consensus—went on record in support of transfer at meetings of the JAE at the 20th Zionist Congress and in other forums.
To be sure, these advocates realized and usually acknowledged that the idea was impractical and unrealistic—the British could not be expected to carry out the transfer, and the Yishuv, even if willing, was powerless—and transfer was never adopted as an official Zionist policy.”
Morris also added (p.19):
“The Peel recommendations enshrined the principles of partition and a “two-state” solution as the international community’s preferred path to a settlement of the conflict, and were adopted by the mainstream of the Zionist movement (the minority right-wing Revisionists dissented).”
The Jews thus did not reject the Peel proposals out of hand as the Arabs did. They accepted them tentatively, as a basis for discussion. The Arabs not only rejected the Peel proposals, the whole principle of partition, and the creation of any Jewish state whatever its size, they also rejected the idea (in 1937) that the 400,000 Jews then living in Palestine could even be assimilated.
Haj Amin al Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, had some very definite ideas about what to do about Jews living in Palestine. Like Hamas leaders today, he would not agree to the creation of any Jewish sovereign entity, no matter how microscopically small. All of Holy Palestine must be Arab and Muslim and that was that.
What to do about the 400,000 Jews now living in Palestine? They would have to go, the Mufti said. Like Arafat later on, he was quite explicit and graphic about the means by which they would “have to go” before Arab audiences, but before Westerners he was always more evasive and equivocal. Some of his testimony before the Peel Commission in 1937:
Question: “Does his eminence think that this country can assimilate and digest the 400,000 Jews now in the country?”
Al Husseini: “No.”
Question: “Some of them would have to be removed by a process kindly or painful as the case may be?”
Al Husseini: “We must leave all this to the future.”
To which the commissioners responded: “We are not questioning the Mufti’s intentions…but we cannot forget what recently happened, despite treaty provisions and explicit assurances, to the Assyrian [Christain] minority in Iraq; nor can we forget that the hatred of the Arab politician for the [Jewish] National Home has never been concealed and that it has now permeated the Arab population as a whole.”
The process by which the Mufti, a staunch, dear friend and ally of Hitler, would remove the Jews, would not be “kindly” to say the least. To call the Mufti and other like-minded extremists of the time proponents of ethnic cleansing, would hardly be a slander. Their words and their actions convict them without question or ambiguity. In 1948 the Mufti promised that the Arabs would not only reject the UN partition but “would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated and the whole of Palestine became a purely Arab state.” He had been saying the same thing repeatedly for more than two decades, and his were not idle words.
The Jews accepted the UN partition plan of 1947. It was rejected by the Arabs, and made functionally irrelevant by the war started by the Arabs the day after the partition vote took place in November 1947.
The state of Israel in its pre-1967 configuration resulted from the war and the Israelis were not going to negate the results of the war in which they had just sacrificed 1% of their population and return to the vulnerable partition lines of 1947 (which the Arabs had rejected anyway) while the Arabs continued a state of hostilities. Following the armistice and Israel’s admission to the UN, the Israelis, consistent with their obligations in gaining UN membership, offered to resettle some 100,000-200,000 refugees in Israel at the Lausanne Conference; the Arabs rejected it without discussion. The Arabs, as with all previous discussions, refused direct dealings with the Israelis, and demanded acceptance of the refugees’ repatriation in full as a precondition to further talks. The Israelis insisted on discussions of the refugee problem in the context of a full regional peace; the Arabs refused, and the discussions broke down.
As Benny Morris wrote:
“The insufficiency of the ’100,000 Offer,’ the Arab states’ continuing rejectionism, their unwillingness to accept and concede defeat and their inability to publicly agree to absorb and resettle most of the refugees if Israel agreed to repatriate the rest, the Egyptian rejection of the ‘Gaza Plan,’ and America’s unwillingness to apply persuasive pressure on Israel and the Arab states to compromise–all meant that the Arab-Israeli impasse would remain and that Palestine’s displaced Arabs would remain refugees, to be utilized during the following years by the Arab states as a powerful political and propaganda tool against Israel.”
I do not think that ‘one staters’ means only precisely what secular democratic one staters would like it to mean.
Context helps. In this discussion and every other discussion I can think of on Mondoweiss, “one state” is associated with words such as “equality” and “democracy” – excluding the other kinds of one-state ideas you have introduced, as well as the Eretz Yisra’el ha-Shlemah and “the Jordan has two banks” people.
At present, one state is an idea, more than a platform. The Saudi proposal is not a bad point of departure for what I called an equitable 2ss (including a “just settlement” for the refugee problem), although it’s a bit weak on equality for ’48 Palestinians. The official positions of Fatah (of Camp David fiasco and Palestine Papers fame) and Hamas do not necessarily reflect Palestinian popular opinion (although Hamas says that it will accepts a 2ss if that is what the people want). Palestinians in the OT would have a lot to gain from a single state, and there is reason to believe that many would support the idea, were it actually on the table. It is misleading to present the 1ss as a diaspora or non-Palestinian lefty fantasy, just as it is misleading to present it as an ideological exercise in coherence, detached from reality on the ground. The principles on which it is based are sound (equality, return, and end to occupation), and accepted by the vast majority of Palestinians. It is you who presented its adherents as rigid ideologues – without providing any sources or examples of this rigidity, beyond some vague references to Islamists and time-warpers. My original assertion – in response to jon’s question – was, in fact, that there is a good deal of flexibility among one-staters. You have failed to prove otherwise.
I have also met Tikva Honig-Parnass and Mikado, and on a political level (the only level that really matters for the purposes of this discussion), I find their views and attitudes quite similar to Avi’s.
The AIC is indeed amazing. A little too “small tent” for you though, I presume.
Werdine, show me some evidence that the Palestinian Arabs ever even had a plausible chance to reject the Israeli actions and announcements between, say mid 1947-mid-48. You lump them with other Arabs from then existing Arab states. This serves to conflate the Palestinians who the Jews scared out of their homes by terror with the Arab military forces that descended into the area the partition plan reserved for the Palestinians, where most of the ’48 war was actually fought.
And let’s not forget that some pretty important Palestinians DID support partition, including Haider abdel Shafi and Emile Touma.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Mikado was an important part of Yesh Gvul – with Zionists. He argued with ideological opponents, but he worked with them. Ditto for his wife, Leah Tzemel. You won’t find name calling tantrums in his repertoire.
I disagree with you that the only thing that matters is the ‘political’ level. Unless we can agree that politics includes the art of winning votes, building coalitions and changing minds.
Robert :
“The document you quote is correct, but incomplete. It is certainly true that the 20th Zionist Congress made a qualified rejection of the Peel Commission recommendations—something I did not deny—but Ben Gurion and Weizmann did not reject it.”
++++ It doesnt matter what Ben Gurion or Weizmann think about of that. What matters is what a reply Royal commission received as official statement from jewish organization, as my link told. And that is what stands.
Mikado was an important part of Yesh Gvul – with Zionists.
Mikado leaves the decision regarding the number of states to the Palestinians, choosing to focus on rights. He would thus be in favour of any number of Palestinian states that would guarantee Palestinian rights – including the right to determine their own future. Although he has some harsh words for those who express a preference for a single state, he recognises the fact that one-staters inevitably express a predilection (he sardonically refers to it as a “matter of taste”), rather than a point of dogma. You have still failed to demonstrate otherwise, falling back on issues of general (as well as personal) flexibility and “niceness”. BTW, Leah Tzemel is a great woman, but she does not exactly have a reputation for being a “sweetie”.
If I may be a little more general (and personal), I find your comments on this thread typical of most of your contributions to this blog. You constantly attack the positions of those to your left, for being intransigent, dogmatic and “small tent” (with or without justification), while working very hard to establish your own lefty past and reputation. So you used to be active in Hadash, are in favour of whatever 2ss you believe to be on offer, and oppose BDS (but so does Uri Avnery, so it’s ok). Yet neither your theoretical agreement with the radical left, nor your pragmatic convictions ring true. Not because they are impossible, but because they are unconvincing.
no the arabs didn’t choose war. I’m tired of hearing that damn lie. just because the rejected the idea they should give up some of their property because someone else wanted it doesn’t mean they choose war of peace or partitian. the people trying to gain through force you know the jews were the ones who choose war.
I think the significance of Jon’s post is that if the tone of dissent is positive (I use the term “mutual humanization”), then either a single, federated, or two-state solution may be equally just and feasible.
At that point, it would be a collegial decision process.
“What do you think is best, why?”
“What do you think is best, can we do it, how would we go about it?”
At the current formation of anger-driven, utterly disrespectful format of dissent, fear is the compelling motivation rather than collegial design process.
Even Shmuel’s articulation of a rights-oriented approach, if stated in positive terms and coordinated with positive oriented work, could improve the reality for all, result in integration of communities, friendships.
When stated in only negative terms, it doesn’t create community, integration, but animosities.
The Israeli right should be a fringe movement, 15% of elections. It’s able to form a government after 35% of votes only because of the environment of fear, and the absence of environment of ideals and persuasive argument for ideals.
The argument for democracy is the same everywhere that it occurs. “Why should we consider the rights of all over the protective rights of ours?”
Its a question that has to be answered persuasively, not just yelled. Its the same question in Egypt, Tunisia, which was grappling with it (I hope they still are). Palestine. Syria, Iran.
Richard Witty said, ‘I assume visitors to Mondoweiss have short memories. That’s how I can post, with a straight face,
‘I assume visitors forget I hibernated over the past couple of days while others read, watched, and commented on the tremendous courage of that young Jewish-American, Lucas Koerner.
‘I have nothing at all to say about Lucas, who stood courageously in Jerusalem, peacefully “made the better argument,” and got beaten and arrested for his troubles.
‘Instead, now I’ve resurfaced, to make my usual slanderous attacks on what I dismiss as “dissent.” I hope noone (sic) noticed my silence about Lucas.’
Mr. Witty.
I recognize all the words in your post above.
Alas, I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
Is your argument: “people of good faith can work things out”?
I would agree to this point of view, given some basic assumptions of “good faith”. The primary assumption is that we proceed on the basis of justice and equal human and civil rights for everyone concerned.
AEL,
The point is to accept the other.
Model what you propose.
Richard Witty said, “I’m still hiding from the brave example of Lucas Koerner.’
Witty, I know some others who think that the Palestinian people should have all the rights the Jewish Israelis now have and wish to keep. Do you accept them? Alternatively, I know others who think that the Palestinian people and the Jewish Israelis should simply have equal rights. Do you accept them?
Remind me again how vociferous you supposedly were about African American civil rights. And we’re supposed to believe that when you’re a vehement supporter of segregation in Israel and the occupied territories… why, exactly?
I like this: “mutual humanization”. Not just between Israelis and Palestinians, but for everyone!
That said, I’d settle for the absence of demonization for a while.
Note to readers:
Commenter clenchner hides behind vague feel-good platitudes in an effort to establish his ‘liberal’ credentials.
“I like this: “mutual humanization”.”
I do too, or I did, until it was adopted by Richard Witty. This isn’t snark or pointless Richard-bashing. RW’s posts have been a real education for me –it’s been a case study in how someone can use the sort of rhetoric I’ve always found very appealing in the service of an ethnocentric, propagandistic depiction of the conflict. Richard wants “mutual humanization”, yet he automatically condemns Palestinian leaders for their use of terror and always rationalizes Israeli violence unless it can be blamed on some rogue individuals or far right groups. That’s demonization masquerading as humanization.
And it’s not just Richard–that attitude is something you can spot in many people who profess to be liberal Zionists. Richard is an easy target for us here, but his mindset is precisely the same as that of the Obama Administration when they condemn Palestinian terror and claim there is no evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza.
That’s a dividing line that needs to be pointed out–the division between someone like Jerome Slater, who is a Zionist and wants two states rather than one, vs liberal Zionists who also want two states but demonize the Palestinians in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Palestinians might be able to reach an equitable two state solution with someone like Slater, but it’s likely to be a lot harder with people who consistently defend Israeli brutality, because they can’t be honest with themselves about the crimes of their side.
“According to its worldview, Zionism must be a movement in a constant state of formation and creation, one that relies on the Jews’ ability to impose their will on their surroundings.” Zeev Sternhell
I picked up on this statement in Sternhell’s piece, and I did so in the light of es1982′s numerous comments on the Signs thread. Here’s annie’s final response to her: “i totally get the point, you want us to make a distinction between israelis and israeli settlers.”
My point is this: Maybe Israel is getting ready to throw the settlers under the bus. I realize it would take some doing. But these crackpot settlers make for very bad PR! Once the word — and the videos — get out into a wider audience, things are going to get very uncomfortable not only for Zionist Jews but for Jews everywhere.
I don’t think that the right wing demands that the basic idea of Zionism be for ever re-created. The basic idea has always been the same, at least since 1905 – that the right to sovereignty over the Holy Land belongs to people who are Jewish, the sole true heirs, and to people who gain a place and a share by the grace of the true heirs, not by right. Those present by grace (let alone terrorists) can’t really expect to take precedence of those present by right, let alone be thrown under a bus to please them. Bad PR is just one of those things, but fundamental principles are everything. Not to mention the fact that the economies of Israel and of the territories must by now be very intimately linked.
“Bad PR is just one of those things, but fundamental principles are everything. Not to mention the fact that the economies of Israel and of the territories must by now be very intimately linked.”
Still, desperate times call for desperate measures, MHughes.
Fundamental principles tend to go by the wayside when survival is at stake. Economies can be re-arranged but bad PR tends to stick. Here at mondo we’re doing our best to create alot of very bad PR for the Zionists, and we’re not the only ones working on this file. We shouldn’t be surprised if something gives.
It would be wonderful if something were to give and a genuine change from the present desperate situation were really to come in sight. I agree that bad PR tends to stick. But I’d still strike two notes of caution. First, we must accept from the Netanyahu/Congress horror show that Zionism still has massive PR resources and we at mondo and our friends elsewhere are an outnumbered, outresourced band with few advantages except being in the right. We have to live through many disappointments, rebuffs and repulses and must expect some more. Secondly I think that Zionism understands survival in terms of putting its fundamental principles into effect, rather than as something that might have to be secured by disregarding principles.
I hope I’m wrong and you’re right.
Avi (and others),
If your thesis is justice for all (in practice, not just in token quotations), then your work is wonderful, even if we disagree on the how-to’s.
If your thesis is justice for Palestinians only, especially if that includes no provision for Israelis to self-govern, then that is something that is repugnant to me, and should be to the world at large.
Your bedfellows include some that affirm equal rights for all and some that assert that Israelis have no rights.
Richard Witty said, ‘Notice how I have absolutely nothing to say about the brutal Israeli police attack on Lucas Koerner. This attack was a glimpse into Israeli ‘self-governing’ in practice, but despite my nearly 10,000 comments I remain silent.’
Witty’s also said, “Israelis should have the full right to self-govern, and Palestinians should have only those rights left over to self-govern. And some of Witty’s bedfellows assert that Palestinians should have no rights, except perhaps on paper for Israeli PR purposes, as a practical matter.”
>> If your thesis is justice for Palestinians only, especially if that includes no provision for Israelis to self-govern, then that is something that is repugnant to me, and should be to the world at large.
… I assertively support the right of Israelis to self-govern, and by Israelis I do mean a Jewish majority, comprising a site of self-governance for the Jewish people.
A supremacist state is something which should be repugnant to the world at large.
witty for some inexplicable reason you equate justice with getting want you want. that not what it is. sorry witty but jewish squatters being kicked off palestinian land so the palestinian owners can live on their own land is in fact justice for jewish Israelis it just not what they want.
sorry witty but people being punished for their crimes is justice. one of these days you zionists are going to have to grow up and come to terms with this.
>> sorry witty but people being punished for their crimes is justice.
RW has made it very clear that he does not believe in justice, accountability or universal human rights. He does, however, believe that:
- the criminal should keep what he has stolen;
- the victim should forfeit what he has lost; and
- both parties should “look to the future” and create “new narratives”.
(N.B.: If the victims are Jews, the above set of beliefs does not apply. It may seem a bit hypocritical, but that’s just the kind of guy he is.)
Note to readers:
If after posting here for several months now, the above commenter has yet to acquaint himself with my “thesis”, then he has either a very short memory, or hasn’t been paying attention, two challenges with which I cannot help him.