In his latest Haaretz column, Bradley Burston dares to go where he has never gone before, taking the first tentative steps toward consideration of the one-state solution. Burston strikes me as a true “liberal Zionist,” one whose expressions of decency are genuine rather than cynical, but he has never, to my knowledge, allowed himself to question the continued existence of the Jewish State, until now.
Burston draws inspiration from both left and right. He cites the recent revelation that as early as August, 1967, none other than Menachem Begin proposed granting citizenship to any West Bank Palestinians who desired it (a proposal kept secret until now). He notes that in a 2010 Haaretz article, Noam Sheizaf reviewed right-wing voices who have broached the subject of citizenship for OPT Palestinians. Burston even credits Peter Beinart, who has publicly favored a limited boycott, for moving the dialogue, even though Beinart lags behind on even the possibility of a 1ss.
Interestingly, Burston does not arrive at this position out of placing the fundamental concept of equality for all above the notion of the Jewish State. He is purely motivated by the increasing physical impossibility of achieving the two-state solution, referring to himself as someone who still believes that two independent states would provide Israelis and Palestinians with their best chance for a future of freedom, justice, security and well-being. I disagree with him there, and disagree even more when he blames the disappearance of a potential 2ss on both Israelis and Palestinians: There is no denying, however, that settlement construction, Palestinian disunity, and other factors are fast rendering the two-state concept impracticable.
Still, Burston comes a long way, seeing “something of a Jewish Spring in rethinking the future of Israel and its relationship to the Palestinians, the Mideast, and the Jewish people.. He agrees that Israel, if left to its druthers, will probably choose to continue the status quo of “temporary” occupation, which he recognizes is profoundly immoral. He also knows that most Israeli Jews, himself included, would be fearful of remaking their state less committed to preservation of an inherent Jewish character, but he concludes with a plea to think what had previously been unthinkable:
In another week, it will be Pesach. The enemy of fear. Time to cast out the chametz, which is everything we put up and hoard and refuse to part with and acquire and consume too much of, as our insulation against everything that scares us. Ideas included. Time to burn it. Time to burn what we are so comfortable believing, knowing to be true. It’s Spring. Time to start again. Time to think again, to leave behind what we know. Time to hit the road. Even if we can see that the route leads between gigantic, threatening walls, with nothing visible holding them from falling in on us, drowning us, annihilating us. Nothing, that is, but faith and a willingness to try something we hadn’t, until now, considered.
Noam Sheizaf in +972: “The major problem right now is that an inherently immoral order represents the most desirable political option for Israelis. All the left’s effort to demonstrate the problems the occupation creates – like the burden on the state budget – won’t help, since political choices are made based on alternative options, and right now the alternatives are more expensive, more painful, and more dangerous.”
I admit that it took me a very very long time to realize this. mea culpa maxima. It looks to me very much that Noam’s view explains people like Mr Burston (and Beinart) who I think genuinely are ‘liberal’ and yet somehow have rationalized 65 years of grossly wrong acts by the state, aye and by his friends, and himself.
More importantly, it is hard to know what this late dawn really means. My fear remains that we won’t see the ‘promised land’ emerge, ever, but rather that sooner or later the 1948 solution will be continued. The bibi’s of this world, the man himself or a successor will wait until some crisis, and then move.
Thanks for the great story David.
This is starting to remind me of a story i read this morning about a grandma that told her grandson about rats leaving a sinking ship.
“There is no denying, however, that settlement construction, Palestinian disunity, and other factors are fast rendering the two-state concept impracticable.”
Like it makes any difference what the Palestinians do. If the front benches of Fatah and Hamas were all dressed up in tutus singing “the border police will stick a log up my ***” (I saw that video recently) it wouldn’t change anything. Israel is driven by a deeper force of unreason .
He agrees that Israel, if left to its druthers, will probably choose to continue the status quo of “temporary” occupation, which he recognizes is profoundly immoral.
As well as ruinous.
Shir Hever calculated that the occupation cost Israel 381 bn shekels to 2008. That’s 100bn USD.
Davis defines: true “liberal Zionist,” one whose expressions of decency are genuine rather than cynical,
That is the most accurate and succinct definition of liberal Zionist I’ve seen.