However wrong Rupert Murdoch was about the Jewish media in his infamous tweet last weekend, he’s right about The New Yorker. The magazine is owned by Jews, the Newhouse family, and many of its writers and readers are Jewish, and its editor David Remnick, the Princeton-educated son of a New Jersey dentist who is said to reflect the views of the Upper West Side, has made a point of writing a lot of the articles about Israel himself. When Walt and Mearsheimer bashed the Israel lobby in ’07, Remnick mocked that if only we could solve the Israel/Palestine crisis, Osama bin Laden would go back into the family construction business. Before that, he supported the Iraq war and ran articles by former Israeli soldier Jeffrey Goldberg saying that Saddam Hussein had close links to al Qaeda and possessed chemical weapons.
In recent years, though, maybe burned by his neoconservative expedition, Remnick has shown depth and thoughtfulness about the conflict. He has turned with anger against the occupation and said bluntly that the American Jewish community is tired of holding the bag. So it is a glorious thing that last night Remnick published a piece by Yousef Munayyer that brings the great new truths of the Israel/Palestine conflict to an elite American readership: Zionism failed in its execution, the Israeli policy of bludgeoning Palestinians will never work, and the two peoples live in one state and must learn how to live together democratically. Yesterday I said that this war has cooked Israel’s goose in the American conventional wisdom, and has pushed the divorce between American Jews and Israeli Jews; and this piece is further proof. So let’s celebrate the New Yorker!
Munayyer excerpt:
Acknowledging that the Iron Wall strategy only yields perpetual war is problematic for Zionism. The ideology claimed to be about ensuring the safety of world Jewry through a Jewish state. The paradox—and tragedy—is that the terms on which a Jewish majoritarian state was created, in a territory overwhelmingly populated by native Arabs, resulted in coexistence that could not be peaceful.
Moving forward, what is needed is a fundamental change in the way Israelis view their relations with Palestinian Arabs….
The two-state solution that has long been the focus of would-be peacemakers has been fatally undermined by the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories. The tripling in the number of Israeli colonists in the West Bank and the entrenchment of the settlement enterprise under the Oslo “peace process,” which began in the nineties, merely had the effect of processing the proposed Palestinian state into pieces. And so a shift toward a new paradigm must take place, one that is based on equality for all the people in the land from the river to the sea. Today, we are left with the options of occupation forever—meaning continued conflict within an apartheid state—or a representative and democratic single state.
Jabotinsky and his modern-day disciples might say yes to apartheid—dismissing the values of equality and democracy—in the name of maintaining Israel’s identity as a Jewish state above all. But his century-old thinking is as morally debased as it is antiquated. In the twenty-first century—and that is the century we are living in, despite Halutz and Yishai’s attempts at time-travel—Jabotinsky’s values are unacceptable. The road might be long, and it will certainly be difficult, but only two things are certain at this point: the trajectory toward a one-state outcome becomes clearer by the minute and the use of force will not help Israelis get there safely.
Beautiful. The New Yorker is changing the American paradigm, right before our eyes.
Acknowledging that the Iron Wall strategy only yields perpetual war is problematic for Zionism. The ideology claimed to be about ensuring the safety of world Jewry through a Jewish state. The paradox—and tragedy—is that the terms on which a Jewish majoritarian state was created, in a territory overwhelmingly populated by native Arabs, resulted in coexistence that could not be peaceful.
Moving forward, what is needed is a fundamental change in the way Israelis view their relations with Palestinian Arabs. Yes, Palestinians have a role and will continue to fight for their rights in hopes of achieving a just and peaceful outcome. But at this stage it is Israel—and only Israel—that controls the ever changing realities on the ground. It would be easy for Israeli leaders to postpone facing this reality, but it would also be cowardly. The onus is on them.
The two-state solution that has long been the focus of would-be peacemakers has been fatally undermined by the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories. The tripling in the number of Israeli colonists in the West Bank and the entrenchment of the settlement enterprise under the Oslo “peace process,” which began in the nineties, merely had the effect of processing the proposed Palestinian state into pieces. And so a shift toward a new paradigm must take place, one that is based on equality for all the people in the land from the river to the sea. Today, we are left with the options of occupation forever—meaning continued conflict within an apartheid state—or a representative and democratic single state.
Jabotinsky and his modern-day disciples might say yes to apartheid—dismissing the values of equality and democracy—in the name of maintaining Israel’s identity as a Jewish state above all. But his century-old thinking is as morally debased as it is antiquated. In the twenty-first century—and that is the century we are living in, despite Halutz and Yishai’s attempts at time-travel—Jabotinsky’s values are unacceptable. The road might be long, and it will certainly be difficult, but only two things are certain at this point: the trajectory toward a one-state outcome becomes clearer by the minute and the use of force will not help Israelis get there safely.
Read more: link to www.newyorker.com
Acknowledging that the Iron Wall strategy only yields perpetual war is problematic for Zionism. The ideology claimed to be about ensuring the safety of world Jewry through a Jewish state. The paradox—and tragedy—is that the terms on which a Jewish majoritarian state was created, in a territory overwhelmingly populated by native Arabs, resulted in coexistence that could not be peaceful.
Moving forward, what is needed is a fundamental change in the way Israelis view their relations with Palestinian Arabs. Yes, Palestinians have a role and will continue to fight for their rights in hopes of achieving a just and peaceful outcome. But at this stage it is Israel—and only Israel—that controls the ever changing realities on the ground. It would be easy for Israeli leaders to postpone facing this reality, but it would also be cowardly. The onus is on them.
The two-state solution that has long been the focus of would-be peacemakers has been fatally undermined by the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories. The tripling in the number of Israeli colonists in the West Bank and the entrenchment of the settlement enterprise under the Oslo “peace process,” which began in the nineties, merely had the effect of processing the proposed Palestinian state into pieces. And so a shift toward a new paradigm must take place, one that is based on equality for all the people in the land from the river to the sea. Today, we are left with the options of occupation forever—meaning continued conflict within an apartheid state—or a representative and democratic single state.
Jabotinsky and his modern-day disciples might say yes to apartheid—dismissing the values of equality and democracy—in the name of maintaining Israel’s identity as a Jewish state above all. But his century-old thinking is as morally debased as it is antiquated. In the twenty-first century—and that is the century we are living in, despite Halutz and Yishai’s attempts at time-travel—Jabotinsky’s values are unacceptable. The road might be long, and it will certainly be difficult, but only two things are certain at this point: the trajectory toward a one-state outcome becomes clearer by the minute and the use of force will not help Israelis get there safely.
Read more: link to www.newyorker.com
Acknowledging that the Iron Wall strategy only yields perpetual war is problematic for Zionism. The ideology claimed to be about ensuring the safety of world Jewry through a Jewish state. The paradox—and tragedy—is that the terms on which a Jewish majoritarian state was created, in a territory overwhelmingly populated by native Arabs, resulted in coexistence that could not be peaceful.
Moving forward, what is needed is a fundamental change in the way Israelis view their relations with Palestinian Arabs. Yes, Palestinians have a role and will continue to fight for their rights in hopes of achieving a just and peaceful outcome. But at this stage it is Israel—and only Israel—that controls the ever changing realities on the ground. It would be easy for Israeli leaders to postpone facing this reality, but it would also be cowardly. The onus is on them.
The two-state solution that has long been the focus of would-be peacemakers has been fatally undermined by the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories. The tripling in the number of Israeli colonists in the West Bank and the entrenchment of the settlement enterprise under the Oslo “peace process,” which began in the nineties, merely had the effect of processing the proposed Palestinian state into pieces. And so a shift toward a new paradigm must take place, one that is based on equality for all the people in the land from the river to the sea. Today, we are left with the options of occupation forever—meaning continued conflict within an apartheid state—or a representative and democratic single state.
Jabotinsky and his modern-day disciples might say yes to apartheid—dismissing the values of equality and democracy—in the name of maintaining Israel’s identity as a Jewish state above all. But his century-old thinking is as morally debased as it is antiquated. In the twenty-first century—and that is the century we are living in, despite Halutz and Yishai’s attempts at time-travel—Jabotinsky’s values are unacceptable. The road might be long, and it will certainly be difficult, but only two things are certain at this point: the trajectory toward a one-state outcome becomes clearer by the minute and the use of force will not help Israelis get there safely.
Read more: link to www.newyorker.com
Acknowledging that the Iron Wall strategy only yields perpetual war is problematic for Zionism. The ideology claimed to be about ensuring the safety of world Jewry through a Jewish state. The paradox—and tragedy—is that the terms on which a Jewish majoritarian state was created, in a territory overwhelmingly populated by native Arabs, resulted in coexistence that could not be peaceful.
Moving forward, what is needed is a fundamental change in the way Israelis view their relations with Palestinian Arabs. Yes, Palestinians have a role and will continue to fight for their rights in hopes of achieving a just and peaceful outcome. But at this stage it is Israel—and only Israel—that controls the ever changing realities on the ground. It would be easy for Israeli leaders to postpone facing this reality, but it would also be cowardly. The onus is on them.
The two-state solution that has long been the focus of would-be peacemakers has been fatally undermined by the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories. The tripling in the number of Israeli colonists in the West Bank and the entrenchment of the settlement enterprise under the Oslo “peace process,” which began in the nineties, merely had the effect of processing the proposed Palestinian state into pieces. And so a shift toward a new paradigm must take place, one that is based on equality for all the people in the land from the river to the sea. Today, we are left with the options of occupation forever—meaning continued conflict within an apartheid state—or a representative and democratic single state.
Jabotinsky and his modern-day disciples might say yes to apartheid—dismissing the values of equality and democracy—in the name of maintaining Israel’s identity as a Jewish state above all. But his century-old thinking is as morally debased as it is antiquated. In the twenty-first century—and that is the century we are living in, despite Halutz and Yishai’s attempts at time-travel—Jabotinsky’s values are unacceptable. The road might be long, and it will certainly be difficult, but only two things are certain at this point: the trajectory toward a one-state outcome becomes clearer by the minute and the use of force will not help Israelis get there safely.
Read more: link to www.newyorker.com
Acknowledging that the Iron Wall strategy only yields perpetual war is problematic for Zionism. The ideology claimed to be about ensuring the safety of world Jewry through a Jewish state. The paradox—and tragedy—is that the terms on which a Jewish majoritarian state was created, in a territory overwhelmingly populated by native Arabs, resulted in coexistence that could not be peaceful.
Moving forward, what is needed is a fundamental change in the way Israelis view their relations with Palestinian Arabs. Yes, Palestinians have a role and will continue to fight for their rights in hopes of achieving a just and peaceful outcome. But at this stage it is Israel—and only Israel—that controls the ever changing realities on the ground. It would be easy for Israeli leaders to postpone facing this reality, but it would also be cowardly. The onus is on them.
The two-state solution that has long been the focus of would-be peacemakers has been fatally undermined by the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories. The tripling in the number of Israeli colonists in the West Bank and the entrenchment of the settlement enterprise under the Oslo “peace process,” which began in the nineties, merely had the effect of processing the proposed Palestinian state into pieces. And so a shift toward a new paradigm must take place, one that is based on equality for all the people in the land from the river to the sea. Today, we are left with the options of occupation forever—meaning continued conflict within an apartheid state—or a representative and democratic single state.
Jabotinsky and his modern-day disciples might say yes to apartheid—dismissing the values of equality and democracy—in the name of maintaining Israel’s identity as a Jewish state above all. But his century-old thinking is as morally debased as it is antiquated. In the twenty-first century—and that is the century we are living in, despite Halutz and Yishai’s attempts at time-travel—Jabotinsky’s values are unacceptable. The road might be long, and it will certainly be difficult, but only two things are certain at this point: the trajectory toward a one-state outcome becomes clearer by the minute and the use of force will not help Israelis get there safely.
Read more: link to www.newyorker.com
I think this might be my last comment on mondoweiss. I can’t believe I just read this.
Gaza is being destroyed right before our eyes, and yet Phil writes as if this “development” at the New Yorker trumps all. This latest assault on Gaza proves without a doubt that IF the american jewish establishment were to change it’s tune, nothing would change. Obama was the “anti-israeli intransigence” candidate, he didn’t run on getting tough with Gaza. So why does he greenlight this latest massacre? Because he leads the Empire. He knows slaughtering Gazans is actually good for business; it will enrage “the arab street” thus distracting them from the counter revolution running at full steam across the region, it will give the US puppets a chance to look good with some tough rhetoric (read: Erdogan etc) AND most importantly, it will further demonstrate that if you vote the wrong way, and don’t do as the Emperor says, there is no limit to what the Emperor will allow. For those who say, “This will create blowback, perhaps on American civilians, how is that in America’s interests?” I will respond by quoting George Carlin, “They don’t give a F about you. They. Don’t. Give. An. F.”
The opinions of the American Jewish Establishment are meaningless in this context. But let us never forget that it was the American Jewish Establishment, perhaps more than any other solidified political force, that acted as Host for our new politics, which many describe as American Fascism; I’m not willing to let Remnick and Friends off the hook for that. I mean, who really cares what gets printed why the bombs are dropping?. Tell me why I’m wrong.
“The opinions of the American Jewish Establishment are meaningless in this context. But let us never forget that it was the American Jewish Establishment, perhaps more than any other solidified political force, that acted as Host for our new politics, which many describe as American Fascism”
The American Jewish Establishment was always meaningless and never acted in any other interest but the interest of the Empire, whether they realized it or not. American Fascism is nothing new and was already a big topic during the presidency of FDR whom American liberals worship – he defeated Fascism/Nazism, saved the Jews etc. All complete nonsense. It’s just as easy to demonstrate the opposite as the truth.
Dan, you old drama queen, you can’t resist coming back here ridiculing the sanctimonious crap that often passes for analysis. I’m sure it won’t be your last.
Damn you seafoid! :)
Mondoweiss has changed the American paradigm, Phil. The New Yorker maybe won’t give you credit, but your readers have watched you do it.
What a great piece by Munayyer!
Kudos to the New Yorker!
I take you at your word when you write about Remnick; that he is a follower of trends and a reflection of them, rather than a creator.
Then that should be true here too. In this sense, Munayyer in the New Yorker is just a confirmation of what you’ve been writing about for years and Remnick, ever so sensitive to the fickle winds of change, adjusts his position and that of the magazine immediately.
However, if history is any guide, if the winds change again, the New Yorker won’t stick up for any liberal principles. And that, I think, is important to point out.
What made this possible was the work of grassroots activists, including the people running this website.
What made this possible was the work of grassroots activists, including the people running this website.
It probably has just as much to do with the reality that the Palestinians are going to be able to charge Israelis with war crimes in the Hague by the end of the month.
How will the US media spin the story of continued US financial support for a regime that is engaged in a criminal expropriation/settlement/deportation enterprise according to present and past US administrations?
“How will the US media spin the story of continued US financial support for a regime that is engaged in a criminal expropriation/settlement/deportation enterprise according to present and past US administrations?”…Hostage
Oh, the same way they’ve always spun it….they’ll just lie, and yada on about our ‘rock solid, unwavering committment to Israel. They know (they think) we’re all to stupid and lazy to sort out fact and ficiton.
Now, if it was actually in the publication and not just an online blog. Still, rather incredible.
What makes it more remarkable it that it comes during intense conflict. Look at the increased polarization within Israel.
Although I agree that the one-state outcome is inevitable; I cannot fathom the majority of Israelis accepting this reality. Israelis would go to war first. Therefore, there will be a forceful attempt to try to shove a shabby two-state down the Palestinians’ throat as delusional, unjust and lopsided on behalf of Zionists as it presently is. That would be a fateful error and the result will be a West Bank that mirrors Gaza resulting in collective punishment and isolation for the West Bank population as well and endless violence and war.
Zionists have never been, are not and will never be honest and fair with Palestinians because Zionism is evil to the core and corrupts absolutely. To imagine that Israelis and the majority of Zionists in the diaspora will LET GO OF ZIONISM and relinquish some of the influence, control and power they have amassed is a pipe dream of staggering proportions.
Mark my words, Zionists will provoke a GREAT WAR FIRST, it will be very ugly, and the worst of Zionism will surface before Palestinians will be freed of the scourge of Zionism if that ever happens. Sorry, this is the reality I see happening, but that doesn’t mean everyone shouldn’t push for freedom and equality for Palestinians in a one state. It is the the righteous path, regardless of the stone-cold reality and catastrophic end Zionism holds in store. History for future generations should reflect that many tried to forge a righteous path no matter the outcome. Maybe then, after the worst is behind, “NEVER AGAIN” will finally mean something FOR ALL HUMANITY rather than being restricted to one historical event and one selective group.
“Israelis would go to war first.”
Come again? They did. And they never ended it. And they started a good number of additional ones.
Of course we are talking about extreme violence. Let’s be serious. How else than by catastrophe is a population of illegally immigrated racist riffraff who votes 90% and more for ethnic cleansing (and that’s because they don’t dare poll them on gas ovens) to acquire logic?
I hope this was in “print” New Yorker, not just on-line (do they do that?).
As ever, I disagree that the 2SS is”dead” just as I disagree with those who say the Fourth Geneva Convention (or its enforcement) is dead, a dead-letter. The law could be enforced, maybe we’ll live to see it done. Why not? We hope for an end to Israel’s immunity and impunity. Do we hope in vain? If so, where’s a democratic 1SS to come from?
Of course, what’s obvious is that these reported “deaths” are all true at least temporarily, and the period of temporarity has been quite long and may continue quite long. Israel’s 1SS (apartheid, imposed) has lasted 45 years and may last another 45. who knows?
But I long to see the UN force Israel to act on its repeated suggestion that the settlements were temporary, not a permanent taking of territory by acts of war (in and after 1967), contrary to UN Charter and UNSC 242. Eject tthe settlers, dismantle the settlements (or save them for Palestine if it wants them), dismantle the wall — why not? disentangle the electric grid and the water systems. All in a day’s work.
And let us thank the New Yorker for giving us hope for the futures that we severally imagine to be improvements on the status quo.
wow, excellent. just excellent.
“Yesterday I said that this war has cooked Israel’s goose in the American conventional wisdom, and has pushed the divorce between American Jews and Israeli Jews”
How inaccurate. I see the Jews in the Boston area turning out in large numbers to support this latest Israeli “quest for peace”.
A kid (Im guessing a Northeastern Student) marched down Huntington Avenue the other day with a big Israeli flag. Apparently it only gets taken out for big time killings, I saw it last after Bin Laden got clipped. Stay Classy, Hillel.
RE: “last night Remnick published a piece by Yousef Munayyer that brings the great new truths of the Israel/Palestine conflict to an elite American readership: Zionism failed in its execution, the Israeli policy of bludgeoning Palestinians will never work” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: Certainly the Revisionist Zionism of the Likudniks (with its “Iron Wall” obsession) is failing.
SEE: “Is There a Way Beyond Israeli Madness?” [Will the Chosen People and the Exceptional People Go Down Together?] ~ by John Grant, Counterpunch, 8/31/12
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to counterpunch.org
Yawn…..
One State will never work.
Good-by occupation…hello apartheid.
We will all be here older and grayer typing BDS for apartheid instead of BDS for Occupation.
What will it take for Remnick to have the courage to file such reports under his own name?
“Jabotinsky and his modern-day disciples might say yes to apartheid—dismissing the values of equality and democracy—in the name of maintaining Israel’s identity as a Jewish state above all. But his century-old thinking is as morally debased as it is antiquated.”
And that needs to be repeated over and over again.
I’ll offer a shortened form.
“Maintaining Israel’s identity as a Jewish state above equality and democracy is morally debased.”
I see a dissonance in Phil’s posts: He just returned from I/P , where he reportd on the rising tide of racism and hatred towards Palestinians among Israelis. It’s safe to assume – given the long years of occupation- that the level of hatred on the other side is at least as high.
So , what’s the conclusion? One state! The two peoples who hate each other with a vengeance are supposed to live happily ever after in one state? Doesn’t Phil see a certain disconnect here? The one-state “solution” would be a bloodbath. Two states – with all the difficulties and obstacles- is still the only possible way to go.
i’ve commented on this many times. i have lived in tel aviv and the west bank briefly. culturally, i actually found the disposition of palestinians much more amenable to 1 state….. israelis were, on a majority level, callous, openly racist, and in no way open to a democratic state where there was not a sig “jewish” majority.
but you are right…. many people within *israeli* society [ie zionism itself?] make a single state a distant dream….
zionists ~1948 also made this fact known, through terror campaigns, and very real actions on the ground. if they wanted a single parliamentary democracy…. we would have just that today. and this conflict would not EXIST. it was born of zionism, the leaders of which, sought a *jewish* state. this is the intolerant kernel of the whole sh*tshow. and it is only further entrenched in the last few decades.