Yes! The New Yorker publishes Munayyer’s call for ‘representative and democratic single state’

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: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/after-gaza-a-single-state.html#ixzz2ClqQCtxo

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: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/after-gaza-a-single-state.html#ixzz2ClqQCtxo

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: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/after-gaza-a-single-state.html#ixzz2ClqQCtxo

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: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/after-gaza-a-single-state.html#ixzz2ClqQCtxo

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: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/after-gaza-a-single-state.html#ixzz2ClqQCtxo

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

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

  1. Dan Crowther says:

    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.

    • Antidote says:

      “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.

    • seafoid says:

      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.

  2. Mondoweiss has changed the American paradigm, Phil. The New Yorker maybe won’t give you credit, but your readers have watched you do it.

  3. just says:

    What a great piece by Munayyer!

    Kudos to the New Yorker!

  4. Krauss says:

    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.

    • Hostage says:

      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?

      • American says:

        “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.

  5. doug says:

    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.

  6. kalithea says:

    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.

    • sardelapasti says:

      “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?

  7. pabelmont says:

    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.

  8. wow, excellent. just excellent.

  9. Boston says:

    “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”.

    • Dan Crowther says:

      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.

  10. 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

    [EXCERPTS]
    “The patient, by the name of Israel, walks into the room and instantly bursts into a tirade of arguments conclusively proving his credentials, and says that he is better than everyone else.” ~ Ofer Grosbard, ‘Israel On The Couch: The Psychology of the Peace Process’

    Americans have an Israel problem. . .
    . . . The problem Americans have with Israel is that the region it exists in is in the midst of a major political sea change, while Israel is frozen in time and holding on to its militarist, right-wing policies of extending settlements in the West Bank. It’s a policy that harks back to the ideas of the British-trained militarist Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall [SEE WIKIPEDIA - J.L.D.], which is based on the idea a live-and-let-live policy between Jews and Arabs is impossible and, thus, Jews must militarily control and repress Palestinians . . .

    . . . How does a people turn back a racially-oriented demonization program with roots that extend back many decades? How do you ratchet down a nation’s narcissism so people are able to simply see the other as a human being? . . .
    . . . On our part, Americans and the United States need to stop being a permissive yes-man [i.e. a habitual "enabler" ~ J.L.D.] and begin to show Israel some tough love. We need more US criticism of Israel. No doubt this approach will be received with gales of cynical laughter from hardliners . . . but so what?
    In my mind, the Israeli narcissistic and arrogant mindset would benefit from a little Buddhist detachment, more of the posture that sees the world not of separate individual selves and egos but of human beings as part of a larger flow of life. The Buddhists call the self-obsessed, separatist state-of-mind [i.e. the "pale" of Israel surrounded by Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall - J.L.D.] that Israel thrives on and defends with weapons as “the illusory self.”
    “Once one identifies with a permanent self-concept, the pride and craving adhering to this become the pivot from which an egocentric world arises,” writes Gay Watson, a psychotherapist attuned to Buddhism.

    David Loy puts it this way: “To become completely groundless is also to become completely grounded, not in some particular, but in the whole network of interdependent relations that constitute the world.”
    I’m not suggesting Israel become a Buddhist nation. The point is for Israelis, and more important Americans, to figure a way out of the worsening condition of “us versus them” to avoid the need to obliterate them and set off a war that no one really wants. The point is to re-shape our minds to make “the other” less threatening to permit talking.
    I’m not holding my breath that Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman are going to become peace activists. But I’m done as an American being a silent stooge while Israeli militarist madness fuels hatred and sets the stage for war.

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to counterpunch.org

  11. American says:

    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.

  12. Les says:

    What will it take for Remnick to have the courage to file such reports under his own name?

  13. RoHa says:

    “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.”

  14. jon s says:

    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.