Israeli Jews ‘will never accept’ giving vote to Palestinians — liberal Zionist leader

Talia Sasson is the president of the liberal Zionist group the New Israel Fund (and a lawyer, former longtime government official, and candidate for the Knesset in the Meretz Party). On a podcast for the New Israel Fund four days ago she decried the idea that Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital is a blow to the peace process.

We must continue the peace process, because the two-state solution is the only imaginable political resolution of the conflict, whenever it comes, she said; and Israelis (i.e., Israeli Jews) will never accept a single state with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza having the right to vote for the parliament.


Sasson reasoned:

In my opinion the two state solution is the only solution that there is. So, with more difficulty or less, usually more, and more farther in the future, or whenever it would happen, this is the only solution in my understanding that can be there…. as a separation between the two peoples and different systems of laws.

Because the other way round is one state, and one state–…  maybe there are many people who believe in it in Israel, but I really doubt it, and I believe that it won’t last for the long run in the future. And therefore I believe that if Israel will continue by this situation, the end will be– in that way, or that way– one state, with Palestinians in the West Bank, maybe in the Gaza strip would have the right to vote in the Knesset. Then Israel would change its character and one day won’t be ever more the home nation of the Jewish people. In my opinion Israelis will never accept that. And therefore I believe it’s a matter of price, the two state solution would be. The question is, on what price? As long as the time is running out, the price is higher and higher.

As for people who say Jerusalem recognition is the last blow to peace, Sasson said they are wrong. There must be continuing dialogue, even if it doesn’t lead to a deal:

I don’t think so, because negotiations for peace is an interest of both sides. They both need it, even if they don’t understand that. Therefore I believe that when people would understand, maybe in Israel that peace is crucial for them, then there would be a dialogue for peace… I don’t know if we could end it with a peace agreement, but a dialogue would start.

She also said that Trump’s decision was a mistake because it fostered Palestinian “terror.”

I don’t believe this decision has any changes on the ground, except some ramifications that I would see negatively, that it encouraged terror. I think that we could see already, violence and terror by Palestinians, and of course it became, ‘They are doing this, and Israelis are doing that,’ and this way and that way, and we lose more and more lives, without getting anywhere. We’re not changing the situation by that.

And she said that the left can’t really criticize Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital:

In the left of Israel there is embarrassment. You can’t say Well I don’t accept American recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. We thought Jerusalem is our capital anyhow, with recognition or without. So if America recognizes that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, that’s fine with us of course. But I think that this is not the right moment. And when you make the right decision in the wrong moment, it turns the whole decision to be wrong.

Sasson’s remarks are a reminder of the fact that even the left in Israel deploys a rhetoric of Jerusalem-is-the-capital of the Jewish state, and Palestinian resistance to occupation is “terror”. And leftwing Zionists are opposed to one state because they themselves despair over the end of a Jewish state, or argue that Jewish Israelis will never accept that outcome. Ali Abunimah has said that Jewish Israelis can change their minds on this question the same way that intransigent South African whites changed theirs. For my own part, I’d say that I work in my community, and it’s important to me to see that American Jews abandon the idea of a Jewish state, and support the principles that govern our existence here, and that we have insisted on through many a struggle– separation of church and state; one person, one vote.

106 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

She’s right: when people (Israeli-Jews) realize there is a need for peace, then the negotiations will lead to peace. Quite right! absolutely.

So let’s help them with that realization, shall we? BDS, other actions to enforce international law and agreements, ICC, ban on settlements (land grabs) and settlers (people) in occupied territories. Including Syrian Golan (law is law, even if the land is not Palestinian).

America is certainly not perfect, but one thing we still have (until it is eroded further by the right wing) is a separation of church and state, enshrined in the constitution.

I can only hope that one day Israel (/Palestine) or Palestine-Israel can be a secular society (not a quasi-Theocracy) where all citizens have equal civil rights.

I’ve asked this question before…what is it EXACTLY that is ” liberal” about “liberal Zionists”?

Each time I hear the term I am reminded of the coy Luntzianesque fabrication “intelligent design”, a clever re-branding ploy for creationists who realized their chosen name worked against them in the real world. Same old junk in a shiny new package.

Continued use of the term “liberal Zionists” is so counterproductive in terms of advancing clarity in the discourse and it demonstrates how easily we are played by the opposition.

Liberal Zionists can think of Palestinians as “terrorists”, consider Jerusalem the capital of Israel, insist on the viability of the 2SS(!) etc., etc. and yet we are to suppose to think of them (somehow) as “liberal”. Words matter and each time we repeat the phrase “liberal Zionist” we deepen the meme and advance its legitimacy in the discourse. Why do we do that? The correct term, imo, is “political Zionist” and the sooner we make this change the better.

Sasson is “liberal” in exactly the same way Wasserman Schultz is.

No thanks.

liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl|
adjective

1) open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values
2) favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
3) (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform

With Sasson – as with all Zionists, liberal or otherwise – everything boils down to preserving Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

Evil is virtue and real virtue – justice, accountability and equality – is evil.

As I see it, to get one state with equal rights right now, is so far away, that I think at the moment it would be wiser to try to get some kind of a “first step solution” for like next 5-10 years, where (f.ex.) IDF and all the illegal settlers(when they moved there, they knew it was illegal) would be pushed to withdraw complitely from the West Bank and the UN peacekeepers to replace the IDF by the boarders (obviously the living circumstances in Gaza should also be normalized).

Meaning of this “first step solution” would be to show the Zionists that they alone can not anymore dicatate all the terms for the future state/solution and also would it give some time for the Palestinians to recover from their daily experience of oppression, humiliation and bullying and they would also have a better possibility to form a functioning administration for themselves.

So it could be a “two state practice” for a period of time and after both Israelis and Palestinians have had time to find these new positions on the issue, the real “peace talks” could start from a more equal level. Weather to have one state or two states as a permanent solution, could be negotiated then.

At the moment I find it most important to get some kind of a fast solution, which makes the daily lives of the ordinary Palestinias easier and mentally more tolerable as soon as possible.

And if there was someone who tought China would come and support the Zionist’s agenda in any case:

“China called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, Xinhua state media reported Thursday.

“China understands the Islamic countries’ concern about the status of Jerusalem,” a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said, adding that China “calls for a resolution to the issue in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions and international consensus.”

China also called for resuming talks between Israelis and Palestinians in the near future in order to provide a chance to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The remarks come a week after a Chinese high-tech delegation canceled its trip to Israel following U.S. President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.”

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/asia-and-australia/1.829009