Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3 (since 2009-09-03 08:25:54)

Jordan

Website: http://halewistan.wordpress.com

Showing comments 3 - 1
Page: 1

• How about, let's stop deifying the nation-state
  • Jordan September 3, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    Indeed. This is one of the strongest counter-arguments i hear to in response to proposals for a one-state/no-state solution. I sympathize with it entirely (although many peoples, of course, not just Israelis, have done all sorts of unconscionable things with the levers of power).

    It's just that current dynamics seem to be precluding this (i.e. a fully functional Palestinian nation-state) from materializing ever-more adeptly.

    Given that state of affairs, i merely suggest that we open up the whole field for positive debate, and constructive thinking.

    For instance, the whole notion that the Palestinians should be *limited* to a territorially contiguous nation-state, reliant almost entirely on its neighbours for resources, jobs, security, etc. is in fact a colonial product. Why encourage other groups to make the same mistakes colonists made centuries ago?

    Unless we look at this for what it is, with a sense of both colonial history and contemporary global trends, there's no chance for people to think more creatively. We end up falling into the same old traps.

    I humbly suggest it's worth carving out some intellectual space to imagine a more ideal system... and then trace the line backwards to see what can be done today to help bring it about.

  • Jordan September 3, 2009 at 2:51 pm

    Thanks for your thoughts on the piece, Richard.

    I generally agree--the situation would change for the better if Israel were 'accepted' and a 'viable' Palestine were established.

    Whether that would be the best of all possible outcomes, or merely a 'satisficing' solution is debatable.

    My point above is, simply, that the current dynamic seems to be making a 'viable' Palestine increasingly unfeasible.

    As a former Zionist, this makes me go back and think--well, wait a minute... what is it that "we" are really after ("we" could be either 'the Jews' or 'the Palestinians')?

    A state, period? Security? Independence? Ideological coherence? Religious/mythological fulfillment?

    If the current trajectory of the 'peace process' is simply creating (or at least perpetuating) more and more suffering--despite the supposed end-goal of two nation-states--why not get creative, analyze the historicity of the situation and think up some new ideas? There's really not much to lose, and quite a bit (unknown) to gain. That's essentially it.

    So, maybe we should ask ourselves... what is it about the nation-state model that we think is so worthy of preservation? How can we preserve those values--on 'either' side (in reality there are a whole plurality of values and worldviews involved, hence the idea of resurrecting a millet-like system) while also crafting a polity that will provide peace and fulfillment for generations to come?

    Ignoring this last part was a (repeated) folly in 20th century Lebanon. The constitution, let alone the political institutions, couldn't adapt to changing demographics. The result: years of internecine warfare.

    Why lock ourselves in (the greater "we", here) to a similarly maladaptive system, then? Isn't it worth stepping back for a second, and thinking about the generation after, let alone the day after?

    Consider it as a forward-thinking mental exercise. If you sense internal resistance, maybe it's worth asking--wait--who's line am i emotionally committed to towing, here? Why? ... This applies to all of us, i think.

  • Jordan September 3, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Julian, your point is well-received. I also appreciate the ad hominem compliments.

    Of course, the ideas in my piece sound jarringly detached from the current reality. The point, however, is more a conceptual one. We're boxing ourselves in, ideologically. I'm suggesting that this isn't due to what people really care about (held values regarding identity, security, coherence, etc.), but because we've become blindly attached to a very maladaptive idealized polity.

    Phrased less provocatively than in my piece above, i argue, simply, that it's worth taking a look at why people want(ed) a homogeneous nation-state of their own to begin with. Maybe there are better ways of fulfilling those wants than by chasing the curiously elusive goal of two (nation-)states.

    If the two-state 'solution' were in fact to work out, wonderful. That option just seems to be dooming itself of late. Might as well go back to the drawing board--that's the part that takes a bit of cerebral gymnastics.

Showing comments 3 - 1
Page: 1