The other day I was having coffee with a well-connected neighbor, and going through the litany of Palestinian suffering in the occupied territories, when she nodded impatiently and said, "What's the answer?" Then: "Do you believe there should be a Jewish state?"
Good questions. This is a special moment for this website because non-Zionists and anti-Zionists are being included at last in the national discussion. Americans are beginning to understand that Israel's human-rights record is outrageous. We have accomplished that work.
It's time for contributors to his site to be more forthright/positive about formulating our answers to those big questions. To be forward-looking and positive. A few months ago, Adam Horowitz did just that at a forum, when he was challenged, Do you believe in the two-state solution? and said in essence, We need to find a just solution with safety and equality for two peoples; and I don't believe a Jewish state is part of that answer.
I asked a couple friends my neighbor's question. Two answers:
Jack Ross:
I'll defer to others' judgment about whether or not to come out
unambiguously for one state, which I would be in favor of, but I think
Adam's statement of a while back remains the bottom line – that if it's
not our place to dictate what the parties themselves feel is best, we
should draw the line against "preserving Israel as a Jewish state"
because of all that that means in practice.
As an Israeli-American Jew who wanted to do something proactive I was
drawn to Ta'ayush because I believe that direct action is one of the last
frontiers for us regardless of one state solution or two. I often tell
people here, imagine if only 2 % of the people that voted for
Hadash, the small liberal party in Israel, join us in the territories
once in a month. 300 maybe 500 hundred Israelis standing in Safa or at
an illegal outpost. I think that would an effect that would be
difficult to ignore but even this seemingly easy endeavor feels
impossible in the current climate. Anyway, here is the Ta'ayush
thoughts:
From its earliest days, Taayush has produced action only, neither
manifestos nor ideological debates. The group that consolidated wanted
to reverse the usual scale of priorities: after realizing that
declarations do not always stand the test of ‘moments of truth’, action
was chosen as the way to demonstrate a refusal to accept the repetition
of incursions, and to be present where things took place. Direct,
non-violent action was the path chosen, as well as decision-making by
consensus. Taayush formulated a position paper by the end of December
2000, but its fine-points took up too much time and energy. It was
decided to put off this task, and gain the participation of everyone
who identified with the actions that were planned to express clear
positions. Protest by actual doing, by outspoken negation of the
separation between Arabs and Jews in Israel in every realm of life, and
of the Occupation itself, of starvation, closure, movement limitations
and military incursions that Israel practices in the Occupied
Territories.
The name Taayush expresses the desire to upend conventional
categories. The word Taayush usually translates the term
“co-existence”, but its real meaning is “living together”, “sharing
life with one another”. The difference between living together and
co-existence is perhaps not very significant for those who are not
familiar with the dialogue groups, peace encounters, peace tents and
creativity workshops that characterized the dialogue style of the
nineties, but the difference is enormous. It means living together,
struggling together against alienation, against the separation wall,
discrimination and racism, mastery and patronism, humiliation and
boycott, exploitation and occupation.
