This post is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.
Continuing on my interview theme – to be deposited in the Israel National Archives, of course – I am cutting in on an interesting email exchange that was posted yesterday. The email exchange was initiated by Jerome Slater, University Research Scholar at SUNY (Buffalo) and involved the One-State/Two-State solution. It was joined by John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, Youssef Munayyer, Executive Director of the The Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development and its educational program, the Palestine Center, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
The exchange is quite interesting. The conclusion I draw from the exchange is that no one knows what’s going to happen in the future.
The featured cast of characters is familiar. You can catalogue exchanges of this kind by the decade. Just throw out the names that were the flavor then and you’ll know the years the exchange occurred. I suppose everyone does their bit, then someone new arrives.
I’ve been around for a long time but never made the big leagues. I have the advantage of joining the discussion without an invitation. I can say what I have to say and leave it at that.
Of the exchanges I found Mearsheimer’s the most interesting. Or perhaps the most telling. Therefore in my (un)invited appearance I interact with the points he made. My responses to Mearsheimer are indented.
JM I think the main problem with your argument is that there is no way the US is going to put serious pressure on Israel to accept a two-state solution. Obama tried and failed miserably; it wasn’t even close.
ME Yes clearly Obama has failed as other Presidents before him. Clearly Obama’s sympathies lean toward Israel. Then there is the political factor of Jewish support. Add the Clintons and there you have it. The only movement on Israel during Obama’s first term is closer to Israel.
JM I might add that to create a viable Palestinian state would require us to put enormous pressure on Israel, because we would have to reverse so many facts on the ground and because the hardliners are so powerful in Israel. In my opinion, there is no chance this is going to happen. We now have and will continue to have for the foreseeable future a Greater Israel.
ME This is an obvious point that anyone with any political savvy affirms. However, the emphasis on “hardliners” is misplaced. The political and economic consensus in Israel is take as much land as can be taken and weaken as far as possible Palestinian presence on all fronts. This is not a hardline position. Jerusalem and the West Bank – with a surrounded and weakened Gaza – has been Israeli policy for decades. Why reverse such a policy if it can be carried out successfully?
JM And by the way, as time goes by, it will become even more difficult to move toward a two-state solution as the settlement enterprise will grow even larger.
ME Agreed. But this has been understood by all parties, once again, for decades. The settlement enterprise or rather the Israelization of Palestine is continuous. Indeed as the settlement enterprise has grown larger, Israel as a state has grown with it. It is more accurate to understand the situation as the expansion of Israel rather than the expansion of settlements. It is also more useful since calling the expansion of the state of Israel the expansion of settlements gives the illusion that settlements can be stopped and reversed. In the main, this isn’t going to happen for a variety of reasons. The most important reason is that a settlement reversal would be seen as an assault on Israel as a state.
JM On the one-state solution, I think there is no question that Israeli Jews will mightily resist democracy inside Greater Israel. That situation will cause all sorts of problems for the Israelis and give them powerful incentives to expel the Palestinians. I worry a lot about that outcome and hope that the Palestinians have the good sense not to play into Israel’s hands.
ME Yes the expulsion card comes up once in a while, usually around wars and the rumors of war. I do agree that the “democracy within Greater Israel” card is a non-starter. Again, this isn’t due to the hardliners unless you define the consensus within Israel as hardline. Only a extremely small percentage of the Jewish population of Israel wants to live in a state where Palestinians are equal citizens. Even those who advocate it or think that it might be possible would ultimately seek to contain this possibility. The idea that the Jews of Israel would agree to live in the Arab Middle East within a unified state where Palestinians are equal citizens is a rhetorical illusion. If it came down to the choice of full democracy or expulsion, Israel would choose expulsion. So far the strategy of containment has warded off the need to make that choice.
JM You think there is a good chance that Greater Israel can maintain itself for the foreseeable future, even if it is not a democracy and is indeed an apartheid state. After all, they have been able to maintain the occupation all these years. You may be right; one does marvel at how Israel has been able to avoid serious sanctions for its past behavior toward the Palestinians.
ME The marvel of marvels is explainable by looking at historical and balance of power factors. Nonetheless, it is a marvel because everything seems to break Israel’s way. Of course, Israel has helped things break its way. The combination of historical and political factors with intentional action is what’s truly remarkable about Israel’s ability to keep on keeping on. Think what a boon September 11th was for Israel. Iran is Israel’s current gold mine.
JM Still, I think you are wrong. The world has changed and is changing in ways that will make it impossible over the long term to maintain an Israel that is an apartheid state, and here I am talking the next thirty or so years. Very briefly, here are my reasons.
JM 1. Israel has benefitted greatly from the illusion that there will be a two-state solution; that will soon be over.
ME Yes, Israel has benefitted from that illusion. But now that the two-state illusion is over there doesn’t seem to be any further movement. Rather, the “movement” – whatever it really was – has stopped. Or is what we have more or less the same “movement” we’ve had for decades?
JM 2. Greater Israel will be (is) an apartheid state and that will be hard to miss and very difficult to defend — I would argue impossible over the long term.
ME This has been argued for years. Think back a decade when the Apartheid Wall began. The argument was that with the building of the Wall no one could deny what Israel was doing. Therefore the Wall would be the end of Israeli expansion. Now think of the Lebanon war that followed and the invasion of Gaza that followed Lebanon. Each time Israel’s ability to maintain its international stature was at end. Lo and behold, Israel maintained its ability to function as a state. The obviousness of Israel’s apartheid hasn’t stopped Israel. One could argue that it hasn’t even hurt Israel.
JM 3. The face of Israel is undergoing a fundamental transformation with the steady drift to the right, the growing racism, and the growing numbers of ultra-orthodox. That, coupled with apartheid, will make it hard for Israel to sell itself as a “Western society,” as it has done so well in the past.
ME Regarding the Palestinians which is the issue here, it is difficult to argue a change over time with regard to Israel’s actual policies. Certainly, the rhetoric is stronger and overt Jewish religiosity plays more of a political role than in Israel’s early years. One can argue the decline of ethical standards in the Israeli military as well though Palestinians who experienced their dispossession in Israel’s founding and beyond might dispute this. Racism may have changed its face to some extent, what with the highly charged settler and religious rhetoric. However, Israel is based on Jewish supremacy. What is commonly called racism today was there from the beginning. On the “Western society” front these issues, too, have changed without changing. Since the West has perceived Arabs and the Middle East as its own resource playground, the – and still does – why can’t Israel continue to sell itself as Western?
JM 4. The internet makes it almost impossible to miss what is going on in Israel.
ME Agreed. However, the full internet impact has been true for more than a decade. Notice any changes on the ground that reflects that increased exposure?
JM 5. Israel’s “new historians” have made it clear what the Israelis have done and are doing to the Palestinians and that has generated a huge amount of sympathy for the Palestinians around the world. Israel in the past was very adept at selling itself as the victim. Now they look like brutal victimizers and the Palestinians look like the victims.
ME No question this is right. Israel as the victim is in deep background. Palestinians as victims are in the moral ascendancy. Yet again, there is no political movement forward that reinforces that perception. As well, the Jewish victim factor can come back into play quickly if in fact Israel was in danger or under assault. More than the historical Holocaust or nuclear weapons, “victim Israel” is Israel’s political wild card. Under duress, it can be played with alacrity. Does anyone think the European or American governments would allow Israel to go down?
JM 6. The lobby is powerful, but it now has to operate out in the open and engage in smash-mouth politics. That is not good; as Steve Rosen said, “A lobby is like a night flower; it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”
ME It may not be good. It may not be bad. When lobbies like AIPAC are in the shadows they have a certain kind of power. They do fear coming into the open. In the light, a lobby like AIPAC either dies – or thrives. From my perspective, AIPAC is stronger today than ever. It is doing quite well in the light of day.
JM 7. The American Jewish community is hardly monolithic and it contains a substantial number of people who are deeply critical of Israeli behavior and willing to voice their opinions. I believe those numbers will grow over time; Peter Beinart is a harbinger of things to come.
ME Peter Beinart is the flavor of the month and by that I don’t mean to disparage him or his thought. You can mark Jewish dissent by certain names that have also been flavors of the month, sometimes years, even decades. Think of all the known Jewish dissidents who have emerged over time, then think of the political movement on the ground. True those deeply critical of Israeli policies are more numerous and more willing to say it. However, like the illusion of the internet, the importance of Jewish dissent on the political level is highly overrated. The Jewish establishment decided a long time ago to take their issues to the broader public and diverse political stake holders. Jews haven’t been important to the Jewish establishment on Israel for decades.
JM 8. The Holocaust is receding into history and it will become increasingly difficult for Israel and its supporters to invoke that horrific tragedy to provide Israel with cover.
ME The Holocaust is indeed receding in history and, in the main, the argument about Israel has shifted to a Holocaust future. Obviously this invokes the historical Holocaust but the Holocaust future needs to be probed for its political significance. Instead of using the Holocaust as a political litmus test for supporting Israel, the fear of a future Holocaust is the political lever used today.
JM 9. Elites in the Arab and Islamic world are becoming more Westernized and are much better able to engage in politics in the West than they were in the past.
ME Elites in the Arab and Islamic world have been Westernized for decades. It does seem to me that they are becoming more sophisticated in their political engagement. Part of this might be the growing Middle Eastern diaspora communities in the West. Nonetheless, politics is politics and economics is economics. The status and wellbeing of the Westernized elite around the world is deeply integrated into the West. Thus it is in their interest that the West continues to dominate and that they play their part in that domination. Obviously, this has to be negotiated and sometimes these Western elites fail. With the power dynamics in the world today, thinking that these elites will move beyond placating the Western powers that be is an illusion.
JM 10. The Arab world is likely to become more democratic and more educated over time and that is likely to make countries in the Middle East more critical of Israel. This is what is now happening in Egypt.
ME I’m not sure about this – it seems like we’re falling into the Western colonial trap i.e. “education” – however that is to be defined – makes the world go round. The more important factor is regional and global politics is self-interest. As long as the Middle East is Euro and American-centric then Israel will receive a free pass no matter what the rhetoric is. If the region goes Asian, then it will depend what they want in return. The criticism of Israel in the Arab world has been there from day one. If anything, Israel – partly because of Europe and America – has become an accepted, even needed, power in the region. In the main, Arab governments do not want Israel to disappear as the scramble for power would then be on. If Israel disappeared or was severely disciplined, Palestine might emerge as a vibrant and empowered state. No one in the region wants that.
JM 11. There is an important precedent that many will point to so as to delegitimize Greater Israel and make the case for turning it into a real democracy: South Africa.
ME South Africa, the great example often trotted out for various, mostly, rhetorical reasons. There are some reasons that it should be. There are other reasons it shouldn’t be. Israel is an apartheid state but that shouldn’t convince us that Israel is candidate for a South African transformation. I doubt this to be the case. The reason is what is missing in these discussions – the Jewish factor. The Jewish factor is a sense of Jewish destiny and aloneness. This is truly what makes Israel different. With this in mind, Israel’s calculations for end game scenarios are different than other nations, including South Africa. As well, rarely discussed is how Palestinians would fare if such a transformation took place. If you look at South Africa transformed, notice the persistence of deep socio-economic and ethnic divisions. The hope is that with economic developments these divisions will disappear. I’m not so sure. Anyway, in relation to Israel/Palestine the end of Israeli apartheid does not in any way guarantee a free and equal Palestine.
JM For all these reasons, I don’t think it will be possible for Greater Israel to maintain itself as an apartheid state over the long term. Again, this is why I am fearful that Israel will pursue expulsion. Of course, I may be wrong about all this, but I don’t think so.”
ME Quite a note to end on, though it does bring us back to the beginning. Israel is practicing a policy of expansion and containment, the very same policy it has pursued since its birth. There has never been an extreme political centrist push to finish the job. Political, economic and military practicalities and perhaps some vestige of Jewish ethics have oriented Israel toward a slower and efficient way of dealing with its perceived rights and needs. Why start now with a more extreme policy when the tried and true has been working and is deemed acceptable by the international community? By acceptable, I mean Israel has not been stopped. Military interventions against other countries violating international law or Western interests are manifold. Why not a military intervention against Israel? The reason: Israel’s policies are judged to be within the acceptable range. Barring any significant change in that acceptability, Israel will continue with its policy of expansion and containment.
Marc I think your argument that you could just exchange the names over the decades and the conversation would be the same is absolutely wrong. . When have you heard the one state solution being the only solution discussed over the last six decades since Israel became a country? This is relatively new. How often have you heard experts say that Israel has clearly closed the doors to a two state solution?
Wow. Mark Ellis completely destroyed Mearsheimer’s analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian siuation. And this comes from a person who sees a one state solution the rational, somewhat just , end game. Israel ia a racist, colonialist, supremist State. It has been that way since its inception and before without doubt. Yet it has survived and continues, slowly, but surely the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their ancestral lands. The western powers, “Democracy’s” have added and abetted this criminal enterprise as well as the Arab regimes, behind the scenes, collaboration with Fascist Zionism. Sad to say, our Palestinian brothers and sisters are further away from the justice they so well deserve. . Mark Ellis’s points are well taken. Truly sad and tragic.
“The most important reason is that a settlement reversal would be seen as an assault on Israel as a state.”
For me, this is the key quote from Marc’s post.
This is completely in line with what I and many others have written on this before; that the ‘settlement project’ was envisioned by the earliest Zionists, including Ben-Gurion. At least Ben-Gurion had the good taste to throw a few breadcrumbs to the Palestinians by acknowledging that “if I were an Arab, I would join the resistance movement’.
Three key facts:
1. Settlements increased most during Labor, not Likud.2. Most wars that Israel has initiated has been under center-left administrations
3. The ethnic cleansings campaigns - in 1948 as well as in 1967 - have both been executed during Labor.
These three facts shows why the notion that if we only get Bibi out, things will improve(the favourite delusional fantasy of the ‘liberal Zionists’).
These three facts also underscores Mearsheimer’s mastery of his arguments(all eleven of them) that he employed to finally destroy any fantasy that the 2SS isn’t since long dead(if it ever was alive?) and that Israel is now a fullblown Apartheid state and has to be treated as such.
The next step is to slowly make sure that more genuine liberals – which will by necessity include mostly gentiles! – start to talk about the simple truth. There’s still a lot of policing in the American discourse(Goldberg et al makes sure of it), but we can’t wait nor can we ‘ask’ for permission.
These are the same people who desperately want to portray Bibi as a genuine champion for peace who is just clumsy and sometimes scared of his coalition.
Incidentally, these are the same people who want to portray Kadima/Labor as somehow different on the Apartheid question, ignoring all three key facts I’ve outlined above.
In short: we can never ask for permission for these people because it’s in their interest to delay, delay and delay. And if all else fails: smear, smear and smear some more.
Mearsheimer’s 30 year time line for real changes, I think, is realistic. Americans in their 30’s and 40’s have different perceptions about Israel than do American’s who grew up believing the “a land without a people for a people without a land” myth. For Americans in their 20’s and especially for students Israel is a positively toxic brand of racism. The debate in this younger group isn’t limited to settelments and a division of land as part of a two state 2ss. Zionism itself is under attack on campuses across the country and that’s the worst possible news for Israel’s supporters. For years they’ve been able to limit the discussion to the exchange of violence and to the subterfuge of a 2ss. No more. The Zionists have lost the millenial generation as Zionism has become a dirty word.