Hebrew Republic: Are Two States Still Possible?
So far, a number of quite reasonable objections to the path implied by The Hebrew Republic have cropped up, the most challenging (and authoritative) from my friend, Alvaro de Soto, who was the UN's chief diplomat to the Quartet's peace process a few years back. Alvaro writes:
There is plenty of room to doubt whether a two-state solution is still possible, whether the chance wasn't missed at some indeterminate point not too long ago. The Hebrew Republic may be a Hail Mary pass (an expression which I hope I don't have to explain to non-Catholics), but, I say, let us pray.
I agree that a two-state solution, such as the one we all imagined 20 years ago, is not easily imaginable now. That is in part because (as I've written here before) Israel is itself something like two states now, secular Israel (anchored by Tel-Aviv) and orthodox-settler Judea (anchored by Jerusalem), and it is by no means clear that Israelis will be prepared to confront Judeans for the sake of Palestinians. Moreover, the Israeli and Palestinian economies are highly inter-penetrated. It is not clear that they can be disentangled. But if objections to a two-state solution, or even just a grim prognosis for it, imply endorsement for a one-state solution (some of the other commentators clearly endorse this), then we are into even more unimaginable territory.
Suppose "Judea" (the settlements, the separate systems of orthodox education, etc.) could eventually be dismantled or just made to disappear by waving a magic wand. If Israel and Palestine were then merged into one state, it would mean throwing together two populations, one of which earns around $23,000 per capita per year, and another that earns around $1000. Moreover, the more affluent group is among the most educated in the world, speaks a language of its own, and feels permanently defensive about the survival of its distinct culture. The less affluent group feels that it has been dispossessed by the forbearers of the more affluent, lives largely in small towns dominated by mosques and fathers, and would be determined to use its growing electoral power to retaliate.
What we would have here is not just two nations struggling in the bosom of a single state (as Lord Durham described Canada-in-the-making in 1838), but class war alloyed to national grievance. Bosnia would be a picnic by comparison.
It is also worth adding in this context that a Jewish state need not be a state that privileges the Jewish religion. The real point of the Zionist revolution was to create a modern Hebrew-speaking nation that would supersede Orthodox Jewish religious practice as the basis for Jewish identity. A Jewish national home rooted in the Hebrew language has room for all forms of religious practice, including Jewish orthodoxy, but it is no longer fair to say that a Jewish state must be a state devoted to Jewish religion, and therefore not democratic. I have gone to mass in Hebrew. I know Arab Muslims who write poetry only in Hebrew. Both the priest and the poet are, in a way, Jewish, the way I am, in a way, English when I rely on John Stuart Mill for liberal principles.
Finally, if we are to change the ways we speak of peace, perhaps we must start by getting out of the habit of identifying justice with "two states." Among the most democratic innovations are federal structures. Pressures from the ground will yield something more like a "three-state solution," a Palestinian and Israeli state in a common market with Jordan, or a "twenty-state solution," an integration of all three into Sarkozy's Mediterranean union. If we are going to throw a "hail-Mary," let's throw it where the flow of the global game suggests it may well be caught.
What we are headed for is a no-state solution; one people will have it all, the other none, nada, zip. Ethnic cleansing, transfer, genocide.
September 8, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
For once I agree with OTY. The situation is headed in just that direction. But I think Israel is just as likely to commit genocide as muslims be they from Iran or some other predominately muslim country. I doubt you will agree though, you never do.
September 8, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ zeno
Not genocide. Not deliberately. But ethnic cleansing, transfer? Most definitely. It's the best Israel can hope for. Benny Morris has already alluded to it.
September 8, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to look up the definition of "Genocide" because Israel has already committed genocide when it tried to wipe out Palestinians as a people. The definition of Genocide does not require mass murder (even though there have been instances of massacres by Israeli forces too - Deir Yassin comes to mind)
Remember, "There are no such things as Palestinians" -- Golda Meir.
September 9, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ hass
Hass is a better name for an avocado than a brainless, partisan fool like you.
Genocide is a generally accepted synonym for the physical extermination of a people or significant part of a people. And Gold Meir was right in that, prior to the creation of the Jewish state Palestinians were Arabs living in Israel, nothing more. No language, culture, religion separated them from the other, nearby parts of the former Ottoman empire.
September 9, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
GOlda was claiming that since Palesinians didn't exist as a people then they had no claim to property in "Israel".
She was denying the existence of the Palestinians AS A PEOPLE in order to justify their ethnic cleansing and eradication and that, you freaking MORON, is GENOCIDE.
Here's the definition:
"Genocide means any of the following acts committed ***with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group***, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
Yes, Israel reguarly kills Palestinians
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Yup, Israel does that too.
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Oh yes, Definitely done by Israel. Just look at Gaza. The United Nations has called it the largest open air prison in the world.
So yes, Israel DOES engage in Genocide under international law. So bite me. you moron.
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
September 9, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
GENOCIDE:
"Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts."
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
And that pretty much accurately describes Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
September 9, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ hass
Well, then virtually every nation on earth - and certainly every Arab nation - is guilty of genocide against the Jews. And Jews are certainly justified for retaliating in kind.
So stuff it.
September 9, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes but the Mongols and the Nazis didn't claim to be a "Light Unto the Nations" when THEY committed genocide.
September 9, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ hass
Zionists didn't claim to be a "light unto nations" you anti-semitic prick. The Palestinian Arabs engaged in plenty of genocide against the Jews, you ignorant lout. Begin with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem if you want to educate yourself...but you're incapable of that, aren't you? You're exactly the reason I hate so much of the Left, you little insect.
September 10, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the racism inherent in the pro-Israelis comes out with that claim of yours doesn't it? "The Arabs" versus "The Jews" -- good old tribalism at its best. The Palestinians are "Arabs" -- and since we know all "Arabs" are alike, we can kill them at will to make up for some past supposed harm to "us"
And that, my friends, is the REAL reason Israel has no peace. It is built on racism, on stolen, blood soaked land. Every grain of soil, every drop of water, every breath of air in Israel belons to PALESTINE. ONE PALESTINE.
September 9, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to look up the definition of "Genocide" because Israel has already committed genocide when it tried to wipe out Palestinians as a people. The definition of Genocide does not require mass murder (even though there have been instances of massacres by Israeli forces too - Deir Yassin comes to mind)
Remember, "There are no such things as Palestinians" -- Golda Meir.
September 9, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This and other comments suggesting the likelihood of wholesale ethnic cleaning seem more (enraged) apprehension than serious possibility. No doubt, the slow discouragement of Palestinian life has sadly caused many West Bankers to leave (a point I argue in my book). But forced "transfer" as Morris implies? Leave aside most Israelis' own moral compunctions. Nobody can imagine such a thing happening with provoking all-sided war with all Arabs, including Israeli Arabs (that is, also the collapse of peace treaties, missiles, etc.) and complete diplomatic isolation--which would, in turn, cause Israels'high tech, high touch, economy to implode, and cause a further brain-drain of Israel's elite. Let us not terrify ourselves with angry fears; let's refocus on what is possible. One does not have to be an "optimist"; it is enough, for now, not to succumb to hysteria.
September 9, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we can certainly imagine such a thing happening during a major regional war, and the very real possibility of such a war can't be denied. If a major war were to break out across in the Middle East, possibly involving other outside powers - and such a possibility is an all-too-foreseeable possibility - then what Israel is doing in Palestine would be the least of the world's problems. Using the justification of temporary but necessary state security measures, Israel could force Palestinians from their homes in one location after another, as happened in 1948. Those who weren't forced out would soon find their positions untenable and would leave on their own accord. Of course, the "temporary" measures would become permanent in the aftermath of the conflict, assuming Israel is on the victorious side. Israel could thus use the cover of war to achieve what many Israelis on the right have long openly advocated, and what many in the middle have long secretly hoped for: that the Palestinians might eventually be induced to leave what is left of mandatory Palestine and settle elsewhere.
During the recent war with Lebanon and Hizbollah, many hard line Israelis, and supporters of Israel in the US, were calling for an expansion of the war into Syria, which could have been expected to produce a cascading response: Iranian intercession on behalf of Syria, US intervention against Iran, Israeli air strikes on Iran, naval war in the Persian Gulf, possible Gulf State involvement with or against the US, etc., chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the frightening risk of Russian or European involvement to protect their interests in the region.
It is my view that there are those hawks in Israel and the US who believe such a "clarifying" war in the region is inevitable, that it's just a matter of time. They will continue to look for opportunities to provoke it.
Yes, this is terrifying. But rather than avoid these fears, we should recognize them and address them. That's the only way to prevent these nightmares from occurring.
September 9, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do mean "no one can imagine" such a thing happening?
Have you read Dershowitz's book, in which he argues that ethnic cleansing is really not such a bad thing, and it should be viewed as a case of "equal opportunity" for Jews?
Yes, sorry to burst your bubble, there are plently of people in Israel who believe that Jews are inherently superior people entitled to "Breathing Room".
September 9, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Avishai.
You can address de Soto's comment directly by clicking the "reply" button and proceeding.
September 8, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
the two state solution is dead for the moment for one reason -- Iran. The regime has taken up the Palestinian cause as a means to establish their leadership role in the Islamic world, and they do not want a two-state solution. They want Israel dissolved. There will be no peaceful resolution, until Iran and their Hezbollah/Hamas surrogates are muzzled.
September 8, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blaming Iran is laughable. Israel has consistently undermined peace efforts with the Palestinians, deliberately provoking violence and continuing to build settlements on occupied Palestinian lands. That's not IRan's fault.
September 9, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, of course, the orthodox Hebrew and kibutz occupiers not only want a singular and internationally illegal Jerusalem but claim land far beyond Israel's actual borders and have expectatations that conflict not only with Palestinian apirations but many Israeli's.
If Israel is a conflicted country how can it ever hope to have a cohesive foreign policy.
Seems to me you guys are doomed to constant conflict and fair comparison to South Africa of the 60s, 70s and 80s. You are repressing a dispossessed nation. Fact.
I'm British. We did the same.
Let go. Religion is the worst excuse.
September 8, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgive me for not having yet read your book yet, Mr. Avishai. But based only on your two posts, I am so far quite puzzled about what you are calling for.
You describe a one-state solution as unimaginable, and I am somewhat inclined to share your skepticism. So I take it you are still proposing a two-state solution, but also proposing some structural changes to the Jewish state that is to be part of this solution. You say:
The Hebrew Republic maps out the Jewish state as the most original forces in the Zionist movement conceived it. It is a democratic country whose language is Hebrew, much the way the French Republic is French. I am not proposing anything terribly original here. I'm just trying to bring Israel up to code.
Is that it? Are you saying that having a state whose official language is Hebrew is enough to make a state a Jewish state? This can't really be your position is it?
The analogy with France is instructive. French-speaking in France, and the conscious efforts by cultural and governing elites to preserve the French language there, may be necessary conditions for the Republic of France to be the state of the French nation and French people. But they are not a sufficient condition. They are necessary conditions in that the French language and its literature form the main repository of French cultural memory. And yet there are several other states in this world that are French in the sense that their language and literature are French, but that are in no way states of the French people.
Later you talk about the traditional Zionist and Balfourian idea of Israel as a Jewish "national home". Do you think simply speaking and writing in Hebrew would make a state a Jewish national home?
You appear to have an anti-religious agenda, which is fine. But from my point of view, it's not theistic religion that is the core of the problem of Israel. It is nationalism, secular as well as religious, and the concepts of national rights, national purpose, and national entitlements to land rooted in deep historical myths. Yes, for many, Jewish nationalism is infused and enlivened with religious ideas taken from Judaism. But there are many Jews who regard themselves as secular, but have what I would regard as quasi-religious views about the Jewish people or nation, and their collective rights in Palestine.
You seem to have some hope that secular enlightenment values are going to win out, and identify such values as the true wellspring of Zionism. But Zionism was not a movement of the enlightenment, although enlightenment values no doubt played some role. It was a 19th century movement, steeped in that century's romantic and revolutionary nationalist ideas about "nations", "peoples".
In any case, it turned out that a lot of the Jews who actually moved to Israel and built the Jewish state, before and after independence, didn't share the purely secular values you admire. A social and political movement isn't identical to the philosophical views or agendas set down on paper by the movement's founders. It is an expression of the attitudes, aims and commitments of the people who make up the movement. Zionism as an actual historical movement, as opposed to original Zionism on paper, has hardly been a secular movement, or an expression of the enlightenment. I don't see how you can turn back the block on this.
September 8, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great questions, Dan, and I would love to see Mr. Avishai address some of them.
While I'm here I'd like to thank Alvaro de Soto for venturing in and commenting.
September 9, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks A.A. By the way, my last sentence should have been, "I don't see how you can turn back the clock on this."
September 9, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K, your objections are reasonable and well-informed; but I think they also elide the simple fact of "Israeliness" as a fact of life most Israelis take for granted. They are secular in the sense that their religious imaginations are their own, and are prepared to live and let live; and their Jewish identities derive from the simple fact of their being residents of a Hebrew-speaking country, with all the nuances contained in the language. It is no longer a question of what "values" inform the Zionist movement, but what ordinary expectations are typical of daily life.
September 9, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you've lived in Israel, and I haven't even visited the country, Bernard. But since hardly any of the Jews I know here in the US, to the extent that they have a strong sense of Jewish identity, ground that sense of identity primarily in the Hebrew language, I have trouble believing that Jews in Israel do not connect their Jewishness primarily with factors that go well beyond their use of Hebrew.
Suppose it were to turn out that, for reasons of global economic integration, Hebrew fell into everyday disuse in Israel and was replaced by English as the language of daily life, with Hebrew becoming as it is in most of the rest of the Jewish world a language confined mainly to religious life. Do you think Jews in Israeli would then no longer feel Jewish, or would lose their commitment to the preservation of Israel as a Jewish state?
September 9, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both.
September 10, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K, your objections are reasonable and well-informed; but I think they also elide the simple fact of "Israeliness" as a fact of life most Israelis take for granted. Most are secular in the sense that their religious imaginations are their own, and are prepared to live and let live; and their Jewish identities derive from the simple fact of their being residents of a Hebrew-speaking country, with all the nuances contained in the language. It is no longer a question of what "values" inform the Zionist movement, but what ordinary expectations are typical of daily life. The key is get them to see how their own secular standards need to be addressed in law, not only for the sake of Arabs, but also for themselves.
September 9, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
But if objections to a two-state solution, or even just a grim prognosis for it, imply endorsement for a one-state solution (some of the other commentators clearly endorse this), then we are into even more unimaginable territory.
And yet we've effectively had a one-state solution since Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. What's unimaginable isn't a single state, it's a single state where all the Arabs have the same rights as Jews.
September 8, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dr Avishai's Hebrew Republic, if it were ever implemented, would INCREASE Arab hatred and rejection of Israel over that which already exists against the existing Jewish Israeli state.
Dr Avishai seems to forget that the Middle is largely Arabic speaking, Muslim, and conservative in its values. Dr Avishai, himself, is very uncomfortable with Jewish tradition so he adopts an updated form for Shimon Peres' discredited "New Middle East" and thinks that will solve the problem of Arab rejectionism towards Israel. Peres claimed that globalized economic values are now predominate and define people's general values and identies. However, when Peres suggested that Israel join the Arab league, one of the Arab leaders said "fine, but first you must all convert to Islam". Both Peres and Dr Avishai project THEIR values on the Arabs, but the Arabs actually reject these values.
In reality a truly traditionalist Jewish state where Jewish values are those of the society at large would be less difficult for the surrounding Arab societies to adjust to. Orthdox/traditionalist Judaism, like Islam, is family oriented and conservative. Judaism is NOT a missionary religion. Orthodox/Traditionalist Jews are NOT interested in influencing the surrounding Arab culture and peoples. Orthodox/traditionalist Jews simply want to live the life of the Torah in their historic homeland. Dr Avishai's secular "Hebrew Republic", on the other hand, is simply a modernized form of the Medieval Crusader state which represented an agressive form of Christianity (a missionary religion, unlike Judaism). But instead of pushing Christianity, Dr Avishai's "globalized, secular 'Hebrew Republic'" would end up pushing its own agressive secularized materialist, consumerist culture which has little respect for the things the traditionalist Arab/Muslim culture reveres: respect for tradition, respect for elders, respect for religious traditions, family values, modesty in dress and conduct. The secular "Hebrew Republic" would undermine family values by promoting homosexuality, immodest female behavior, youth culture encouraging rebellion agains the parent's values, etc.
Now, no doubt, Dr Avishai and other "progressives" will find the values I am talking about abhorrent BUT THESE ARE THE PREDOMINATE VALUES OF THE SURROUNDING ARAB/MUSLIM culture. They fear the "secularized, globalized" economy and its values. "Progressives" may feel that imposing these values on the Arab/Muslim culture is bringing "progress" to them, but they don't want "progress" of this sort and their rejection of these values, as embodied in this illusory "Hebrew Republic" would only intensify their hostility. And by the way, Arabic is the language of the region and they would view the "Hebrew" language as also another intrusion into their "turf", if it was viewed as being the bearer of this missionary culture they would oppose.
September 9, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only thing I would inject is that Islam is a missionary religion just like Christianity. I personally have no desire to be converted by the blade of sword. Arabs are not exempt from the petulant behaviors displayed by the rest of humanity. No one here is benevolent enough to decide this issue without compromise.
September 9, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are an optimist and I praise you for it.
Exactly wrong. There's never been an idea about a single state involving both Palestinians and Israelis. Indeed, the right-wing of Israeli politics have tried to make it impossible for Palestinians to make any agreement and always drive to disunify both Israelis and Palestinians, often killing the latter to do so. A drive to unify Jerusalem and annexation of much land to the East into the occupied territories beyond, and expropriation of much land beyond the 1948 boundaries proves the fact.
You are clearly wrong. Though I wish you were not.
September 9, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops! Thats was meant to be 1968 borders, which might be survivable.
September 9, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops! Thats was meant to be 1968 borders, which might be survivable.
September 9, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that o2u has the best read on this problem. Israel has only one choice and that is to ethnicaly cleanse the land west of the Jordan river of its Arab population. This follows from two facts:
The West Bank settler movement has made the two state solution impossible. Sooner or later the moderate PA will realize that they have been used in the peace process while expansion of the settlements continue. These are the facts on the ground that Sharon championed.
Now if we accept that the two state solution is no longer possible then it would seem that the one state solution is the alternative. But Israel would never accept a state that had a majority of Palestians. What to do? If genocide is off the table, then that leaves ethnic cleansings as the only alternative.
This is a brutal conclusion. It seems to me that the only alternative for the US is to simply back away. Just let the warring tribes do their thing. It is not in the interests of the US to fight another war designed to improve Israel's position. The American people will likely soon realize that sending our troops into the ME to support Israel goals is not in our interests.
September 9, 2008 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The US supports Israel, so part of the blame will lay at US's feet no matter what. But then even if Israel succeeds in it underlying goal of a greater Israel, global warming could turn the entire region into a desert with too little water to support a large population. If fact Israel's hand may be forced, by GW combined with rising water usage, into taking parts of Jordan's territory as well, simply to secure water. Southern Lebanon could be a target as well.
September 9, 2008 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) The concern about the difference in affluence between the Jewish population and the Palestinian population is similar to that between East and West Germany prior to the dismantling of its wall and the end of partition. It can be overcome and an unpartitioned Israel with full citizenship for Palestinians would attract significantly greater foreign investment.
2) The less affluent Palestinian population doesn't just "feel" it was dispossessed. It was dispossessed.
3) There is no justice with two states, one for Jews and another for Palestinians. This one land is the homeland to both.
4) If Israel is to fully join the "global game" it must make certain it doesn't continue its retreat into ethno-religious fragmentation, which has been the MO since political Zionism, full of itself and its false prophecy of the benefits of secession, separatism, and domination came to the fore in 1896.
September 9, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink