American Jews and the Two-State Solution
I have a few quick points in response to Jeremy Ben-Ami's posting in which he argued (in response to me) that "a large majority of the American Jewish community does support active diplomacy, a two-state solution and an end to the occupation."
First, I have great respect for the efforts that Ben-Ami, Daniel Levy, M.J. Rosenberg, and other like-minded individuals have made to organize and mobilize American Jews to get firmly and enthusiastically behind a two-state solution.
Second, I have long been aware that there are marked differences between the rank and file of the American Jewish community and most of its leaders regarding how to think about dealing with the Palestinians. I understand that the leadership is clearly more hard-line than the rank and file and that most leaders have little if any enthusiasm for a two-state solution. Steve Walt and I wrote about this in our book on the Israel lobby.
Third, I realize that J Street's "National Survey of American Jews" shows widespread support for the two-state solution and active American diplomacy to shut down the conflict. But my point, as is clear from Ben-Ami's opening sentence, is that I don't understand why more supporters of Israel are not "championing" a two-state solution. The "vast majority" may favor that outcome, but they are not doing much to make it happen. I see little evidence that the rank and file of the American Jewish community is deeply concerned about this issue and thinking about clever ways to push both Israel and the U.S. government to settle the conflict and allow the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own. Instead, I sense that most American Jews do not think it is worth their time to push hard on this issue. This is why the hardliners among Israel's supporters, who are deeply motivated to push their agenda, are so much more effective than the moderates, even though the moderates outnumber the hardliners. And, of course, I do not understand why the hardliners oppose a two-state solution and champion a Greater Israel, since it is so obviously not in Israel's interest.
Fourth, not all the surveys of the American Jewish community find it to be as sympathetic to a two-state solution as does the J Street survey. Consider these results from the 2007 Annual Survey of the American Jewish Committee. When asked if they "favor or oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state," only 46 percent of Jewish-Americans were in favor, 43 percent were opposed. When asked if Israel should "be willing to compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a united city under Israeli jurisdiction" within the framework of a permanent peace agreement, 58 percent said no; 36 percent said yes. Finally, 82 percent said that they believed that "the goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel." 12 percent disagreed. I think that the answer to this last question probably explains why there is not much enthusiasm for a two-state solution, even if most Jews think it is a desirable outcome, as the J Street survey data indicates.
Let me conclude by saying that I hope very much that Ben-Ami and his allies can rally the American Jewish community around the two-state solution, and get it to put serious pressure on Israel and the Obama administration to settle this conflict, or at least make a serious effort to do so.
"Finally, 82 percent said that they believed that "the goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel."
At the risk of sounding like a member of the great 82nd, I think it IS a bit of an open question as to what the goals of "the Arabs" is or are. First of all, WHICH Arabs? Second, you have some, like Abbas, who have convinced me at least they want peace. Then you have HAMAS, which no one has been able or willing to control, who don't seem to want peace. Third, you have Hezbollah who seem mostly concerned with keeping Israel out of Lebanon, but who clearly want to see the end of the Zionist state. To what ends they might be willing to go, at least to me, somewhat unclear. Fourth, we have the Arab peace plan of 2002 which, as some have pointed out here, appears to have been proffered as much to blunt post 9/11 anti-Arab sentiment (to be seen as peace-wanting) as it was offered with a genuine desire to achieve peace and normal relations with Israel.
I mean, Arafat, the aggrieved party, agreed to recognize Israel in 1988. It took the rest of the Arabs 14 more years to come around to the same sort of idea--and Israel had done nothing to them, ever, except beat them on the battlefield. So it's not as though the Arabs have been sitting at the peace table impatiently waiting for 60-odd years for the clueless Israelis and world Jewry to get the with the program. So I find M's question, or implicit question--"Why don't the Jews want peace?"--to be somewhat bone-headed.
(And just as an aside, I found some of W&M errors about Israel, especially citizenship based on "blood" to be highly offensive. One would think that esteemed scholars would wade into this big muddy with their basic facts straight before they began to preach. If they had ever cracked a book on the subject they were expounding on, they would know that statements about "blood" whichever way they were taken--charges of racism, blood libel, drinking Christian blood, etc.--lead straight into the deep pit of anti-Semitism. Period.)
IOW, depending on how the questions are worded and their context and the sample, I'm not at all surprised that many Jews, given our history, are skeptical about Arab intentions.
But I say, "somewhat boneheaded," because of course M is also right. American Jews do need to act more forcefully and clearly for a just end to this conflict. Everyone is losing big time. The Palestinians are losing the most, but the Israelis have the most to lose. I know YBD and others will disagree with me, but from where I sit, and knowing what I know this is how I see it. To borrow a bit from the Lind discussion, Israel is fast becoming what he calls either a garrison or castle state. Not a way to live and not in keeping with what I understand the Jewish tradition, in the main, to be. Not in keeping with the best of our values.
Jews and Israel need to take a chance on peace. Some will argue that she already has taken many chances and been rebuffed or worse. I say, she has to keep taking chances until the job is done. Some will say that it's easy for me to say, but Israelis are on the front lines. To them I will say, yes, but the Zionists put themselves on the front lines when they established a state on land where another people was the majority. I don't say it was "wrong" or "racist" for them to do that--though not a Zionist myself, I do support Israel--but that is the project they took on. Had the Palestinians and Zionists been more "reasonable" especially with regard to 181, we might not be here, but I'm not sure any part of this conflict, good or bad, has been "reasonable."
Bringing a new state into being is not an act of reason or logic or even of unadulterated morality, but an act of will and determination and force. In that respect, Israel is the same as every other country on planet earth, including any future Palestine, which as I recall was central to the Zionist project to begin with--to make the Jews like all other people on earth, neither worse nor better. Yes, there are moral and immoral aspects to every country, but it isn't morally right or wrong for any country or state to be or come into being.
We, as Jews, know where we've been and where we are. I say we, Jews, take a chance--a calculated and clear-headed chance--one that takes a fair and balanced view of what we've done right and what we've done wrong--what our strengths and weaknesses are--and move forward. See if the Arabs, all of them, really do want peace. We've never been in a stronger position to do it. Nor has the world ever been more ready for it.
Phil Weiss's view that the occupation is an American Jewish achievement is wrong. The Israelis created the occupation. We did nothing to stop it and, in its early days, probably cheered it on. Why not? The Wall was now accessible, and the extra land seemed like an extra measure of security. But I do believe that Ben Gurion told Israel's leaders to give the land back almost immediately. Would that have solved the problem and brought peace? I doubt it. The conflict would probably have continued over Israel proper. But it would have been the right thing to do. Hey, and maybe Jordan and Egypt would have said, "Let's give the Palestinians the state they deserve on THEIR land." Maybe.
Phil Weiss is wrong because, despite AIPAC's storied power, I don't think they have much power to change Israel's policies. And I'm not sure how much power ordinary Jews have either. But I think we should try hard, because trying for peace is the right thing to do. I do believe that if Israel can resolve this conflict in a just and lasting way, she can become a light unto the nations if in no other way than by demonstrating that even the most intractable conflicts can be resolved with enough will and compassion.
December 13, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is an important but difficult to answer question, "What are the goals of the Arabs?" It is an equally important -though less difficult to answer- question: "What are the goals of the Israelis?"
One key reason for the first question being more difficult is that Israelis have a functioning democratic state that can, to some non-trivial degree, be said to legitimately represent and articulate Israelis' goals.
Arabs have no such state, and there are reasons aplenty for believing that Palestinians, if given a chance to create one, would fumble the opportunity. There are no good reasons for continuing to deny them the opportunity, however.
The 82% of American Jews who think that Arabs ultimately want no state of Israel may well be right. Despite the efforts of Hamas, et. al., however, those desires to drive Israel "into the sea" look very unlikely to succeed, and have so since at least 1967. By contrast, the efforts of the hardline settler movement (and their coddlers in Israel and the USA), to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, have been totally successful.
It is high time to de-couple US policy from the
interests of the west bank settlers. It should and could have been done a decade or more ago, but it is never too late for common sense.
December 13, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"One key reason for the first question being more difficult is that Israelis have a functioning democratic state that can, to some non-trivial degree, be said to legitimately represent and articulate Israelis' goals."
Yes, but if there is going to be a Palestinian party to the negotiation that results in peace and a Palestinian state, they are going to have leadership that can represent the Palestinians and articulate their goals--and work to achieve them. How else?
"It is high time to de-couple US policy from the
interests of the west bank settlers. It should and could have been done a decade or more ago, but it is never too late for common sense."
I'm not entirely sure what "decouple" means. If you mean that the US and Israel are two different states and therefore have two distinct sets of interests that perhaps overlap sometimes and don't other times, I'd agree.
But if you mean the US should no longer treat Israel as an ally and no longer support her materially, I'm not sure I can agree. First of all, if you actually care about the Palestinians, then continued US allied engagement is the best route to achieving the two state solution, IMO. One big problem has been sporadic and late-developing US engagement. Even Clinton ran out of time, in part because he started late.
Second, sometimes it's been argued that US's closeness to Israel has been disastrous for the United States. I ask, in what way? What changes for us if we break off ties to Israel? No more 9/11s? It's pretty clear to me that our relationship with Israel was only one of the reasons for 9/11. Our bases in SA were the primary cause, and that stems from our dependence on oil. In that drama, Israel is an entr'acte and something sure to stir the masses to your side if you're a despot. Better relations with Iran? I guess that could help us get out of Iraq sooner and leave Iraq more stable. But the truth is, the enmity between the US and Iran long pre-dates our ties to Israel, maybe by close to two decades. More reliable access to oil? Is that what our foreign policy is to be reduced to? Cozying up to a despotic, theocratic regime--as I read in Wapo the other day--believes in an eye for an eye justice even to the point of pouring acid into the eyes of a man who had done the same to his girl friend--or stoning women for committing adultery--for a barrel of oil?
Israel has done some pretty bad things to Palestinians, but are we really going to break off ties to Israel to cozy up to a regime like that? For a little black gold? And if you tell me you're going to back or "support" the democratic forces within Iran, well then, surely the US can support the progressive forces in Israel to move her in a better direction.
And third, for all of her warts, Israel still has the most legitimate government in the Middle East with the possible exception of Turkey, and I'm not so sure how well Turkey treats her pesky minority the Kurds. (At least no can say that the Kurds have colonized the land they want to turn into a country.) Even though nation-building and spreading democracy has justly earned a bad name thanks to Mr. Bush, democracy still has clear value in terms of creating or being the basis for real equality and opportunity within a society. And Israel is the only working example of it in the Middle East.
And though Dan K called my hope that Israel become a light unto the nations "ludicrous," I think there's real reason to think that, if peace ever comes, this could come to pass. Modeling democracy for the other countries in the region is one reason. Modeling diversity for the countries of the region and the world is another. Israel has incorporated--fractiously and imperfectly--people from virtually every part of the world: North America, Central America, South America, virtually the countries of Europe, old and new, Australia, Africa, and most of the countries of the Middle East. Asia may not be well represented, but there are Jews from India there.
Is there are a country more diverse than Israel? Is there a country that's more diverse per square meter than Israel? Is there a country that's more diverse per square meter with fewer natural resources than Israel? The US has always been able to quell the fractious multitudes with plenty of land and resources to go around. But this is a poor model for the rest of the world to follow. The US hasn't had a near enemy for hundreds of years; most of them have been thousands of miles away. But most countries don't have any of those luxuries. They are forced to live cheek by jowl with friend and foe--just like Israel.
And the US has never faced an intractable conflict like this one and had to solve it. Most of the countries of the world--or many of them--are being asked to resolve and move beyond conflicts that are centuries old. Most people moved to the US to simply "get away"--"run from"--their problems and start over. But this is not an option for most peoples or, increasingly, for the world. There are precious few places left, if any, to run to.
The world has its back up against a wall, so to say, and Jews and Israel have had a lot of experience dealing with that kind of "do or die" situation.
For those reasons, I do think Israel has the opportunity to serve as a light unto the world if she can resolve this conflict in a just and lasting way. And it would behoove the US, and Americans, to stay connected to this process and support it.
My view...
December 13, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
An Israel being a "light unto the world" is light years away from this planet. But it would be a major step towards that distant destination to finally end the nauseating hypocrisy of incessant hyping about supposed threats to the "existence" of the Israeli state while fabricating a galaxy of excuses for denying the right of existence of a Palestinian state. A less major but still significant positive step would be to cease de-facto US support for this pitiful hypocrisy.
December 14, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have made some trenchant points.
December 14, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin has made some trenchant points.
December 14, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Needless to say, the "Whole World is Watching" as the old 60"s refrain goes.
To Tin tin
what exactly is your point in two or three sentences? Or is it as intricate as you make it out to be? You agree that Israel has the military power to hold on (for now) to the territory so that it is not up to the Palestinians to effect a two state solution but up to Israel. The ball is squarely in Israel's court. Stop the kvetch.
December 13, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) I understand why many Jews are worried or uncertain about the Arabs' real intentions vis a vis a Palestinian state.
2) Nevertheless, Israel and Jews have the strength and duty to try for peace until we get there.
3) But the nuances were important, at least to me, Andrew. Math was never my strong suit.
December 13, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As events in Hebron last week and Livni's recent comments demonstrate, Palestinians have enormous reasons to question what Israel's real intentions are. I don't see any evidence in the Oslo Process that successive Israeli governments have accepted that a real Palestinian state, independent of Israel, is actually the goal of negotiations. A state with a Jewish veto over its Arab inhabitants is not a "Palestinian" state. That state already exists: it's called the State of Israel.
December 15, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
re. Pakistan, let us hope that the man is aware of the work of one Juan Cole. Cole's latest post leads off with THE major international question of the day. Check it out, folks.
re. Iraq: today trooper Odierno announced that U.S. troops will need to be stationed in Iraq cities upwards of ten full years into the future. Really, this guy ought to be retired on day one.
December 13, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Mearsheimer is essentially correct in his assumptions - if there is a criticism it is that he has been perhaps over careful in his language. As a Jewish Englishmen, with a brother in Israel since the 1950s, I can confirm that the unwritten agenda of the expected new Likud administration is for a Greater Israel with all Arabs and Muslims being transferred out of the West Bank and other areas to Jordan and elsewhere. There is no question whatsoever of any occupied land being returned or settlements being removed - which is obvious to all but the already blind and those who cannot or will not see. The Israeli state is a unique creature, being sustained politically and financially by millions of Christian Zionists in the US and their elected representatives in government who believe in the literal words of the bible and the coming of the messiah when all Jews are retuned to Zion - but whose ultimate goal is the conversion of all those Jewish Israelis to Christ. It's a fairy-story that one couldn't make-up! But the Israelis grab it with both hands - obviously and use that religious conviction of others to extend their boundaries. Of course, when the messiah does come, there may be a few more Israelis who will want to emigrate. But that's another story for another decade, or perhaps another millennium. In the meantime, self-serving politics and endemic corruption will flourish in Israel as it does elsewhere.
December 13, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
COLINDALE-
You are an English Jew. That is how your English neighbors view you. Remember the old "I am a German of the Mosaic religion"?
December 15, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ye, which is why his "English neighbors" appointed an English Jew to be Foreign Minister.
December 15, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Germany had a "German citizen of the Mosaic religion" as Foreign Minister in 1922. He was assassinated. France had a "Frenchman of the Mosaic religion" as Premier in 1936. He was later sent to a concentration camp.
December 15, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are kidding, right? You are making a straight-faced comparison of England to pre-Hitlerite Germany? Dude, that is just about as offensive as the Blood Libel.
December 15, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 1922 Germany, people like you were saying "Monarchy is goine, Jews now have equal rights under the new Weimar Constitution, there is now a Jewish Foreign Minister, 1/3 to 1/2 of the Doctors and Lawyers in Berlin are Jews. No one takes that rabble-rouser in Munich seriously. What more could the Jews ask? This is the 20th century..the word would never allow a regression, particularly in Western Europe".
This is what bugs "well-meaning" people like yourself. You can't stand us nationalist Jews because we take a long view of history. We have heard all the assurances you and your kind are making before. Well, when the crisis came and we waited, powerless, stateless, for "well-meaning" people like yourself to intervene, we waited in vain. I don't believe you are an infallible predictor of the future.
December 16, 2008 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your post reflects a profound ignorance of (1) the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany during the 19th Century--there is no comparison with 21st Century England; (2) the collapse of Germany after WWI--there is no comparison with 21st Century England; (3) the nature of English society, which is very accepting of different types of people, profoundly secular, and intolerant of religious discrimination; and 4) the profoundly stable nature of English society. The rule of law is firmly grounded into England. All of these these are points of departure from 1920-30's Germany.
Apparently, you assume all goyim are the same. So many opinions, so little knowledge.
December 16, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps if a Netanyahu administration does take power in Israel clarity will emerge as to their true intentions and this will enable Obama to take the definitive steps that have been difficult for previous U.S. presidents. American leadership has been hampered by the mixed signals sent by previous Israeli governments -- talks of peace if only Israel could find a "partner" while continuing to build settlements, build the wall, and the extremely clever decision to abandon Gaza and transfer all resources toward encroachments into the West Bank.
What is so bad about an Israeli state confined to the 1967 borders, perhaps with some modifications at the margins that both sides can agree to (78% of the land in dispute) backed up by an unwavering guarantee of U.S. support and protection?
December 14, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why? Do you think Netanyahu is unpopular with Americans? He's been one of the more prominent Israeli faces on American television for years, and seems very skilled at speaking with American audiences. Ted Koppel had a virtual love affair with the guy.
If Israel started transferring Palestinians out of the West Bank tomorrow, what makes you think a politically significant portion of Americans would give a shit?
December 15, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
They wouldn't. It hurts to say it. But they wouldn't care any more than they do about the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians who have died since 2003.
December 15, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
One small point--the two-state solution means different things to different people. On the Israeli right, the two-state solution often means something akin to a Bantustan or at least the walled-off West Bank and Gaza envisioned by Sharon. There's a Palestinian state, but it's greatly restricted. A more moderate Israeli view has two states, but with significant security concessions on the part of the Palestinian side and certainly no Palestinian refugees returning to Israel. The Palestinian view envisions fewer security concessions, complete control over their own airspace, greater water rights and also a significant number of Palestinians being re-integrated into the Israeli state. Given the wide variety of versions of the two-state solution, it's easy to get people to say they'd like to see one. But the devil is in all the details and any particular two-state solution has more enemies than friends. I'm afraid the two-state solution isn't even close to being accepted--and probably is completely impossible. For people who really want peace, it's time to start working for a one-state solution. The two-state solution is just a magnificant distraction that only helps maintain the status quo.
December 14, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. And to the small extent Rahm Emanuel might be Obama's "bulldog" on this issue, it won't extend to anywhere near support for something truly just.
December 14, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see your points, Purple, but why do you think a one-state solution will be any easier? Just doesn't make sense to me. Virtually all of your points about two states apply to one states (except borders, perhaps) but in spades.
December 14, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
There will never be a one state solution. Instead there will be several hundred thousand dead Palestinians if crazies in the region try to make one state, dominated by Arabs, replace the State of Israel. If you truly care about peace, and if you want to save the lives of those Palestinians, tell President Obama to send Bill Clinton to renew the 2001 Taba offer and tell Abbass to make a sensible counter-offer.
December 14, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Two state solution will fail. Israel will allow the Palestinians no more than a bantustan. A single state was always the only moral option. All Israelis are settlers, or the children of settlers, which is not to say they're ever going to leave or that they should.
Here's and interesting endorsement for Bibi from one professor of Jewish studies in Jerusalem.
I tend to agree.
December 14, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seth, we are ALL children of settlers one way or another. It's just a matter of time. But, morally, there is no difference that I can see.
December 14, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bibi strips the illusions off Isareli policy. That is why I think it would be better for him to win.
December 15, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, of course, I do not understand why the hardliners oppose a two-state solution and champion a Greater Israel, since it is so obviously not in Israel's interest.
Here's a little hint: One clue might come from examining why American reactionary hardliners supported an Iraq Occupation, which even at the outset was clearly not in the US interest.
December 14, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 14, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many Jewish children have been killed in those attacks? How many Palestinian children have been killed during IDF attacks on Gaza just in the last year? I rest my case.
December 15, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those of you who don't believe that the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world don't want peace with Israel, check out this column by Barry Rubin in the Jerusalem Post:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1228728195450&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
December 15, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Israel talks peace while it keeps confiscating Palestinian land and choking off the Palestinian economy. I guess the Arabs are as deceitful as the Zionists. They are learning from your people, YBD. And imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
December 15, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this were still summer and if there were still summer repeats...
The level of ignorance on this thread is disgusting, This might as well be alabama in 1955 with conservatives and reformers, all white of course, discussing the negro problem.
Not one nigger is sight.
Not one arabic speaker.
"What do arabs want?" "What do negroes want?" "What do women want?"
A fully free election in Iran would bring in reformers.
A fully free election in Israel will bring in either an expansionist or a fascist.
The world worries more about Israel than about Iran. Most people consider Israel the destabilizing force in the region. That Israel needs the Saudis as the Saudis need Israel. Anybody else here remember MJ Rosenberg worrying that more Arab democracy would undermine Israel's position? So Israel should work with dictators while they can.
Another reason we don't have representatives of arab reform movements on this site: they're angry at Israel too.
"If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"
David Ben Gurion
A german jew sent me this link.
The Magnes Zionist In all my ignorance I'd never heard of Judah Magnes. He was a mensch.
And tintin you obviously like to write more than you like to read.
Learn from your mistake.
December 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Seth, I do read a lot, including The Magnes Zionist...and Judah Magnes. Sorry you were so ignorant...
ANYONE in the world is free to post on this site. No one is preventing anyone from posting here, and many people would welcome Arabs, Muslims...anyone. I think that should be obvious from the comments here.
The fact that "they are angry at Israel, too" obviously has stopped anyone from posting here. Maybe you should read more closely.
December 15, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for sharing.i really appreciate it.so,keep working.i will watch your Replica chanel handbags blog all the time.
July 19, 2010 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v network, linux iscsi initiator howto
April 1, 2011 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability software
April 29, 2011 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink