Sheikh Jarrah: 'Strong Seeds'
I am in New Hampshire, but my friend David Shulman who recently wrote this analysis of the aftermath of the Gaza Flotilla in the New York Review, files this report from last Friday:
Sheikh Jarrah, July 9, 2010
I've been thinking about truth. About what the word means, and how we know what it means. This comes in the wake of yesterday's demonstration, with its by now habitual rituals unfolding in their remorseless, bitter order--the hopeful beginning, the drumming and slogans, the dispossessed Palestinians standing beside us as we chant, the rapid, volatile crescendo, the eventual police attack, and the arrests. Sarah, a young woman of astonishing courage and clarity, was among the first to be arrested.
On the one hand, Sheikh Jarrah is a touchstone. As my son Misha said to me on the way back: Some things are amazingly simple. In Sheikh Jarrah you can see pure theft in all its starkness. The Bible says "Thou shalt not steal," and it--God, that is-- was referring to Sheikh Jarrah. Any one can see it. The shocking thing, of course, is that the whole apparatus of the modern state--the municipality, its committees and master plans and grey bureaucrats, the mayor, the government, the Prime Minister, the cabinet, the courts, the police, the secret services--all these have colluded in actively perpetrating the theft. There's really not much room for argument. Either you stand by and let them throw innocent people out of their homes, or you come each week to demonstrate and resist. It's particularly terrible because the wave of expulsions is continuing, in fact intensifying. Two weeks ago we shifted the demonstration to the new set of houses that have been targeted. As so many times before, we heard an aged, wrinkled Palestinian grandmother say: "Why are they doing this to us? I prefer to die than to leave my home."
It's clear that the government wants to destroy the whole of Palestinian Sheikh Jarrah, to rid the neighborhood of its many dozens of extended families, and to replace them with Jewish settlers. It's quite possible that in a few years' time, if the process continues to accelerate, there will be nothing left of Sheikh Jarrah. The mosque will be replaced by a yeshiva--plans for its location already exist--the homes of the Palestinian refugees from 1948 will be occupied by fanatical settlers, new (ugly) apartment buildings will go up, the Arabic street signs will disappear; in short, a whole piece of reality, with its language, its memories, its dreams, its human dramas, large and small, will be liquidated. That's the plan. That's what they want. Why should they want it? Hate exists. Truth can be simple.
On the other hand, I think this simple truth is itself enveloped by another, deeper one, more inchoate and lonely, perhaps resistant to formulation. I'll try to say something about it and about the way it becomes manifest.
THE EARLY PART of the demonstration is somehow satisfying. No sooner do we arrive than Ezra Nawi spots me and recruits me to his infiltration squads: "Come with me." I should describe the situation. The stolen houses, now inhabited by Israeli settlers, are about 100 meters down one of the main streets leading into the neighborhood. In recent months, the protestors have been strictly barred from approaching the houses, or even from setting foot in the upper part of the road. Settlers and right-wing activists have free run of the entire neighborhood, as do ultra-orthodox Jews who come to pray at the nearby tomb of Simeon the Just. Our quarrel is not with the latter. The houses themselves are now draped in Israeli flags, and on the roof of the al-Ghawi house there is also a large, crude candelabra, probably there since Chanukah.
Something changed slightly in the course of this last week. Some of our people prepared an appeal to the Legal Adviser to the government, Yehuda Weinstein; the letter sets out, in precise, understated language, the tortuous story of police violence and illegal actions in Sheikh Jarrah over the last few months, and also offers the fairly obvious explanation that senior officers in the Jerusalem police are driven by a blatant right-wing bias. The letter was signed by many well-known public figures in Israel and received much media attention. So today, riding on the crest of a wave, however small, we are no longer playing by their rules. The police barricades are up, and both the blue-grey Jerusalem police and the sinister, black-clothed riot police are there, but a good 200 to 300 activists, maybe more, are already milling around in the upper part of the street. I follow Ezra and a few others by a roundabout route, over walls and fences and through an olive grove, to end up in front of the stolen houses themselves. The drummers are drumming, and there are shouts: "Free Sheikh Jarrah!" "One Two Three Four, Fascism Will March No More!" And so on. I hug Nasir, one of the evictees. About fifty of us have gotten through, and there is a steady stream of new faces, including, to my delight, my son Misha and his bride-to-be Erika (they announced their engagement to us just half an hour before).
It is good to be here, close to the families (a really good place to celebrate an engagement). On the outer wall of the al-Kurd house, someone has etched a Palestinian flag with the caption: "History Is With Us." A small contingent of police is there to hold us back, and at first they are relaxed, almost nonchalant. Occasionally, we hear shouts and cries from the upper street; later we discover that the police had already moved to suppress the protest there with violence, and the first arrests were under way. Eventually they get to us, too. Reinforcements arrive, and soon they attack, pushing and poking us, lashing out, bending arms, kicking a little, roughing us up, and occasionally picking someone out and carrying him or her off to the detention vans. I've seen much worse, but it isn't pleasant, and it is, needless to say, both illegal and gratuitous. A non-violent demonstration of this sort has repeatedly been pronounced legal by the judges who, week after week, released the arrested activists (after a weekend in jail) and reprimanded the police for making the arrests in the first place.
Herded uphill, amidst the yelling and the scuffles, we are singing the famous Hasidic song of Rabbi Nachman of Bratzlav: "The whole world is but a very narrow bridge, and the main thing is not to afraid." Speaking of truth, it rings true on this sorrowful street, like a memory of what it once meant to be Jewish. I wonder what Rabbi Nachman, one of the deepest minds in Jewish history, would have said about what is happening in Sheikh Jarrah. Actually, I think I know. A policeman strikes Erika, and Misha instinctively moves to protect her, pushes him back. A friend asks me why we are refusing to obey the police commands, why we are moving so slowly, holding our ground, so that they have to push and drag us physically up the hill, and some people get hurt and get arrested. I explain. It is important to resist. It is basic to who we are and what we stand for. Even if no one is watching, even if no one knows, if we are to remain human, we must continue to bear witness and to resist.
EVEN AS I say the words, I realize they're not much of an argument. So what if we resist? Look at the forces arrayed against us, look at our failure to make change happen. Where are the hundreds of thousands who should be standing here with us? What good is truth, anyway, when the liars and the thieves and the demented politicians have the guns, and when the ordinary Israeli person, whoever he is, just living his life, won't break through the shell of his lethal indifference? But I'm not groping toward a philosopher's truth, and the moral equation is not, after all, in question. We've already defined the situation. "Thou shalt not steal." What does this have to do with being poked and prodded up the hill?
I think the point is that there is no ordinary person. For every one there's the same precarious balance, and the same struggle. The easy way is always to go along with the cruelty; most do. Some don't. You can see it here on the street. Something has galvanized the people around me to do the decent thing. I don't think they had to think about it. It is something one knows the way we know that someday we will die, though we mostly deny this in our hearts; or the way we know how to fall in love, and how to stay in love, and how to hold a baby and how to rest when we are tired and other things like that. Such knowledge isn't simple in the way the other kind of truth might be.
It is something we carry in our bodies, and it's often a rather delicate and complicated business, where it's easy to make the wrong choice out of fear or laziness or confusion. Hence the struggle. When you make the right choice, there's truly no mistaking it. No syllogisms or proof-texts are needed. Your skin tells you, or your muscles and bones, even before your mind looks for words. You feel whole--a whole human being, capable of action. I look around me at the stalwarts of the Sheikh Jarrah protests. The moral calculus of action, easily put into words, is not the only reason they are here. Actually, nothing instrumental can fully explain it, any more than the instrumental or the reasonable can explain why we are alive. Let them poke me and push me and arrest me and curse me, I don't care. I care that they have driven Nasir and his family from their home. In that sense, I'm here for truth, a Greek truth, perhaps, the peeling away of a veil. I will stand my ground.
There was another good example of it last week. Yonatan Shapira, a captain in the Air Force who has refused to serve, who helped organize the letter of the pilots refusing to perform missions in the Palestinian territories, sprayed two graffiti on the last remnant of the wall surrounding the Warsaw ghetto: "Liberate all ghettos" (in Hebrew) and "Free Gaza and Palestine" (in English). He did it openly, in the full light of day, and he also explained it:
"The Holocaust has been appropriated for years now by the Israeli government and the Israeli education system. The Israeli establishment would rather have Jews and Israelis in a state of frightened victims who worship militarism.....In our act we tried to separate between the actions of the Israeli Government and Jews. The lesson that should be learned from the Holocaust is resistance to any form of racism. Resistance to ethnic cleansing and forced expulsion of people. Resistance to the starvation of human beings and their confinement into ghettos. These are issues that the Israeli policy makers would like us to ignore and forget."
At the top of the hill I find my colleague Tamar. "How's the revolution going up here?" I ask her, a little sadly. "Just look at these people," she says. "They've planted some strong seeds. Some day they will bear fruit."
prediction: you won't be living in israel in ten years time. the stench of hypocrisy and apartheid in israel will be so unbearable that you will need a military grade gas mask over your conscience to morally survive.
July 14, 2010 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Maybe. The stench of hypocrisy and apartheid was much greater in the US and went on for a longer time and at much greater cost, and no one moved. Also, the US survived.
July 14, 2010 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the argument is: I know what we are doing is wrong, but it is the only way we can survive.
If so, then Israel is ipso facto illegitimate. If it cannot defend itself legitimately, it is not legitimate. If it can only defend portions of itself legitimately, then only those portions are legitimate.
July 14, 2010 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that isn't the argument. The argument was about BP's prediction. Here it is:
"you won't be living in israel in ten years time. the stench of hypocrisy and apartheid in israel will be so unbearable that you will need a military grade gas mask over your conscience to morally survive."
I guess it's worth pointing out that the US was never illegitimate, and no one ever called it illegitimate.
July 14, 2010 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the US and went on for a longer time and at much greater cost."
the civil rights act was passed in 1964, 188 years after the founding of the country. it's now 62 years since the founding of israel. how much time are you willing to give israel? another 126 years before it starts acting like a real democracy?
July 14, 2010 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slavery was far older than that, m'dear. In fact, slavery was enshrined in the Constitution BECAUSE slavery was well-established by that time.
And yet, somehow, hardly anyone fled from the stench of hypocrisy and apartheid.
On the contrary, millions fled TO her for all that "freedom" she was doling out.
And what was her excuse for owning other human beings? Even her founders knew slavery was wrong. She certainly wasn't surrounded by a bunch of hostile African countries.
I dunno, fair's fair. When all those Arab/Muslim countries start becoming "democracies" (they don't even have to become real democracies) it will be time for Israel to move from imperfect to perfect democracy.
Wake me up when Americans start BDS-ing at the gas pump. Hahaha. Until then, it's good to know that American hypocrisy is alive and well.
July 14, 2010 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh so the reason that israel is not a true democracy is because she is surrounded by all those 'sand niggers'. when those 'sand niggers' evolve then israel can become a more perfect democracy. is that it? you are a more sophisticated version of what jdledell describes of the crude israeli jews' attitude towards the palestinians.
keep popping those PEP* pills.
*progressive except for palestine
July 14, 2010 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No point in arguing anymore, BP, Purple has convinced me: One state, one person-one vote, let the rest fall where they may.
I will leave with you one thought: Learn to read.
July 14, 2010 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin - The difference between Israel and the US is the latter was always imperfect but it did strive to improve. In my 54 year association with Israel, I find it striving to get worse. Even after 67 and 73 you did not hear too many Israeli Jews talk about the Palestinians and arabs like they do now. Now, even good Jews whom I have known for decades don't hestitate to say -"just kill'em and be done with it." People speak this way even about Israeli Palestinians and the "Jim Crow" treatment gets worse daily.
Israeli Jews always had something of a superiority complex when it came to the arab population. But in too many Jewish eyes, the Palestinians have evolved from lesser human beings through just animal stature to less than bugs - to be squashed at will.
For the last 5 years on TPM I have written that Israel is steadily losing it's soul and every visit I make provides evidence. Having such a long view of Israel makes the changes even more striking. I am heartbroken.
July 14, 2010 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem, JD, is the vision was flawed from the start and that goes all the way back to the time when you started loving Israel.
A Jewish democracy is an oxymoron. If it's a state for one people primarily, or it privileges one people over another, it can't be a democracy. You just can't square this circle.
When you combine this with the fact that Israel was born out of fear--fear of discrimination, fear of elimination--it becomes a toxic brew. You can never let your guard down because of the fear.
So, in essence, Israel's current state was more or less built in to her beginnings, into the assumptions undergirding her creation.
July 14, 2010 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin - The difference between Israel and the US is the latter was always imperfect but it did strive to improve. In my 54 year association with Israel, I find it striving to get worse. Even after 67 and 73 you did not hear too many Israeli Jews talk about the Palestinians and arabs like they do now. Now, even good Jews whom I have known for decades don't hestitate to say -"just kill'em and be done with it." People speak this way even about Israeli Palestinians and the "Jim Crow" treatment gets worse daily.
Israeli Jews always had something of a superiority complex when it came to the arab population. But in too many Jewish eyes, the Palestinians have evolved from lesser human beings through just animal stature to less than bugs - to be squashed at will.
For the last 5 years on TPM I have written that Israel is steadily losing it's soul and every visit I make provides evidence. Having such a long view of Israel makes the changes even more striking. I am heartbroken.
July 14, 2010 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. I'm not sure the US always strived, but I take your point...
July 14, 2010 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's never been a way to create a Jewish state (or Hebrew republic) in Palestine without removing the Arabs (or at least limiting their numbers and their political power). Unless the demonstrators are willing to confront the disease, I'm afraid the symptoms will continue.
July 14, 2010 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peanut Head - "Palestine" was the Name of the Area - The Jews themselves were defined "Palestinians"
The Arabs foreign Labor (Come for Job Opportunities when the Jews start to develop the area)!
It's about time to End the Occupation - The Arab occupation - and it will come - The Mistakes of 48 will not repeated again - Ben Gurion Did lots of great things but he also made A great Mistake and someone should fix that !
July 14, 2010 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
History Lesson:
Pre 1948 The Neighborhood call today by the Above NUDNIK "Sheikh Jarrah" called "Shimon Atzadik" - The Majority of The Neighborhood were Jews - It's About time The Arab Occupiers Start to pack and return to their Homeland:Jordan,Egypt,Syria,Lebanon,Arabia peninsula !
July 14, 2010 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, Purple, I've come to a decision. You've convinced me, finally: one person, one vote, one state--let the chips fall where they may. I hope they can work it out amicably.
July 14, 2010 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm delighted Tintin, and not the least because I respect your opinions and thoughtfulness so highly!
Now comes the difficult part, though. Once one accepts the idea the Israel could become a true modern democracy, where all citizens have equal status regardless of ethnic and religious heritage, the challenge is how to make it happen while protecting the people on both sides of what has become such a large divide.
If the Israelis were really to say "Okay Palestinians, you're right--you have as much right to this country as we do--and therefore, you're all welcome and it's one man (or woman), one vote and we'll create a constitution together that gives us all equal status" then I think the onus falls on the Palestinians to demonstrate that they can reciprocally accept the Jews as legitimate partners in the state. This vision only works, after all, if both sides accept each other as fully legitimate and equal.
That will take time, because neither side is there yet. Here's where I really like the federation idea. I think it allows for a gradual merging of the two people's into a single state, while keeping some sense of separateness until the need for that feeling of separateness disappears. I think that may be a long process--with a great deal of reconciliation work needed--but the end result, if it works, would, I think, finally bring peace and security to this corner of the Middle East.
July 15, 2010 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple and Tintin:
The two of you are top-knotch, I mean that, and if the world was full of people like the two of you, I very well might just look at something like a one-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians and even beyond the tiny strip of land that they're squabbling over. But, for now, for all kinds of reasons I'm into two-states, recognizing that it's hard if not impossible to square the circle of reconciling a Jewish State with a "true democracy". Indeed, for me, all I need to do is look at the blogpost above this one, where the discussion among even some concededly decent people focuses on how the actions of some extreme right-wing largely Jewish folks might CAUSE anti-semitism, and nobody's eyes are falling out of their sockets. In a world where that kind of discussion is seen as reasoned, even in the United States, my country and the country of one strand of my descendants since the 1830s, my commitment to a Jewish State is once again reinforced. Think about it, the argument above is no different than rationalizing racism against blacks in the aggregate because the crime rate among black youths is more often that not higher than the general population of youths. I always called that racism, and still do, as I'm sure as the two of you would too.
I've read Bernie's Hebrew Republic, recommended it, love his vision for the most part and continuously wrestle with it. I am still absolutely unconvinced that Israel cannot be a refuge for Jews, Jews anywhere, and still provide equal civil rights for non-Jewish Israelis. Yes the square will not be circled, but this is planet earth after all, and it's anything but linear. And, indeed, perhaps my faith in such reconciliation is far more realistic than presuming that the one-state solution can work. But I'm glad we get to discuss the prospecs and wrestle with it in good faith and among the new-fangled internets coffee shop.
One thing, Tintin, Israel I submit was founded on far more than fear--indeed, it took alot more than fear and anything but. But that's for another day.
Here's to finding truth and spreading the word.
Ciao,
Bruce
July 15, 2010 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
B: The two of you are top-knotch, I mean that, and if the world was full of people like the two of you, I very well might just look at something like a one-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians and even beyond the tiny strip of land that they're squabbling over.
TT: Back atcha, Bruce.
B: But, for now, for all kinds of reasons I'm into two-states, recognizing that it's hard if not impossible to square the circle of reconciling a Jewish State with a "true democracy". Indeed, for me, all I need to do is look at the blogpost above this one, where the discussion among even some concededly decent people focuses on how the actions of some extreme right-wing largely Jewish folks might CAUSE anti-semitism, and nobody's eyes are falling out of their sockets.
TT: Yes. I think we have to look how (if?) Israel protects us against anti-Semitism. It DOES give us a place to go where they have to take us in. And the symbolic value of losing it might embolden malfactors. But there are other reasons to think that it doesn't protect us.
B: In a world where that kind of discussion is seen as reasoned, even in the United States, my country and the country of one strand of my descendants since the 1830s, my commitment to a Jewish State is once again reinforced.
TT: I hear you. But mull over my comment...
B: Think about it, the argument above is no different than rationalizing racism against blacks in the aggregate because the crime rate among black youths is more often that not higher than the general population of youths. I always called that racism, and still do, as I'm sure as the two of you would too.
TT: I agree: Israel and rightwing Jews don't cause anti-Semitism. However, blacks are still seen as an oppressed, or discriminated against, minority that is often at the bottom of the barrel. Jews are seen as successful in the US. So blacks are given a pass, as it were, while Jews are not. IOW, when a black commits a crime, it's because he's hungry or grew up in a destroyed family or doesn't have the opportunities others have. Jews don't have that "out." But STILL, there's NO reason to blame "Jews" when certain Jewish people do bad things.
B: I've read Bernie's Hebrew Republic, recommended it, love his vision for the most part and continuously wrestle with it. I am still absolutely unconvinced that Israel cannot be a refuge for Jews, Jews anywhere, and still provide equal civil rights for non-Jewish Israelis.
TT: Providing a safe haven for Jews could be part of the Constitution.
B: Yes the square will not be circled, but this is planet earth after all, and it's anything but linear. And, indeed, perhaps my faith in such reconciliation is far more realistic than presuming that the one-state solution can work.
TT: True, and I do think what Purple says above has a messianic tincture to it. But I'm thinking more in terms of Israeli laws that privilege Jews over Arabs, e.g., buying land, marriage, etc. Less about providing a safe haven.
B: But I'm glad we get to discuss the prospecs and wrestle with it in good faith and among the new-fangled internets coffee shop.
TT: You bet. This is what discussion here SHOULD be, but isn't (mostly).
B: One thing, Tintin, Israel I submit was founded on far more than fear--indeed, it took alot more than fear and anything but. But that's for another day.
TT: Oh yes, I agree completely and spoke incompletely when addressing JD. That said, it's my judgment (and I could be wrong) that Israel would not have come into existence without the trauma of the Holocaust. Interestingly, in the beginning, Israelis wanted to put "all that" behind them and start fresh. Somehow, though, we've veered back in that direction at a time when (I think) we're less in danger than ever. I honestly don't know why. The Jewish establishment works the fear angle because (I think) it's good advertising. I once got a GREAT piece of direct mail (my field) with a map of the Levant on the envelope and the teaser: "What's missing?" Wow, did that every get me to open the envelope. But I don't know why--when we have so much proof to the contrary--that we're so susceptible to the fear angle, other than that, of course, we're human beings. And human beings who have something to lose are often more fearful than human beings who have little to lose, who are still ascending the mountain. That might be it right there.
B: Here's to finding truth and spreading the word.
TT: Yes. And thanks.
July 15, 2010 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Bruce. And while I'll always think a one-state solution is the ideal solution in a perfect world, I certainly see nothing wrong with a fair and viable two-state solution. But as I've said many times before, I no longer think a fair and viable two-state solution is possible. There's just not enough undivided, "un-Jewish-settled" territory remaining for the Palestinian state to make it work. Maybe if Israel were willing to give up a significant piece of territory to the Palestinians it could work--but I see absolutely no willingness on the part of Israel to do that. And if the two-state solution isn't possible, the only alternatives are the removal of one group or a one-state solution. In my mind, a one-state solution is the only moral choice between those two. Unfortunately, however, I think what is happening--and what will likely continue to happen--is a slow, cruel process of marginalization and impoverishment of the Palestinians which will eventually demoralize them to the point where they believe they have no choice but to capitulate and leave. The endless talk of (an impossible) two-state solution, I fear, only perpetuates this new and cynical approach to plausibly deniable ethnic cleansing (and I do see it as ethnic cleansing). It would be far better--and far more manly--in my mind to simply say we can't tolerate the Palestinian presence and drive them out at gun point then to torture them slowly as is happening today. I think we're at a point where this grinding, unending occupation has become intolerably cruel. How long are we going to continue to wait for a solution which never comes?
If the US didn't support Israel so strongly, maybe we'd just ignore the situation as we ignore so many other tragedies around the world. But with the crazy attention and support Israel receives from the US, we really can't hide our heads in the sand. What Israel does, we've become complicit in.
One other thing: I agree with Tintin that there is a degree of messianism in advocating for a one-state solution. But I don't see much of a choice anymore. And when we look at the reconciliation processes in South Africa and even Rwanda we see that there is maybe hope that even bitter divisions between people can be overcome. And I am old enough to remember a time in the seventies when Palestinians from the territories worked in Israel and relationships were not as bad. And even today, Israeli Palestinians continue to want to stay within the state. So why should we resign ourselves to saying hatred is inevitable? If we do that, don't we just fulfill our prophecy?
July 16, 2010 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple, I guess some of this argument turns on whether a two-state solution is possible. (This is different from asking whether it's the ideal.)
You've made the point that the land that's left isn't desirable...I guess for agriculture. Bernie's made the point that the future of Israel and Palestine doesn't lie in agriculture but in technology and tourism--things that take brains rather than brawn.
If we ask whether a one-state solution is desirable, then I think we have to say, "Yes, it is," as long as both cultures have the opportunity to flower and develop, and both people have a sense of self-determination.
At this point, I'd add a caveat about the country being a safe haven, certainly for Jews.
I don't know if Palestinians experience discrimination elsewhere. One gets varying reports. Myth says his wife's relatives are living the life of Riley in other parts of the "Arab world." I've often heard that they've been discriminated against and are treated like the "Jews of the Arab world."
In any event, there'd probably have to be a safe haven clause in there for both peoples.
July 17, 2010 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Here's where I really like the federation idea. I think it allows for a gradual merging of the two people's into a single state, while keeping some sense of separateness until the need for that feeling of separateness disappears."
I think, at bottom, this IS Bernie's vision. I think the vision has some tincture of messianism about it.
July 15, 2010 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tired of arguing the point, Tintin?
An obvious question here would be, why start this process here (in Israel)? Why single out Jewish nationalism among all others as the starting point for ending nationalism?
Why should this tiny sliver of a country, a homeland for a people who for centuries after being dispersed from their own were literally hunted down throughout the world and slaughtered, who even now face enemies on all sides who openly seek their destruction, why does this country, which at least strives to be a democracy for all its citizens, while providing a collective defense and expression of a language and culture, become the poster child for all that is wrong with nationalism?
Why must the West Bank and Gaza be absorbed into Israel? Why not clamor for annexing the West Bank to Jordan and for "one person one vote" in the Hashemite Kingdom where Palestinians are already a majority?
Why should there be nation states at all? The entire exercise becomes somewhat arbitrary, no?
What makes this ironic is that among the countries of the region, Israel proper is the only ethnically diverse society that adheres to the one-person, one-vote standard. Imperfect though it may be (yes, it's not easy to integrate people with different languages and traditions, many of whom do not accept your legitimacy as a nation, and Israel's treatment of its Arab minority leaves much to be desired), Israeli democracy works. My in-laws are doctors in Israel's (universal) medical system with and alongside Arab doctors and nurses, treating Arab patients, etc. Arabs vote and have their own political parties. Haifa University is, I believe, 1/4 Arab. Read about this patriotic Israeli Arab who is overseeing teams of researchers from around the world in groundbreaking cancer research at the Technion. http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/week-s-end/the-israeli-scientist-who-is-sniffing-out-cancer-1.299656 Israeli Arabs overwhelmingly prefer to remain part of Israel, no doubt in part for economic reasons, but also because of the democratic rights they enjoy.
(This applies to Israel proper - not the territories. Of course, enough bytes have been used on that. No need to go there now.)
What makes this doubly ironic is that most of those who favor the one-state solution do not share PS's idyllic vision but rather simply oppose any Jewish sovereignty in what is considered Arab land. I don't hear any of these same folks who rail against alleged Israeli racism agitating for equal rights throughout the Arab world, or for that matter, even for Palestinians in Lebanon where, with the apparent collusion of the PA, they are barred not only from becoming citizens but from owning land, participating in professions, voting, etc. Do any of these people complain that the state envisioned by the PA would explicitly be Arab and Islamic and free of Jews? Not to even mention the Palestine envisioned by Hamas. Is the reason for this silence because these groups are deemed incapable of reform? Or is it that the real goal of the one-staters (with the exception of idealists like PS) is the end of Israel and the expectation that somehow, the Jews will go back from whence they came.
Most important, though, the notion that these two peoples will live together peacefully in a democracy is at best fanciful. More likely, it is a recipe for more bloodshed.
If you were Israeli, would you be comfortable annexing a land and a people who in their last election voted into power a movement, Hamas, that openly calls for killing Jews as a religious duty and a culture in which the deaths of innocents are celebrated? Isn't that asking a bit much?
Take a look at this recent piece by an old-time Israeli leftist Shlomo Avineri on the implausibility of the bi-national model. After reviewing the difficulties of integrating nationalist movements even in an increasingly multi-national Europe, Avineri concludes:
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/bye-to-the-binational-model-1.299660?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.212%2C2.215%2C
And here, I never even got around to Sheik Jarrah...
July 15, 2010 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shit! I had a long post to your thoughtful reply, AG, and it just went up in smoke. I don't have the time to rewrite now, but will try to get back to you. I respect a LOT of what you say.
July 15, 2010 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's happened to me here too many times. Frustrating indeed.
You know, before coming to these discussions, I hardly considered myself a "Zionist." The existence of Israel was something I took for granted. Not so much any more.
In my browsings I did come across this powerful affirmation of "Zionism," which to me means no more than the continued existence of the State of Israel (http://sadredearth.com/israel/an-affirmation-of-zionism/):
July 15, 2010 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here are my comments about some of what Dr. Sternberg says here:
ES: “First, in most of the world’s regimes (America is the great exception), the old ideal of Jewish assimilation turned out to be a disastrous delusion.”
TT: Yes, at the time. But still? Perhaps. I was more skeptical until I read the story about Sweden of all places. Still to call it a “disastrous delusion” strikes me as way over the top in relation to now. Jews live in all of Western Europe. They live in South Africa and Australia and Latin America. Are they truly living a disastrous delusion?
ES: “This Zionism gains its moral legitimacy-it becomes a moral imperative-in face of a world that is much like the present: armed and viciously bigoted, with states and armed movements bent on the Jews’ annihilation.”
TT: How much of the world does this describe? Is this really “the world”? Is the world "armed and viciously bigoted"?
ES: “To be sure, Jews in Palestine had obligations toward those among whom they were settling. But the obligation extends only in so far as those neighbors don’t themselves join, as they certainly did in 1948, the quest to annihilate the Jews.”
TT: Without going into all the subtleties, wasn’t it reasonable to expect the local population to try to repulse by force outsiders who were gobbling up their land? Radically changing the neighborhood, as it were? To oversimplify in the way Sternberg does hurts his argument. Were they trying to “annihilate” the Jews, or defeat them, get them to leave? To say that the Jews merely wanted to “settle among” the inhabitants strikes me as, well, yes, SOME did, but many wanted them out of there.
YBD posted Sternberg's paper on Purificationism and I skimmed it. I also saw a YouTube of a lecture he gave at Yale to a YIISA, or YISSA, group. He claims Finkelstein told him that Israel wanted to import blonde Russians to "Aryanize" Israel--whoa! Finkelstein's proof? Some guy named "Ari"--get it? I think Norman has one or two screws loose, assuming Sternberg is reporting correctly. They are both children of Holocaust survivors, which doesn't make for an easy childhood, I think.
July 15, 2010 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear AG:
In some ways, I feel like Jdledell is “HaRav” and I need to sit at his feet. To be honest, Israel is a bit of an abstract topic for me in that I’ve never been a Zionist. In fact, my first encounter with a Zionist (freshman year of college) was a thoroughly startling experience. I needed Israel as a backdoor in case things got bad here in America? Was he kidding? So maybe you and I come to these discussions a bit through the same route. Anyway, here goes:
AG: Tired of arguing the point, Tintin?
TT: A bit, to be honest. I’m tired also of trying to square the circle of my beliefs and convictions. I’m also tired of this discussion never moving forward, so I decided to “move forward” a bit myself. That’s as honest as I can be at this moment.
AG: An obvious question here would be, why start this process here (in Israel)? Why single out Jewish nationalism among all others as the starting point for ending nationalism?
TT: If you’ve been following my conversation with Purple, you know that the cows came home a long time ago and are already milked and fed. I have a lot of sympathy for this question. One could answer: Because we have a better shot at making progress with Israel and the symbolic value might move others in the same direction. But I don’t know if this is true. Or, which other country has gotten this much help from the world? I’m not sure, however, that these are good answers.
AG: Why should this tiny sliver of a country, a homeland for a people who for centuries after being dispersed from their own were literally hunted down throughout the world and slaughtered, who even now face enemies on all sides who openly seek their destruction, why does this country, which at least strives to be a democracy for all its citizens, while providing a collective defense and expression of a language and culture, become the poster child for all that is wrong with nationalism?
TT: Matt Yglesias made a good point: We shouldn’t be averaging down; we should be averaging up. Why pat ourselves on the back because we’re better than Syria (and we are)? Why aim low? I think this is an answer for Jews and for people who care about Israel. I don’t know if it works for people for whom Israel is just another country, however. The other answer is that this statement, though true, seems to lead to the same place over and over again.
AG: Why must the West Bank and Gaza be absorbed into Israel? Why not clamor for annexing the West Bank to Jordan and for "one person one vote" in the Hashemite Kingdom where Palestinians are already a majority?
TT: I’ve made this point. The simple answer is that the Palestinians don’t want it and the Jordanians don’t want it. When Israel conquered this land, it caught the tiger by the toe. Of course, once upon a time, the fight over “Palestinian land” wasn’t about the territories, but about what people call “Israel proper.” So the goal posts in this discussion do move. I remember MJ once saying that it was a good thing Israel conquered the territories because now they had land they could give back.
AG: Why should there be nation states at all? The entire exercise becomes somewhat arbitrary, no?
TT: Yes, and I do think the one-state solution has some messianism to it. But we need to guard against invoking an ideal state as a way of avoiding doing things we can do. Our job is to make things better than they are, not give up because we can’t make them perfect.
AG: What makes this ironic is that among the countries of the region, Israel proper is the only ethnically diverse society that adheres to the one-person, one-vote standard. Imperfect though it may be (yes, it's not easy to integrate people with different languages and traditions, many of whom do not accept your legitimacy as a nation, and Israel's treatment of its Arab minority leaves much to be desired), Israeli democracy works. My in-laws are doctors in Israel's (universal) medical system with and alongside Arab doctors and nurses, treating Arab patients, etc. Arabs vote and have their own political parties. Haifa University is, I believe, 1/4 Arab. Read about this patriotic Israeli Arab who is overseeing teams of researchers from around the world in groundbreaking cancer research at the Technion. http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/week-s-end/the-israeli-scientist-who-is-sniffing-out-cancer-1.299656 Israeli Arabs overwhelmingly prefer to remain part of Israel, no doubt in part for economic reasons, but also because of the democratic rights they enjoy.
TT: But as I understand it, there are discriminatory laws with respect to purchasing property, marriage, family coming in, and the like.
AG: (This applies to Israel proper - not the territories. Of course, enough bytes have been used on that. No need to go there now.)
TT: But it is where the rubber meets the road.
AG: What makes this doubly ironic is that most of those who favor the one-state solution do not share PS's idyllic vision but rather simply oppose any Jewish sovereignty in what is considered Arab land. I don't hear any of these same folks who rail against alleged Israeli racism agitating for equal rights throughout the Arab world, or for that matter, even for Palestinians in Lebanon where, with the apparent collusion of the PA, they are barred not only from becoming citizens but from owning land, participating in professions, voting, etc. Do any of these people complain that the state envisioned by the PA would explicitly be Arab and Islamic and free of Jews? Not to even mention the Palestine envisioned by Hamas. Is the reason for this silence because these groups are deemed incapable of reform? Or is it that the real goal of the one-staters (with the exception of idealists like PS) is the end of Israel and the expectation that somehow, the Jews will go back from whence they came.
TT: The thought has crossed my mind, not to be flippant.
AG: Most important, though, the notion that these two peoples will live together peacefully in a democracy is at best fanciful. More likely, it is a recipe for more bloodshed.
TT: It is a judgment call and JD agrees with you. It can’t be an imposed solution; it has to be something the people there choose, IMO. Truthfully, I don’t know what would happen.
AG: If you were Israeli, would you be comfortable annexing a land and a people who in their last election voted into power a movement, Hamas, that openly calls for killing Jews as a religious duty and a culture in which the deaths of innocents are celebrated? Isn't that asking a bit much?
TT: It is asking a lot. I would try to look at the piece of the conflict that was my doing and see if I could start from there to ameliorate the conflict. I’d make small steps and monitor reactions.
AG: Take a look at this recent piece by an old-time Israeli leftist Shlomo Avineri on the implausibility of the bi-national model. After reviewing the difficulties of integrating nationalist movements even in an increasingly multi-national Europe, Avineri concludes:
“From all these examples a general lesson emerges, specifically for Israel. The general conclusion is that contrary to predictions of the death and disappearance of nationalism - commonly voiced among leftists and theorists in countries like France, England and Germany - national consciousness has not disappeared. Because of the way nationalism became extreme during the Nazi and Fascist period, movements have often gotten a bad rap.
“However, it seems that in the end the desire not to be subordinated to foreign rule, to find a place in the sun for your culture, language and history and to "feel at home" are all major elements in the human experience. Anyone who holds dear the ideas of progress and enlightenment cannot ignore this.
“The Israeli angle is clear as well: In light of the difficulties the idea of establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel is encountering, here and there voices are calling for consideration of a binational solution, in which Jews and Palestinians will live together under a single regime. If we leave aside for the moment a number of troublesome questions (Under which flag? What will this state's national holidays be? What will be its national anthem? Will the mufti and David Ben-Gurion co-star in its textbooks? ), the European experience shows that binationalism is a story of failure, which in many cases (Cyprus, Yugoslavia ) has ended in violence.
“If Czechs and Slovaks, Flemings and Walloons, who never fought each other but have different cultures and different historical memories, can't live in one country, then one has to be blind, ignorant, thoroughly insensitive or all three to think that Jews and Palestinians, who have been clutching each other's throats for more than a century, will be able to solve their problems and maintain a democratic life after being thrown into a single political cauldron. What has happened in Belgium has implications reaching far beyond its borders.”
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/bye-to-the-binational-model-1.299660?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.212%2C2.215%2C
TT: He makes good points, as do you.
July 15, 2010 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Israel: Demolitions Resume in Contested East Jerusalem"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/world/middleeast/14briefs-ISRAEL.html
As long as the main stream media like The NY Times chooses to put Israel's interests before America's interest and bamboozle the American public with inaccurate titles like the above, peace will never happen. Worst, Israel may drag America into a major nuclear war that may prove fatal to its interests. "Contested East Jerusalem"!? Hell with international laws when brutal force is the law. A pariah state with licence to kill and displace people in the name of "democracy". Is this the type democracy that the US is defending?
The bright side of things, the NY Time is on its way of becoming an extinct dinosaur. "Vive le Roi, Le Roi est mort".
And, kudos to Bernard Avishai for keeping-up the cause.
July 14, 2010 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There has always been a battle in the human soul between decency and greed. As a people, a nation and as a species, we are being forced to progressed towards becoming more decent and keeping greed in check within the bounds of legitimate self-interest.
It is not an academic question because if the forces of greed and selfishness are given free rein they will obliterate our sense of decency. If that happens, we are lost as a species and we shall surely perish.
Tintin thinks--I’m guessing--that things will go down this way: the dirty deed will be done and the territories will be ethnically cleansed and eventually it will all be forgotten stuff, just as our obliteration of the Indians are largely forgotten events and just as slavery is largely forgotten. In any case, the bottom line is: we did not have to pay any penalty in the court of world opinion: we did not suffer any great negative consequences. On the contrary, partly because of those barbarous deeds we became an empire. Tintin is saying, the same thing will happen to Israel. Eventually it will be long forgotten as almost all such barbarity in history is long forgotten. There will not be a price to pay.
As a thinking man, I have to respect that that is an argument that has some merit. Not moral merit but practical merit. And within Israeli leadership circles, it is all about practicality, morality (or the sense of decency) has been cast aside.
But I would say this much. We live in a different time than those I referred to above. Humanity will NOT survive if the spirit exemplified by the present Israeli leadership triumphs over decency. In an era of nuclear weapons and the capacity to cause great damage to large numbers of people generally, we cannot afford to have such cavalier attitudes. It is no longer REALISTIC to suppose that brute force reigns, especially since brute force is not confined to a handful of actors anymore but is increasingly an available option to more and more people (and peoples).
When we say we are PROGRESSIVES, it is not something that is just some sort of self-congratulatory accolade, it is a belief that man's history by necessity needs to move forward on pain of eventually sowing the seeds of self-destruction.
Sitting pretty in Washington or Tel Aviv assured that the amoral/practical deeds can be done without a cost is no longer just plain old Realism, but actually irrational nihilism.
All this talk about "securing the realm" and "full spectrum dominance" is dangerous hubris that has no long-term vision of the future other than "well people will learn to live with it and accept it as the Indians accepted their reservations” and so on. That strategy is no longer operative in the highly global modern world we live in. Call it progress, call it the new realism call it what you will, the underlying reality is that a world ruled by pure self interest is sure to self destruct in this highly sophisticated and potentially lethal technological environment we live in. Deal with that Tintin.
July 15, 2010 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to make a few points regarding the comments made by Bruce, AG, Purple and Tintin. This time, unlike my comment above, I will try to keep my anger with Israel from coloring my comments.
1 - I am dead set against the one state solution to I/P. First of all I don't think it will work. There is simply too much animosity that has built up over generations and the friction caused by interaction between members of the two tribes will yield continued violence. The grievances by both sides will continue to be nurtured. Even now interaction between the two peoples is at an absolute minimum. Forcing the two peoples together in a one state solution will not increase their interaction. It will be two states within one government. Not the most effective or efficient way to run a state. I can see the concept eventually becoming separate schools, towns. retail etc.
2 - There are only 15 million of us in a world of 6 billion. Given our history of persecution, I like the concept of a JEWISH homeland that will always be there for us in troubling times. I don't trust an Israel possibly run by another tribe to absolutely guarantee our right to move there if necessary. Maybe that's racist on my part but I still feel strongly about it.
3 - The integration of Jews in America is, to a degree, unique in the world. Here Jews have no fear and are welcome in every aspect of society, government and business. Europe has done almost as good a job of integrating its Jews but in many other parts of the world, I see small enclaves of Jews bound together in little communities. Because I always try to go to shul when I travel, I've seen this in South America (Chile, Argentina and Brazil in particular) parts of Eastern Europe as well as in India where my daughter lives. The short version is there are still parts of the world where emergency aliyah might become necessary - think Malmo, Sweden, for example.
4 - There are many people who think Israel is being unfairly singled out for their actions. Israel is a first world country and I cannot think of another first world country where their minorities are treated as badly as Israel treats its Palestinian citizens. Also, it's the ONLY first world country actively engaged in a hostile occupation. That is always going to cause more noise than some third rate country abusing some other third world natives. As China emerges into first world status, I think their occupation of Tibet will also generate more noise. Like it or not first world citizens care more about other first world citizens activities since they much more closely identify with them. They are the ones putting Israel in the hot seat.
5 - People of The Book will always care about Israel more than other countries. Christians and Jews grew up hearing about Israel in their religious schooling. They care and they instantly know where Jerusalem is on a map while they could not find Kenya if their life depended on it. This religious identification with Israel cuts both ways. Some Christians and Jews will support Israel no matter what and some will hold it to the same high standards they do in their religious life.
This close identification with Israel leads many Christians and Jews to consider Israel part of their family, just like their Church or Synagogue. Standards for your own family are always higher than for other people. Just as you would be sure to help and change your children or other family members who lapsed morally, so does one do with Israel. Fair or unfair, that’s what we get for being People of The Book. Israel should not, and cannot, be treated like any other country, because it is not like any other country.
Perhaps it is now understandable why saying Israel isn't as bad as other Arab countries doesn't fly with much of the world. Unfortunately, Israel still thinks of itself as an adolescent bravely making its way in the world. It bootstrapped itself from nothing into a world class power but forgot that it is now a grown up first world country and third world antics no longer fly.
A Jewish state in the area of Israel is not only a necessity given our history but also it is the fulfillment of our religion -if we are smart enough to keep it. A Jewish Israel will not die due to external forces but only from internal rot.
July 15, 2010 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is really mind boggling and saddening to read the arguments, posted herein, holding the truth and absolute necessity of a separate state for the Jews. While it is impossible to deny the abominable sufferings under the various persecutions for centuries all over the world, which have culminating into the holocaust, it is equally impossible to deny the rights of Palestinians to leave in decency and peace in their own land. The Jewish people’s suffering does not exonerate them from the duty to compassion and act of kindness towards their neighbors. The arguments remind me of Ben Garion waving his hands in the air in complete indifference when asked what to do with the Palestinians as cited Amos Oz.
The Jewish world in general is being hypocritical and state of denial, with the exceptions of some compassionate and righteous Jews, about the Arab’s, including the Palestinians, intent toward Israel.
The great majority of Arabs, repeatedly, have offered Israel peace in return of the lands it has taken by force after the Six days War in ’67, which was a “preemptive” war of Israel choosing and contrary to the popular belief and Israeli propaganda before the Six Days war.
Why does not Israel want peace and why is it that the great majority of the Jews, from all over the world, keep supporting the settlers and neo Nazi like Avigdor Leiberman? This is something that I cannot comprehend.
July 16, 2010 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Schamass writes: "It is really mind boggling and saddening to read the arguments, posted herein, holding the truth and absolute necessity of a separate state for the Jews."
Schamass, you've shared a bit of your background, so I appreciate a bit where you're coming from.
But it's surprising to me--given the history you cite--that you find it "mindboggling" that Jews would want a state of their own.
Little South Ossetia (SOUTH Ossetia!) thinks its "necessary" that they have a state of their own. The Basque think its necessary. There's a sliver of Moldova (Transnistria and Gagauzia), which, if I read correctly, wants a state of their own.
Lots of people with much less reason to have a state of their own than the Jews want a state of their own and think it's necessary and are going about getting one.
July 16, 2010 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin,
I didn't say that it was "mind boggling" for the Jews to want a state of their own. However, what I find "mind-boggling" is the fact that they deny a state to the Palestinians, or recognize their rights of return as recognized under international laws, which Israel is disregarding with so much disrespect, under the pretense of "self-defense" and “exceptionalism”
Since you ask me to divulge more about my background (and I am assuming my origin), although I do not think that it has any relation with my argument. let me tell you that most of my family, which was originally from Palestine, has immigrated to north Africa, and my grandfather, who has become famous, among other things, for creating the first investment bank in his adoptive country, and although he was a Jew, he was loved and cherished by the King (a Muslim) and his immediately family (not because of his “bucks” but because his loyalty to this country). The revolution took almost everything away from him as they took away the fortunes of all wealthy families during this period. Strangely enough, he never felt bitter about it, and when he was asked by the new president to help the new regime to keep the finances of the country in good order, he did it with the best of his abilities, which has earned him the respect and trust of the new leadership. Things went very sour, when Israel start to incite the local Jewish population to immigrate to Israel. Understandably so, the Arab regimes were furious, since Israel was settling the new comers, including Jews from the Arab countries, on lands claimed by the Palestinians. Eventually, most of my family, which find very hard to continue to live in the country, left for Europe, from where some have immigrated to the US others to Canada and Australia.
My grandfather, who loved so much his new adoptive country in north Africa had to leave it as well. He left in tears, and although many members the family were considering moving to Israel, my grandfather, who was a dominant character (a sort of an old patriarch) and had a grudge against Israel until they day he died, never allowed anyone to move Israel. Until his death, he maintained that the Palestinians are the original Hebrews, of whom the majority have overtime converted to Christianity and eventually to Islam as did most of the people in the Middle-East.
My personal opinion: Israel and the Palestinians should really make efforts to live together in one form or the other, since there is no way going back, unless through terrible violance. Unfortunately, it is Israel, which is being very stubborn and continues to hinder in any peaceful resolution to the conflict. I think it is high time for the Jews all over the world to realize it for their own sake and for the sake of Israel and for sake of the whole region.
Did my grandfather influenced me? I bet he did.
July 16, 2010 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schamas, I understand English may not be your first language--though you write well--but I thought you had said this...
"It is really mind boggling and saddening to read the arguments, posted herein, holding the truth and absolute necessity of a separate state for the Jews."
Because you said this...
"It is really mind boggling and saddening to read the arguments, posted herein, holding the truth and absolute necessity of a separate state for the Jews."
Perhaps, though, you miswrote?
July 17, 2010 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies, I must admit my sentence was rather clumsy.
July 18, 2010 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Schamass - I think the only place we disagree is on the issue of the necessity for a Jewish state. On every other issue regardling the Israel/Palestinian conflict we probably agree. I want Taba as the solution. No other games like Israeli control of water resources or air and sea space to either Gaza or the West Bank - the Palestinians must have total control over their borders and commerce and East Jerusalem as their capital. The right of return should be limited to a face saving number (150,000? ) consistent with my desire to maintain a Jewish state.
July 16, 2010 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
And who exactly are you ?
July 16, 2010 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
JD,
I, more or less, agree with what you are saying. I never denied the right of the Jews to live anywhere their heart dictates (Please see my reply to Tintin). However, I think that Israel and the Jews around the world have to accept the aspiration of the Palestinians to a state of their own. In addition, it is high time for Israel to become a normal state, and citizenship should be given to those who have been resident in this country for at least seven years. And, it is high time for the Jews to stand by their rights in any country in the world to live as equal citizens in their respective countries. I know that it is a serious challenge in many countries, but it is worth to take a chance and fight for it.
July 16, 2010 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hasn't that happened already? Didn't Rabin, Barak and Olmert offer statehood to the Palestinians? (Yes, one could take issue with the specifics of their proposals, but have they ever received a constructive response from the Palestinian leadership?) Even Netanyahu grudgingly acknowledged the necessity for two states, although I don't believe what he has in mind would suffice.
The issue for the majority of Israelis is how to create a Palestinian state that does not threaten the physical safety and security of Israelis. Past experience - Israeli withdrawals from much of the West Bank in the 1990s, Lebanon and Gaza - has convinced many, if not most, that this is impossible. I don't necessarily agree, but these are not trivial concerns.
I don't know what you mean by normal. Nor do I have any idea where you come up with citizenship for residents of seven years? Try becoming a citizen of Japan. Guess what? You can't.
July 16, 2010 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the evidence of this benevolent intent? I submit they are few and far between, if any. On the other hand, the examples of incitement to violence, indeed genocide, the teaching of hatred and intolerance, the most extreme stereotyping reminiscent of Nazi propaganda, the holocaust denial, these are manifest daily for all the world to see. I really don't understand how you could make a statement like this.
Again, this is simply not true. Where peace has been offered, Israel has responded, as in the case of Egypt and Jordan. Apart from the single Saudi peace proposal a few years back (which Israel, IMHO, was wrong to ignore), please let me know what are these repeated offers backed by the "great majority" of Arabs?
Again, simply not true. Successive Israeli administrations before Netanyahu have made responsible, credible peace offers and even unilateral withdrawals. Even now, it is the Palestinians (and apparently the Arab League as well) who refuse to even negotiate, despite President Obama's entreaties.
And its also false that a "great majority" of Jews support the settlers and bigots like Lieberman. In fact, these groups (which are actually quite distinct, but no matter) don't even command anything close to a majority in Israel itself. The attitude of Jews in the rest of the world is even more disapproving.
I don't know where you're getting your "facts" but you seem badly misinformed.
July 16, 2010 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, Israel has never offered an independent state to the Palestinians, the only thing that Israel has offered was something very similar to South African’s Bantustan.
This is a ridiculous statement, which comes out straight from Israel’s right-wings parties’ cook books. Israel had hardly fulfilled any of the basic agreements after withdrawing partially from the West Bank and Sharon and his right-wing party never stopped provoking the Palestinians. “Oh, Gaza, the great sacrifice made by Israel.” Israel has never left Gaza. Israel has turned Gaza into the world’s largest ghetto. Just yesterday, Avigdor Lieberman proposed to wash Israel’s hands off its responsibilities under international laws as an occupier.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0717/1224274904358.html
I doubt that the Europeans will ever accept his plan, because (a) It is an attempt by Israel to forego its responsibilities under international laws as an occupier. (b) Israel will eventually declare that the Palestinians have their own state in Gaza and there is no need for further negotiations with the Palestinians. But who knows, the Europeans, like the Americans tend to side with Israel on many issue.
After withdrawing from Lebanon, Israel continued to hold a large number of Lebanese prisoners, which it should have repatriated them to Lebanon under international laws. However, Israel kept on holding them as prisoners. In addition, it continued to occupy a large area, which it refused to return to Lebanon. Its airplanes never stopped flying over Lebanese spaces, which is in direct violation of international laws. Until today, they continue to do so.
“Normal” means like any other state in the world. Almost all states grant citizenship to its citizens based on their status of residence, and not on their religion or race, except in some backward countries like Pakistan and Saudia-Arabia.
Yes, I must admit, Japan was hard one to crack, but my children and my grandchildren have Japanese nationality, and I can obtain Japanese nationality if I desire. However, I prefer to keep my triple European nationalities (Swiss, Italian and French), since the Japanese law does not allow dual nationality. The nationality law in Japan has been undergoing many revisions to keep it in line with international standards.
Yeap! We are either “anti-Semites” or “self-hating Jews”, if we talk about peace.
If Israel is sincere in its desire for peace, you will find them very receptive. There are more young people from Arabic countries, learning Hebrew today, than anywhere else in the world. Unfortunately, they do not dare yet to show it openly. Many of these young people are avid to emulate Israel’s affluent society and learn from it to achieve success.
I don't know where you're getting your "facts" but you seem badly misinformed. “
Again with all due respect, it is you, who is getting the fact wrong. However, we are all entitled to our own opinions.
July 17, 2010 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In addition, it continued to occupy a large area, which it refused to return to Lebanon. Its airplanes never stopped flying over Lebanese spaces, which is in direct violation of international laws. Until today, they continue to do so."
But the land is returned now, no? As I recall, BOTH sides had some responsibilities: Israel was to stop overflying, and Hezbollah was not to be rearmed through Syria. Neither has proven out.
Below, I don't think you really answer AG's concerns, which are valid. He's NOT calling people either anti-Semites or self-hating Jews by recognizing the anti-Semitic propaganda inherent in, say, that multi-part TV series emulating the Protocols of Zion. Or Uncle Ahmad's Holocaust denial.
To wit:
AG: “Where is the evidence of this benevolent intent? I submit they are few and far between, if any. On the other hand, the examples of incitement to violence, indeed genocide, the teaching of hatred and intolerance, the most extreme stereotyping reminiscent of Nazi propaganda, the holocaust denial, these are manifest daily for all the world to see. I really don't understand how you could make a statement like this.”
Schamas: Yeap! We are either “anti-Semites” or “self-hating Jews”, if we talk about peace.
How does your response respond to what AG is saying...
July 17, 2010 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Be serious Titin,
This kind of ridiculous statement of put forward by those who reject peace. The Arab never in their history carried pogroms and "witch-hunting" against the Jews before the creation of the state of Israel. Surly, Muslim believe that the Koran is the final word of G-D and seals the two preceding religions, Judaism and Christianity, nevertheless the create majority of Muslim, and certainly the Muslims whom I have known, have deep respect for the Jewish religion.
You may be interest to read the following:
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/39692/fibi-netanyahu/
July 17, 2010 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to being wrong, this is a complete non sequitur.
What does pointing out the vile and pervasive antisemitism (here meaning anti-Jewish) in the Arab world have to do with rejecting peace? Personally, I'd like nothing better than to see a peace agreement along the lines of the Geneva accords or any other reasonable solution offered. Do you not think the grotesque Jewish caricatures promoted in the Arab media and the regular incitement of Arab leaders is not an impediment? Do you think it should be ignored? Do you dismiss the understandable concerns of Israelis as "overreaction?"
I could fill dozens of pages with examples from just the past few weeks. Look at the statements of the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmedinejad, hell, even the moderates such as the PA get into the act (maybe just to maintain some credibility on the Street), the widespread belief and citation to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the holocaust denial, etc. It is widespread in the media, schools, and mosques. To get a sampling, take a look at Palestinian Media Watch or MEMRI. Sure, these groups have an agenda and may tend to exaggerate the importance of some fringe groups, but the aggregate can't credibly be denied.
I will agree that discrimination and violence against Jews in Arab countries paled in comparison to "civilized" Europe, but that's not to say Jews "had it good" as second class citizens. Should we be thankful that there were no pogroms? And are you really suggesting that the creation of the State of Israel, which we will agree led to a marked increase in discrimination and violence against Jews in Arab countries, somehow excuses or legitimates that discrimination???
I have no doubt this is true, but that doesn't undermine anything I've said.
Finally, what does Netanyahu's mendacity have to do with any of this? Answer? Nothing, unless you want to change the subject. And BTW, I have nothing but contempt for Netanyahu.
July 18, 2010 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 18, 2010 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corrections:
"as we are saying almost on a daily basis" should read "as we are seeing almost on d daily basis".
"Israel was inciting its Arab Jewish population" should read "Israel was inciting its Arab Jewish population to live"
"I am glad that have contempt for Netanyahu" should read "I am glad that you have contempt for Netanyahu".
My apologies again, I am dictating to my mobile phone and posting with the same phone.
July 18, 2010 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. It's POSSIBLE you're overly influenced by your family's history. Look, Jews have been able to prosper EVERYWHERE they've gone, including in Germany in the inter-War period. I believe it was a Jew who gave Hitler his Iron Cross for his service in WWI. And the situation clearly varied from person to person.
But I think it's hard to accept that all the writing on dhimmitude was/is simply Sephardic propaganda, even if one accepts that, in general, conditions in the Muslim world were better than in the Christian world. I mean NM Rothschild might have been the richest man in England in the early 1800s. What does that prove?
July 18, 2010 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Japan? Hmmm.
I have a good friend who's married to a Japanese woman. He lives there part time, and they own a house there.
His kids have, or could have, Japanese nationality, but he tells me he cannot.
Maybe they've changed recently...
July 17, 2010 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Mr. Avishai, for setting the tone for a thoughtful, reasoned and unusually civil discussion (scaring off most agents provocateurs). And, of course, for standing up for what you know is right.
I'll just take issue with one argument in the comments: that a two-state solution is proving elusive, so we should refocus on a single state. (Presumably, THAT will prove much easier to achieve. Right.)
I've no objection to a single state, if that's what both sides ultimately decide they want (I have strong doubts). But it's blindingly obvious there's no way to negotiate a direct path to that goal while the occupation continues.
For large numbers of Israelis, the single state already exists: it's called Israel, and it's Jewish. There is no way that vision has any chance of evolving into a civil democracy with full rights for Palestinians. That deal is a non-starter.
A separate country, with agreed borders and full control of its territory, is a prerequisite for peace between these peoples. If they then decide to federate or set up joint structures, fine. But let's take the necessary (and possible) first step.
And why is there still debate over whether a Jewish state is necessary? One exists, it's not going anywhere, and it's not going to change its raison d'etre. Let's figure out how to fit this country into a peaceful, prosperous and progressive Middle East.
July 16, 2010 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Canuck: We have disagreed about many aspects of this discussion, but to this, I have to say, "Amen!"
I'll also add that every opinion poll I've ever seen, including some that came to radically different conclusions, all say that the one thing the two sides agree on in this persistent conflict is the rejection of a single, bi-national state from the river to the sea.
As for some disagreement, I don't understand why you would say "there is no way that vision has any chance of evolving into a civil democracy with full rights for Palestinians." I will agree that Israeli democracy isn't perfect, but take a look at my comment above and you will see it is nowhere close to the apartheid system it is caricatured as. Indeed, Israeli Arabs overwhelmingly prefer to remain in Israel than to become part of the proposed Palestine. No doubt part of the reason is economic, but part also has to do with the rights they enjoy as citizens of a democracy. Yes, there is discrimination, in fact and law, but this is also an incredibly sensitive situation. These are two distinct peoples with different languages, religions, cultures, social structures, etc. Moreover, the minority group here in Israel come from the same culture that has literally been at war with the state since its inception. Under the circumstances, concerns that the Arab minority in Israel could become a "fifth column" are more than merely speculative. Think of the difficulties here in the US over the past hundred fifty years integrating our comparatively smaller African American minority without such formidable impediments. Think of the internment of Japanese Americans, who posed no real threat to the country, during World War II. None of this is to justify Israeli treatment of its Arab minority, which has at times been shameful, but there is a wider context that is too often ignored.
July 16, 2010 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG writes: "I will agree that Israeli democracy isn't perfect, but take a look at my comment above and you will see it is nowhere close to the apartheid system it is caricatured as."
I think the question ultimately turns on whether one thinks the imperfections can be fixed in a truly just way. That is, are they imperfections, or are they fatal flaws from the point of view of building a true democracy.
If the former, you have a good point; if the latter, then your point is weaker. I don't know the answer, but I suspect the flaws could be fixed, at least in principle, if not given the politics.
In part this is because the Jews are seen to form an artificial majority. That is, if people were allowed to live where they wanted and where they once lived, the Jews would not form a majority (probably). This might be false. In fact, if peace were achieved, many more Jews might well move to Israel than do now. I don't know.
But I've argued for some time that much of this discussion turns on numbers: Who's got the biggest numbers. If you've got a solid majority then you may be less fearful of what the minority can do to you. I know this doesn't apply across the board, say with blacks in the South, but I think it applies here.
BTW, I'm sorry for my weak response to what you wrote above. My first "disappeared" attempt was much richer; my second was much less inspired.
July 16, 2010 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always appreciate what you have to say, Tintin, your open-mindedness and insight.
But, on the issue of one vs. two states, I think you're woefully misguided. Maybe in 100 years, we can talk about that, but right now, it's a nonstarter.
I wish I had the time to respond further, but as I mentioned to JDL, I have two young-uns and a wife to attend to.
With respect to Palestinians in Lebanon, try this link. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/07/lebanon-waters-down-bill-to-grant.html
There's also some other posts on the subject from ElderofZion. (Disclaimer, I'm not vouching for elder, and I don't agree with his politics, but he does unearth some pretty interesting information, as long as you have a healthy dose of salt to go with. You might have some fun perusing the site.)
Best.
July 17, 2010 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG - I will agree with you that within the Green Line, Israel does not practice apartheid but something very similar to the Jim Crow days of the South. However, over the Green Line it is full blown apartheid After 43 years of occupation the separate but unequal is enshrined in every facet of life.
I have to disagree with you on your comment that except for the Saudi Peace Plan the Palestinians have not made any counter offers. First of all in all my research I am not aware of ANY comprehensive peace plan either side has made except for the Geneva plan. Oslo was designed to be a series of steps leading to some vague future peace agreement.
Camp David was a series of negotiations on a variety of points scribbled on paper with an occasional map thrown in. Both sides negotiated back and forth but the end result was NOT a comprehensive peace offer by either side. That is why no one can look up and read the details of an offer. Both sides wanted "plausible deniability".
The same is true of the Olmert/Livni negotiations. No where can one read exactly what was offered - again protecting both side's politicians. As I learned in the last Israeli election the devil is truly in the details which can fundementally alter the what is apparent in the big picture. Just remember Netanyahu's trick after Oslo where he defined the military zones significant land as huge pieces of the West Bank (see article in the Tablet)
While I don't agree with Abbas on not going to direct negotiations, I at least understand why. Bibi is holding 4 Aces and Abbas has a hand with a 2,4,6,8,10 - virtually impossible to win. That is why Bibi wants to go "all in" with a take it or leave it offer.
AG - as far as incitement goes the Jews are as bad as the arabs. It did not used to be that way but the settler hatred of Palestinians has even started to pollute Tel Aviv bars and restaurants. Go over there and test it yourself.
The other issue where we disagree is on Lieberman's proposed carve out of the Umm al-Fahm area. I think this is a legitimate subject of negotiations but I don't agree that if such a carve out were to occur that the Palestinians should lose their Israeli citizenship. They should be able to retain dual citizenship and be able to move back to Israel if they so wish. I'm sure the Jews left in a West Bank Palestine would not lose their Israeli citizenship so whats good for the goose...
Take Care
July 17, 2010 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, there are areas in which we disagree, but in the end, I believe we are both striving for a similar vision. Unfortunately, I have two young children to attend to and a considerable mountain of work looming ahead. One thing I do feel constrained to respond to is the idea that Jewish incitement is somehow equivalent to the Arabs. That's simply not true. Yes, there are right wing and religious extremists in Israel who peddle hate and promote violence, but they are a small minority whose views are not only not accepted by the overwhelming majority of Israelis but are in some cases against the law (i.e., the Kach party). Most Israelis do have negative views of Arabs, but they are more along the lines of "they will always hate us... their religion and culture are incompatible with modernity... etc. The other day, I saw an Israeli episode of Sesame Street (Rehov Sumsum) which features Arab characters and a message of respect and tolerance. Could you possibly imagine such a thing on any Arab television show? (Do I need to remind you of the suicide bombing mouse?) The Jew hatred and incitement in Arab nations - including those "at peace" with Israel like Jordan and Egypt - is shocking, relentless and pervasive. Go take a look at Palestinian Media Watch for some examples.
Anyway, there I go again. Take care of yourself as well.
July 17, 2010 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and if you really want to be depressed, take a look at this poll showing that Palestinians oppose renouncing the right of return for all 1948 refugees and their millions of descendants by 82% - 14%. Also Palestinians oppose their leaders waiving the right of return in exchange for financial compensation by a margin of 82-13. This was a Palestinian poll.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=48722
The number of those classified as refugees has grown to somewhere in the range of 4.5 million (from an original number of around 700,000, I believe), the overwhelming majority of whom have never set foot in Israel.
July 17, 2010 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
To clarify, the number opposing renunciation of the right of return would do so even if it meant no peace.
July 17, 2010 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the problem here MAY be that feel "cheap" admitting to being willing to sell out their patrimony for money.
They may, in the end, accept it if enough ceremony is shrouding it and the Palestinians are seen as exercising a sort of noblesse oblige or a generosity of spirit--or something--but they may not be willing to sell out in a poll.
Also, the quid pro quo in this question is merely financial compensation. Nothing is said about a state or living arrangements or relations between the two people, so it FEELS as though they're being asked to sell out their "mother" or their family--disrespect the suffering of their parents and grandparents, if you see what I mean for financial gain.
July 18, 2010 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how many Jews would give up their right of return to Israel for peace?
July 19, 2010 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink