Israel: The Alternative

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671



By Tony Judt

The Middle East peace process is finished. It did not die: it was killed. Mahmoud Abbas was undermined by the President of the Palestinian Authority and humiliated by the Prime Minister of Israel. His successor awaits a similar fate. Israel continues to mock its American patron, building illegal settlements in cynical disregard of the "road map." The President of the United States of America has been reduced to a ventriloquist's dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line: "It's all Arafat's fault." Israelis themselves grimly await the next bomber. Palestinian Arabs, corralled into shrinking Bantustans, subsist on EU handouts. On the corpse-strewn landscape of the Fertile Crescent, Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat, and a handful of terrorists can all claim victory, and they do. Have we reached the end of the road? What is to be done?

Continue with status quo. Apparently Israel hasn't felt enough pain yet.

The Palestinians are the ones who want a state. Aren't the posters here always saying THEY are the ones feeling the pain.

... what the previous poster said.

Do you disagree with the point about a religious state where one group is superior to all other being out of date and not in line with the rest of the world?

The idea of people of a similar heritage and background wanting and attaining their own state is NOT out of fashion. There are many such states in the world.

In the case of Israel, the people in question have also been abused for 2,000 years. So it makes sense that they not turn their nation over to their enemies.

Israel is most certainly a religious state.

One of these days it will dawn on you that being Jewish is both cultural and religious. In fact, for many Jews it has become only cultural.

I think it was Don who pointed out that the Nazis killed Jews whether they worshipped or not.

It's not religious.

are converts to Christianity, but who are ethnically Jewish, not given the same benefits?

That's the same benefit.

You apparently don't now what you're talking about if you don't even know what the Israeli Supreme Court decided on this issue. Goodbye.

please do you homework!

Judiasm, last I checked, is a religion. Therefore, it is a Jewish state.

and slave-owning America as fine examples of what you referred to as "people of a similar heritage and background wanting and attaining their own state."

The same can be said of the Spanish Conquistadors, and the ethnic cleansing of the Americas.

Racism is racism no matter what Gawd one prays to.

I think that this is a very insightful article.

It should be read in conjunction with Uri Avnery's latest, in which Avnery warns against advocating the single-state solution on the ground that in Israel the forces of ethnic cleansing are stronger than the forces of multi-nationalism:

"Marwan Barghouti is not the only one who uses bi-nationalism as a scarecrow. Lately, several Palestinian spokespersons have been waving this flag - not because they believe in it, but in order to frighten Israelis into accepting the Two-States plan, which is the only realistic peace plan on the agenda.

I warn against this tactic. It is very dangerous.

It may seem that there are only two possibilities: One state in the whole country, which will necessarily be bi-national, or an Israeli state in a part of the country, inside the green Line, next to a Palestinian state. But there is a third possibility: An Israeli state in all of the country, from which the Palestinian population will be expelled. Few Israelis speak of this openly, but a great many think about it.

Good people ignore this alternative because they do not find it thinkable. They imagine Kosovo-style ethnic cleansing: driving millions out in one big dramatic sweep. They console themselves: "The world won’t stand for it! Sharon wouldn’t dare!”"

Avnery's article is here:

http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html

but to advocate the two-state solution is to advocate bantastutans for the Palestinians. Real justice and peace requires one state where everyone will be equal.

Is a lovely fantasy. But when one larger group hates a minority to the point of persecution and murder, it doesn't happen.

The Israelis would hate the minority to the point of persecution and murder, and would ethnic cleanse them!

That's why so many Palestinians have died in the last several decades -- not. Considering how often there has been conflict in that area, the actual number of Palestinian deaths is quite low.

Israel doesn't want to murder the Palestinians. It actually would like peace with them. But Israel has been given no choice. It has been given Intifida which is a fancy ass word for terror.

n/t

If the number of Palestinian deaths is "quite low" based on the factual numbers, then the number of deaths on the Israeli side which is 3 times lower is by your standards marginal and extremely low...

"Israel doesn't want to murder the Palestinians. It actually would like peace with them. But Israel has been given no choice."

--Anyone who thinks that Sharon wants peace rather than land (free of its arab population) is either unbelievable naive or unbelievably ignorant.

while there are surely fanatics on both sides, that shouldn't stop people from doing the right thing. This situation is begging for a solution that will bring the moderates of two people together and force them to work out their differences.

Your continued reliance on some myth that the Palestinians are just out to get the "Jews" is the fantasy, my friend. Not one state which will by the reality perhaps later rather than sooner. The settlements or so called facts on the ground has already pretty much guaranteed one state. Either that or ethnic cleansing. I, myself, have faith in Israelis who have a sense of right and wrong not to let that happen.

Carry on, Muddleoftheroad, your argument is desparate.

The idea that all Palestinians would want to drive out (or kill) all Jews makes as much sense as the idea that all Israelis want all Palestinians to be driven out of their homes or even killed. Which is: No sense!

And far less so than your desire for a fantasyland solution where everybody holds hands and lives in peace and harmony in one nation.

I would love a moderate solution. But you and I no doubt disagree on what we consider to be "moderate."

Not all or even most Palestinians are out to kill Jews. But surely enough are and no one on their side of the wall is doing anything about it. Until they do, Israel has no partner in peace and should make no agreements.

The settlements are far from permanent. As such, they guarantee nothing except that they are a bargaining chip.

"The settlements are far from permanent."

You have no idea what you're talking about.

What do you suppose the purpose of the settlements is?

Hint: To create premanent "facts on the ground." Ask a settler or do some research.

If the settlements are a "bargaining chip", why is it that through multiple negotiations, no significant settlement has ever been removed and have been relentlessly expanded?

Have you ever been to Israel? Almost nothing built there is permanent. It's all thrown together real fast like nobody has the time for zoning regulations. The settlements even more so.

Face it, the reason no settlements have been removed is because nobody on the Palestinian side has ever offered peace. Peace, a border, statehood, they are all entwined.

I support a two-state solution and I've seen nothing moderate about anything you say about a solution to the conflict, mainly because yr too busy throwing blame around and refusing to accept that Israel holds the slightest bit of blame for the plight of the Palestinian people. Also, from what I can see yr idea of a two-state solution involves strong doses of Israeli control over any future Palestinian state...

Not all or even most Palestinians are out to kill Jews. But surely enough are and no one on their side of the wall is doing anything about it. Until they do, Israel has no partner in peace and should make no agreements.

This can go hand in hand with yr ridiculous claim you made to me in another thread that most of the world hates Jews. This portrayal of Palestinians as not being pissed off because of the way their land has been taken from them slowly and steadily, or because of the indiscriminate killing and maiming of Palestinian civilians, but being frenzied anti-semites who are genetically disposed to want nothing more than to kill Jews is nothing but crap. So if it was the US or a European nation that had occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 and continued a brutal occupation ever since, the Palestinians would be dancing round throwing flowers at them and throwing 'Thank You For Oppressing Us!' parties for their occupiers? Get real. At this point, the exact same thing would be happening as is happening right now....

As for Israel not having a partner in peace, they and the US hand-picked Abu Mazen from what I remember, so are you telling us that Israel deliberately picks partners in peace that it knows the *splutter* peace-loving Sharon govt won't be able to work with? To talk about a 'partner in peace' indicates that you believe that the current Israeli govt is interested in peace. Their words and actions indicate otherwise, which is something that all but fanatics who feel they must defend Sharon no matter what he does can see.

The settlements are far from permanent. As such, they guarantee nothing except that they are a bargaining chip.

There's no bargaining chip involved with the settlements. They're in violation of the Geneva Conventions and there is no onus on any other party to do anything before they're removed...

Violet...

You know, speaking for me is getting to be a habit with you. So, in the spirit of our friendship, I wish you would get it right.

Actually, I do blame both sides of this conflict, though I blame the UN and the Arab world a lot more for setting it in motion. Israel isn't perfect, it's just the far better option in this situation.

As for the Palestinian state, you wildly MIS-state my opinion. I actually strongly support an independent SEPARATE and PEACEFUL Palestinian state. However, I do not support Palestinian carte blanche to cross Israeli territory. That means the Palestinians need to work with Israel or they have no right to cross from the West Bank to Gaza.

As for most of the world hating Jews, one need only look around and find that most nations find them, at best, to be inconvenient right now. The Muslim world is huge and has massive amounts of oil. The Jewish world is small and has none of that. Most nations would sell out the Jews in a heartbeat and have. History proves that.

The I/P conflict is not about the West Bank and Gaza. If it were, the PLO would have been formed AFTER the 1967 war. It was not.

I think the Israeli PEOPLE want peace. Right now, they know they don't have that option. They are fighting a war. When fighting a war, you elect a war leader. If you have a chance at peace and he can't do the job, you go for peace and vote in somebody new.

Actually, the onus on the whole situation falls on the Palestinians. THEY are the ones who want statehood. Israel already has it. If the Palestinians want things to change, they need Israel's help. The only way to get that is peace. But too many of them choose terror.

So go ahead and show me where you've posted saying both sides are to blame in this conflict because I must have missed them. If I have, I'm sorry for saying you state something that you don't. I get the same thing when after criticism of both Sharon and Arafat, people still float around posting and acting like I think Arafat is #1 in my book of heroic and great leaders..

I think you contradicted yrself in yr post. First you said: Actually, I do blame both sides of this conflict and later on you said: Actually, the onus on the whole situation falls on the Palestinians.

No, the onus is on Israel to respect the international laws that it's signatory to and end the occupation. There's no onus on any other party at all.

However, I do not support Palestinian carte blanche to cross Israeli territory.

Do you support Israeli carte blanche to cross into Palestinian territory?

As for most of the world hating Jews, one need only look around and find that most nations find them, at best, to be inconvenient right now.

You seem intent on interchanging the words Israel and Jews. MOST nations do not find people to be inconvenient if they're Jewish. Most nations wouldn't give a toss what people are because they don't discriminate against people based on their race, religion or ethnicity, and neither do they place people on a higher level than all others based on the same thing...

The I/P conflict is not about the West Bank and Gaza. If it were, the PLO would have been formed AFTER the 1967 war. It was not.

For crying out loud. The conflict is about land, not about a bunch of yr imaginary little anti-semites braying for the blood of Jews....

I think the Israeli PEOPLE want peace. Right now, they know they don't have that option. They are fighting a war. When fighting a war, you elect a war leader. If you have a chance at peace and he can't do the job, you go for peace and vote in somebody new.

I don't care what you *think* the Israeli people want because I was talking about Sharon and yr insistance that *he* wants peace. I have no doubts that both the Israeli and Palestinian people want peace, but that's not what we were discussing. btw, what you said about fighting a war applies just as equally to the Palestinians as Israelis, doesn't it?


Actually, the onus on the whole situation falls on the Palestinians. THEY are the ones who want statehood. Israel already has it. If the Palestinians want things to change, they need Israel's help. The only way to get that is peace. But too many of them choose terror.

No, for the zillionth time, the occupation is illegal and the onus is on Israel to end the occupation. Too many Palestinians choose terror? Y'know, I'm starting to get a bit sick of yr attempts to stereo-type the Palestinians by claiming 'many' of them are terrorists...

Violet...

Violet

How long have we been posting here? I've got more than 4,000 posts, most I think are in this area. I'm not going to search for them. You know I support a full independent Palestinian state. Not a bantustan or anything like that.

I have said repeatedly I don't agree with everything Israel does. Hell, I've said it multiple times in the last week. Beyond that, TFB.

No, my post had nary a contradiction. Yes, both sides share some blame. That brings us to today. Moving forward, the Palestinians are the ones most desperate for a change. THEY want a state. To get that, they have to give and they seem unwilling to do so.

As for Israel crossing Palestinian territory, when such an area exists (when the Palestinians have a nation), no I will not support it unless they are at war.

Actually, I am NOT interchanging Israel and Jews. Russia used pogrom (as did much of Europe) against the Jews. Spain used the Inquisition. Other parts of Europe didn't use the term, they just did the same stuff. In the Mideast, different terms, same actions. Etc. Etc. Etc. Now, those same nations use new tactics against Israel, the homeland for the very people they abused for 2,000 years. They use the UN.

No, the I/P conflict is not about land. There is a ton of land in the Mideast and Israel has a tiny sliver of it. It is about who is on that land.

Could you clarify your war question?

I am not claiming many Palestinians are terrorists. It is a fact. Is that the majority? No, just enough to create chaos. As for whether the majority of Palestinians support terror or not, you read the surveys and you can choose to believe them or not.

On the fact that we both support a viable two-state solution with a Palestinian state that has complete sovereignty and where the settlements are dismantled. Where we differ is on how to arrive at that...

Yes, you have said this week that you disagree with some things Israel does, but never on the brutality involved in their retaliations on the Palestinian population. You disagree with Israel at times because you think they're going too light on the Palestinians...

No. The Palestinians do not have to give and give in order to end the occupation (and with the ending of the occupation will come a state, so they're one and the same). The responsibility is on Israel to obey international law and bring to an end a military occupation that's caused so much harm to Israelis and Palestinians. btw, what's stopping the Palestinians from declaring themselves a state right now? No-one's ever explained that to me...

Palestinian territory exists. I think it's only fair that if Israeli settlers have carte blanche to move into that territory right now, the same goes for Palestinians going to Israel. This segregation that you like to champion isn't a very viable thing from what I can tell. Economically it harms both Israel and the Palestinians to not have some sort of movement across the borders....

Yes, you do interchange the words Jews and Israel. When a resolution passes in the UN that's critical of the occupation, according to you it's not because nations are criticising a brutal occupation, but it's because they're picking on Jews. That'd be like saying that criticism of Milosovich wasn't because he was carrying out genocide, but because he was a Serb and some people think other nations are out to get the Serbs. No offense, but yr thinking is incredibly lazy on this point, Muddle. Israel cops criticism because of what it does. My opinion at this stage is that UN peace-keepers should be sent in to put a peace in place that neither side is capable or willing to provide. Anyone who has a problem with that opinion is not interested in peace, no matter how loudly they claim they are...

Of course the I/P conflict is about land, and the Palestinians are on that land that Israel is so intent on taking bit by bit...


What war question?

Oh, so according to you it's now a *fact* that MANY Palestinians are terrorists? How many is MANY, Muddle? I found out from another post of yrs that MANY American Jews is actually all of five people ;)


Violet...

I don't disagree with Israel because they are going "too light" on the Palestinians. I don't agree with the strategy. I would prefer one of more...disengagement. I want the Palestinians to realize they need Israel as well. I would have built the wall sooner (not on the same exact path, but I'm sure my path still would piss folks off) and ended Palestinian travel into Israel.

International law is selectively applied. As such, it is selectively obeyed as well. And the reason the PA doesn't declare statehood is they don't want Israel to roll in and totally destroy them for doing so.

If you think UN peacekeepers would either work or be allowed in, you are an optimist. Israel has good reason not to trust international peacekeepers because many of the nations of the world don't care if Israelis get blown up or not.

As for the term many, many in the case of Palestinian terrorists is the entire group of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Fatah. Is that "many" enough for you? If not, you have an odd concept of the word.

And no, five is not many. I personally KNOW five Jewish people who have switched parties. They and other Jewish friends tell me that many are doing this.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but I have to disagree with you that supporting the two-state solution is to advocate bantustans for the Palestinians. I support a two-state solution, but I support one where Israel pulls back to the 1967 borders and Palestine is a viable state with sole control of its resources, military, land and air-space etc. I know some who claim they support a two-state solution have visions of a series of bantustans under Israeli control where any Palestinian state is only a sub-state with no sovereignty, but there must be many more who are like me and see a two-state solution as what I support. And my support of a two-state solution is because it seems to be what many Palestinians and Israelis want. While one bi-national democratic state couldn't be a reality now, I think it would eventually come into being over a few generations after peace is finally attained, which is why I support a two-state solution for now, but in the longer-term support a bi-national democratic state...

Violet...

The "facts on the ground" limit me to support a one state solution. Perhaps, if the GOI wasn't so bent on settling Samaria and Judea, the two state solution would be possible.

Just so we can be clear.

and the end of Israel as "Jewish" only state.

Let's indeed be clear.

Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people. You support the destruction of that founding principle.

especially those that were driven off the land.

The Jews driven out of the Arab world or the Jews driven from the West Bank?

You support a fantasy that ignores history.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Any fair-minded person would be opposed to ANY people being driven off the land they've been on for centuries, so why are the Palestinians invisible to you? Is it really that important to you WHAT a person is? Why doesn't yr concern apply to all people equally?

btw, speaking of fantasies, yr claim that Jews are being driven from the West Bank is a great example, given the expansion of settlements in the West Bank...

Violet...

The Palestinian people are far from invisibile, but I consider the actions taken by their leaders and too many of their residents to be reprehensible.

Even then, I support a state for them, just not exactly what they want or exactly when they want it. I don't feel they have done what is needed to acquire such a state.

No, Jews WERE driven from the West Bank, not are.

I don't want any answers with a *but* justification tacked onto the end. I just want to know if you are opposed to them being driven off their land, or just opposed to it if it happens to Jews...

btw, just as a matter of interest, how many Jews were driven out of the West Bank? Have you got any credible sources to point me to?


Violet...

The West Bank and other Arab nation figures are being discussed in another thread, but I'm not sure which one.

So? Do you oppose them being driven off their land? Yes or no...


Violet...

I would not define their land in such a way.

I support Jerusalem staying part of Israel. The rest of the border can be negotiated and Israel can even work out a deal where they give more land to a peaceful Palestinian leadership.

Even aside from Jerusalem, I doubt any agreement will even follow exactly the Green Line.

I asked you if you opposed the Palestinians being driven off their land, not what you think some 'deal' will work out. I take it from yr reluctance to give me a straight answer that you do support Palestinians being driven off their land. At least when I oppose that, I oppose it for ALL regardless of what group the people it's being done to belongs to...


Violet...

I call the possibility of a new kind of Israeli nationalism that finds security not with a state military apparatus but within a civil, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society--much as American Jews enjoy in the US.

Just so we can be clear.

The way I see it is there's too much bitterness currently for it to work. Even if that one state was named Israel and was a democratic state with equal rights for all, there'd still be the 'Israel Is Destroyed!!!' crowd braying away. I understand that what you support is a democratic binational state with equal rights for all and every citizen is protected from discrimination, which is exactly what I support happening, but further down the track and happening in a natural sort of way. Plus I think the partition was a mistake. Partitions have a habit of causing conflict and bloodshed long after they've been carved out by some third party. What's mindboggling is that there are some who take what you say on a democratic one-state solution and claim you support destroying Israel. Kinda ridiculous if you think about it...

Violet...

It is kind of ridiculous. If the "mistake" were to be corrected and you remove the "cause" of all this violence from "both" sides, then what you have is simply two people carrying on about there business in one state. No suicide bombings and no "military incursions." Just people working to make their state successful.

Then it all works. LOL.

You're not making sense now.

There are many causes for this violence and them date back 2,000 years to the time of the Jewish Diaspora. If that had never occurred, then this would not be a debate. Once that happened and the nations of the world decided to abuse the Jewish people, things began to happen. You can't rewrite 2,000 years of history.

I'm not sure how you would equate a nation that is constitutionally setup to regard all its citizens as equals with 2,000 years of history.

If you want to "muddle" the issue, then be my guest.

Which is more than they can do in most of the Arab world. Do you think ANY nation treats all of its citizens equally?

Are you sure you're not blaming the Palestinians, then, for the evils committed by the Roman Empire and its Holy Roman successor? Isn't the Palestinian difference with Israel of much more recent vintage?

Often meeting Uri Avnery at Israeli demos and in Palestinian villages, I came to admire this active octogenarian and the perennial symbol of Israeli peace camp. But even more I love reading Uri Avnery for his skilful pen and for his glib ability to make palatable even the least acceptable ideas. Bertolt Brecht wrote: a perfect propaganda man could make cat lick mustard, at least by pushing mustard up under cat’s tail. Avnery’s last essay called The Bi-National State is a similar exercise: he wants us to love and accept the Jewish state, for (he claims) the fate of Palestinians would be worse without it.

Why it is better for Palestinians to be locked up in their small enclaves than to be equal citizens of the whole of Palestine? In a mental somersault, Avnery breaks a new ground in public discourse and proclaims: Jews can’t live with non-Jews. The Jew and the Goy are like wolf and lamb; if you want the Wolf dwell with the Lamb, please provide a fresh lamb every day. There was, I understand, a slight difference of opinion who of the twain is a wolf, (classic Zionists clamoured the lamb skin), but Avnery leaves us in no doubt: while sojourning together, the Goy will lose to the Jew. In his own words, “In a joint state, if it were to be set up, the Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the state, and try very hard to preserve that situation

http://www.israelshamir.net/english/wolf.html

Thanks for the article, dudeness.

I pointed to the Avnery article as offering another perspective than that described in the Judt article (NY Review of Books). Regarding this article, I suspect that Avnery would say that his view is based less on quasi-metaphysical assertions like "Jews can't live with non-jews," than on present-day realities, in particular, the reality that in Israel today, the forces of ethnic cleansing are stronger than the forces advocating a bi-national democracy. I could be wrong about this.

nt