The name “Israel” means “He who struggles with G_d”. Genesis tells how that name was given to Jacob after he triumphed over an angel with whom he had wrestled all night. And indeed there is a tradition in Judaism, unlike any other religion with which I’m familiar, of arguing with G_d. A typical example is Abraham, the first Jew. He argues over the number of righteous people there needs to be in Sodom for G_d to forgive them, and talks G_d down from 50 to 10, which is good bartering with anyone, let alone the Creator of the Universe. But when you struggle, you don’t always win. And it seems clearer that the State of Israel, in their struggle with G_d, has lost.
The story of that struggle has been told as a joke, going back to the founding of the state. Uri Avnery says that G_d asked Israel when it was born in 1947 what it wanted to be, and Israel answered that it wanted to be Jewish, democratic, and stretch from sea to sea (Mediterranean to Jordan). G_d thought about this, and said that Israel could have any two of those, but not all three. There was a time, maybe up until recently, when Israel could have settled for democratic and Jewish, and taken the ’67 borders, and allowed Palestine to be a separate country. But that time has passed. Now the Jewish settlers own so much land in Palestine and use so much of the water in Palestine that it is no longer possible to create any real Palestinian state. “Real” means a contiguous state with enough power to satisfy the Palestinian people. Nor is it possible to pull the settlers out of Palestine, as the power in the Israeli parliament depends on right-wing support. But leaving the settlers there without Israeli protection is also impossible, politically. So Israel will stretch from sea to sea, and now must choose between democratic or Jewish.
It can’t be both because there are more Palestinians than Jews, and the birthrate difference will only increase that numerical difference in the future. So if Israel chooses democratic, it stops being a Jewish state because Jews will be a minority there, as they are in all other countries. But if Israel chooses to remain Jewish, then the Palestinians in Israel will have fewer rights than the Jews, and that is not democracy. It will not be an easy choice, but it has become the only choice, as is increasingly clear to observers world-wide.
There are reasons why this has happened, both because of Israeli and Palestinian intransigence, and because of unwillingness to settle for less than they wanted on both sides. And at this point the reasons why we have gotten to this point don’t matter. In the realistic world of politics there are only two questions that matter: where are we now, and where do we go from here. So where are we? Carlo Strenger, writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, has been a long time supporter of the two state solution. Now he writes, “There is little use for us to decry the folly of Israel’s policy of the last forty years. We need to look at the situation as it is now: no Israeli politician will be able to retreat to the 1967 lines…The problem is that the longer the status quo continues, the more impossible the two state solution will become. In fact, it may already be dead. Hence the real question for liberal Jews and gentile friends of Israel is where we need to aim now.”
Gideon Levy, another Israeli writing for Haaretz, says, “The battle… has been decided. All that remains is to ask what will replace the solution that was put to death. There will not be two states. Even a child knows the alternative: one state. There is no third option.”
Andrew Sullivan, in The Daily Beast, has a devastating critique of those who defend the Israeli government’s willingness to negotiate a two state agreement, by asking over and over “Why continue to build the settlements?”, concluding at last “The answer is that the settlements are there because the current Israeli government has no intention of ever dividing the land between Arabs and Jews in a way that would give the Palestinians anything like their own state; and have every intention of holding Judea and Samaria for ever.”
In America observers are saying the same thing, though more hesitatingly. Robert Wright, in the Atlantic Magazine, says, “the most common cozy illusion is that, though the time may not be right for a two-state solution now, we can always do the deal a year or two or three down the road. The truth is that a two-state solution is almost completely dead, and it gets closer to death every day.” Stephen Walt quotes Prime Minister Netanyahu: “We are strengthening Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and we are strengthening the Jewish community in Hebron, the City of the Patriarchs. But there is one principle that we uphold. We do everything according to the law and we will continue to do so.” Walt observes “So Netanyahu’s aim is clear: keeping control of the West Bank forever. And the reference to “doing everything according to the law” is revealing, because “law” here means the law of the occupation, which is the same law that has allowed a half a million Israelis to move into the territories conquered in 1967 over the past forty years.”
So the dream of a democratic Jewish state in Israel is over. What is left? There are, Stephen Walt muses, three possible options. He says, “Once the two-state solution is really and truly buried, then what?… Ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians to ensure a Jewish majority? Binational democracy and equal rights for all residents of a single state? Or permanent apartheid, with the Palestinians confined to self-governing enclaves under de facto Israeli control?” I see horrible bloody struggles on the path to any of those solutions, but I can not see any path that leads anywhere else. With the waves of Eastern European immigration, Israel is more right-wing now than it has ever been, and the west-bank settlers are there to stay.
So Israel’s struggle with G_d to be all three — Jewish, democratic, and stretching from sea to sea — has been lost. Israel has chosen for a variety of reasons, (historical, strategic, emotional, religious) to stretch from sea to sea. Now it must choose whether to remain democratic or to remain Jewish. It cannot do both. That is a tragedy of historic dimensions, and sadly it will be a long bloody struggle within Israel as well as with the Palestinians till the solution becomes clear. But fantasizing that a two-state solution is still possible does not help. We have passed that exit, irrevocably.
Peter, how is a one-state solution any more workable? Strenger suggests the possibility of a confederation down the road, but none of us know how that would work either (http://meretzusa.blogspot.com/2012/04/neither-one-state-nor-two-is-carlo.html).
There still is a majority of Israelis and Palestinians who prefer their own separate majority-states. What is lacking, after the failure of Oslo and the way in which Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza boomeranged, is trust and political courage.
A deal is still possible and Abbas continues to hold it out along the following lines from his recent letter to Netanyahu:
• We agreed to establish the State of Palestine on only 22% of the territory of historical Palestine-on all the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel in 1967.
• The establishment of independent Palestinian State that can live side-by-side with the State of Israel in peace and security on the borders of 1967 with mutually agreed swaps equal in size and value.
• Security will be guaranteed by a third party accepted by both, to be deployed on the Palestinian side.
• A just and agreed resolution for the refugees’ problem as specified in the Arab Peace Initiative.
• Jerusalem will serve as a capital of two States. East Jerusalem capital of Palestine. West Jerusalem capital of Israel. Jerusalem as an open city can be the symbol of peace.
Welcome Ralph,
Thank you for the comment. Much appreciated.
You ask “How is a one-state solution any more workable?”
I assume you’re speaking of the positive version here, it’s depressingly clear how ethnic cleansing or full-on apartheid would at least try to “work”. And I answer simply, I have no idea. But inertia is undeniably on the side of the one state solution; the longer the impasse lasts the more settlers there are, the harder to uproot them or move them to accept a more equitable division of West Bank assets..
The settlers’ way of life is predicated on an inequality that no Palestinian State could ever accept. As Barghouti said to J-Street: Apartheid is a system where you have two laws, two different laws, for two people living in the same area. If you don’t like the word apartheid, give me an alternative to a situation where a Palestinian citizen is allowed to use no more than 50 cubic meters of water per capital year, while an Israeli illegal settler from the West Bank is allowed to use 2400….Yet we are obliged to pay the same prices for products as Israelis do. More than that: We are obliged to pay double the price for electricity and water that Israelis do though they make 30 times more than we do.
You say, “A deal is still possible”, and quote Abbas’ position. I would like to believe that it would be possible for an Israeli government to accept that, but I don’t. (I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not seeing much evidence.) None of this, of course, is about what I’d prefer, or want… not that I’m crazy enough to think the universe is much moved by that.
Peter, I understand where you’re coming from. People like ourselves–who feel a concern and good will toward both Israelis and Palestinians–do not need to give up on the best alternative before most Israelis and Palestinians do. Maybe the alarms we raise about the two-state solution becoming increasingly unlikely will jolt the parties into positive action, but I doubt it.
The problem for me is that it’s hard to conceive of one unitary state (whether in the positive or negative sense, as you put it) as a practical option. Given their historic and ongoing enmity–only exacerbated by their cultural and religious differences–how would these two peoples share one state equitably and non-violently? Just because two states isn’t happening (yet), how can one state really be considered a solution?
Ralph: One state can be seen as an option because time is on its side, and not on the side of two-state. The longer we exist in the status quo, the more settlers, the more entrenched, the harder to separate the two cultures on the West Bank.
“Maybe the alarms we raise about the two-state solution becoming increasingly unlikely will jolt the parties into positive action”. From your mouth, to G_d’s ear! We have a saying up here in Canada: “No one snowflake thinks it is responsible for the avalanche.” Working towards peace is like that too.
Why do I always read Israel’s obituary when I check into Tikkun Daily. Peter takes pains on blaming Israel on the current situation while giving a mere passing acknowledgment of Palestinian intransigence. he predicts I mean wished for Israel’s demise..
There are many causes of the current impasse, but may I suggest Iran as the main instigator, They are supporting the Hamas and Hezbollah, the primary threat to Israel. Hamas desires one state under Islamic law. Abbas is weak, but he wants the West Bank cleared of all Jews. All of them.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/12/ethnic-cleansing-jews-abbas/
Peter writes about a “Bi-national state. Well, you might want to consider as an example present day Lebanon. It is a ongoing tinderbox of Christians, Muslims and Druse. But more importanty, Jews and Palestinians mutually agree on one thing, they do not want to live together.
You quote Marwan Barghuti. This is not the first time you lend a blood soaked terrorist a voice
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/grilling-of-top-palestinian-militant-exposes-arafat-s-link-to-terror-attacks-on-israelis-papers-show-1.425537
I said this on a previous blog. I would gladly give the Palestinians much of the West Bank. But that comes under the condition of mutual recognition and surrendering the right of return. In reality, i think the West Bank would work much better as part of a federated state with Jordan. Jordan’s population is over 50% Palestinian. I might also emend you that that Jordan was party of mandated Palestine under the UK
Well, thank you Perter for adding yet another Israel obituary here. I guess us Jews who care about israel should just surrender to the Muslim world.
Don, You ask, “Why do I always read Israel’s obituary when I check into Tikkun Daily?” Projection and illiteracy? You bring your mind full of what you’re going to see, and you look, and there it is?
You say, “Peter takes pains on blaming Israel on the current situation while giving a mere passing acknowledgment of Palestinian intransigence.” My original comment was “There are reasons why this has happened, both because of Israeli and Palestinian intransigence, and because of unwillingness to settle for less than they wanted on both sides. And at this point the reasons why we have gotten to this point don’t matter.” If you want to blame Iran, go ahead. I’m interested in this piece in looking at where we are now, and what possible routes forward there are. One can discuss how we got here, how we might have gotten somewhere else if Sharon hadn’t had a stroke, but that doesn’t really matter. We are here.
You dislike my quoting Barghouti? If he is worth J-Street’s listening to, he’s important enough for our discussion. As a citizen of a binational state, I am perhaps more optimistic that you are. But please, criticize me on what I write, not for things I haven’t.
Using words like “apartheid” is is intellectually dishonest and you know it,. As within Israel has full civil rights and a fully represented. Only someone living in the far off works of Canada would think differently.
The route to peace runs through Iran, they are pulling strings of intransigence in the region. They hold sway over Hamas and Hezbollah. Israeli indifference to settlers and the welfare of Palestinians in the West Bank comes about because of the existntial coming from the north.
RE: Barghuti. Anyone who leads a campaign of recruiting and setting loose human bombs is of no importance to anyone. J Street shod be ashamed for even acknowledging him. But I have seen in the past the you have defended or empathized with those who desire to commit acts of terror.
You talk about a Bi National state, that is simply a recipe for disaster. Just look north at Lebanon or at Iraq and Syria.
@Shira. Of course the topic of the day is Iran. When you have an enemy bring to develop a weapon tat can wipe Israel out with one launch, what would the discussion be about? Iran has a forward army in the form of Hezbollah and has been supplying them with rockets that have landed all over Israel.
Don: “If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies:“Moshe Dayan. And yes, I have empathized with those who have committed acts of which I disapprove. To the extent that I cannot empathize with everyone, to that extent I have more work to do to become more fully human. As Ben Azzai says in the Talmud, “Do not despise anyone.” I try and work towards that.
Shira: I’m quoting enough from Haaretz that some Israelis clearly hold similar views (though of course Haaretz does not speak for everyone.) I agree, absolutely, that the belief that there’s no hope is hugely concerning. But I see a lot of change in attitudes in North America among Jews, and much of that gives me hope. And dialog is what those of us over here can most effectively do, as we talk to Muslims about the range of different views amongst the Jewish community. The more both communities recognize that there is a range of views amongst the other, the more hopeful we become.
Don, my views are somewhere between you and Peter. I understand the passion of your concerns and share them to a large degree, but I suggest toning it down.
Peter is not the enemy, but it’s hard for many liberals to appreciate how Israel’s small size and vulnerability makes it difficult to make necessary accommodations to a people that it overpowers and yet still physically threatens them. This may be a paradox without precedent.
By the way, the Barghouti whom Peter refers to here is Mustafa, not Marwan. Although I disagree with Dr. Mustafa Barghouti’s support for BDS against all of Israel, he is not the imprisoned terrorist you’ve confused him with, and he advocates non-violence.
reading all of this, especially the comments, i’m hearing such deep disconnection among jews of different opinions, that i fear internal israeli-jewish strife no less than political-ethnic-religious endless warring and rivalry with nations around us.
has there ever been more internal strife among us? the timing, considering world-wide economic deterioration’s influence on all of us…….feels ominous and definitely dangerous beyond words.
if the tone and approach to this dialogue doesn’t shift to one of true, humane listening to the other’s needs and speaking truth about our own deepest needs, with respect and compassion for all we ALL face, we indeed are ALL doomed. Right wing, left wing, religious and secular, jew and non-jew……….will go down together, probably still fighting for dominance and power.
haven’t we learned yet that the world built on power-dominance, fear, blame and threats only generates more of the same forever…….?!
Shira writes, “reading all of this, especially the comments, i’m hearing such deep disconnection among jews of different opinions, that i fear internal israeli-jewish strife no less than political-ethnic-religious endless warring and rivalry with nations around us. Has there ever been more internal strife among us?
There is a saying that when you have two Jews in a room, you have three political parties. And the Talmud says, “The dispute of scholars increases wisdom.” So we can hope that out of our thrashing around in darkness come a few needed rays of light.
I tried consciously in my piece to avoid raising issues of blame and fault. I have been drawn to Stephen Walt’s blog, as an example of a historian who does this. I think you are quite right that such debate is rarely (if ever) productive, and that it is only be telling and listening to one another’s stories that any progress is made. The most productive work I have done is to tell stories about Israel, and then listen to the Other’s story. (You can access the stories and structure here: http://www.tikkuntoronto.com/israelstories.htm )
Thank you for the comment!
Peter
appreciating your response, peter, especially your expression of great concern for israel’s and the palestinians’ future, and your reaching out for dialogue.
the days of ‘2 jews with 3 opinions’ seem long gone. all i’m hearing nowadays is: ‘are you WITH us, or AGAINST us?!’ or, even MORE often: ‘there’s no hope for peace and change; there are no choices left but to defend ourselves, and focus all efforts there!’
in a way, that attitude is as depressing and concerning as the actual situation on the ground.
maybe THAT’S what dialogue can focus on more successfully: the deep spiritual/emotional pain of all the people involved in these rivalries, and their basic human struggles. after all, those are common to all sides of the dispute.
by the way, this problem is hardly even discussed in typical israeli social settings at all now. the topic of the day has been for many days, one: iran.
I find it amazing that Israel survives in such a bad neighborhood. Every Arab country is either marginally a dictatorship or very marginally a Democracy. Israel has signed pace agreements with 2 dictatorships and the status of those treaties can turn on a dime with a change in regime. Then you have Iran trying to take control of the region through a Shia revolution and they have a goal of replacing Israel with a Shia dominated Arab state. They want the nuclear bomb to use a powerful leverage against Israel. yes, call it survival against all odds. To add insult to injury, Palestinian demands remain not only the return if lands captured in 1967, but the turn of al refugees. They also want to re-divide Jerusalem with a border that has never existed, This makes no sense to any rational person. Yet Israel survives.
I don’t think the Arab world wants to accept a Jewish entity in the heart of the neighborhood. They are not willing to accept the Jewish connection to the region and the need foe a Jewish state. Te funny thing is that there is already Palestinian like state on the east bank of the Jordan. yes, it is called the Hashemite Kingdom, but demographics have shifted there as well. It is now predominated by so called
Palestinians. I say so called, because I know of no Palestinians before 1918.
My solution, plain and simple. Surrender much of he West Bank and make it part of a confederated sate with Jordan. It makes more sense than any other solution.
Jews had no place to run in generation after generation when things wen south in host countries. Israel is needed. It seems lie us Jews are trouble to the works with or without the state.
@ Shira. Of couse talk in Israel is Iran, They are casting a destructive shadow over the whole region.
don’t we ALL, every single person affected, truly wish it WERE simple?!!.
sadly, social, ethnic, religious and political problems are NEVER simple; more challenging today with everything having increasing global effects.
especially discouraging is the suggestions/advice/solutions people on one side of the conflict will easily offer the opposite (enemy) side. no human that i ever met is honestly willing to hear the advice of those they experience as adversaries. i’m sure you know that, and wouldn’t expect realistic, or even truly caring suggestions/advice from those not living your existance.
what if we try to aim for a dialogue that might address the complexities which are inevitable, and maybe even addressable,,,,,with some luck and much effort?
i’d rather aim for some non-strategic, more emotion-focused dialogue allowing both sides, each in turn, to voice their pain, find their most basic needs and experience what it feels like to actually be heard by people on the other side! of course, that would demand to momentarily, at least, put aside strategies and weapons, for the perhaps impractical-looking activity of simply finding the most basic shared human needs and listening to them for a time.
so much time has been given to arguing strategies and mutual disrespecting of the other’s basic needs, i think we’ve all but removed those areas from any dialogue offered.
what would those needs probably look like? maybe, adding some humanity to the dialogue before animosity and blame, they may look like this:
1. we ALL need peace, quiet, and safety from harm.
2. also, subsistance minimals like ample food, shelter, clothing, etc.
3. we even all need (surprisingly equally) clean air, uncontaminated water, health care basics, and some freedom of expression.(religion, ethnic traditions, personal fulfillment, education opportunities)
4. how about the one i sometimes suspect is the most powerful need, yet the most sorely neglected on either side, in actuality. RESPECT. DIGNITY. HUMANE TREATMENT, even sometimes, COMPASSION.
in this, as in every conflict i’ve ever known, is what i believe will be the answers we all seek: though, like all things of true value, not as easily found and built as we all wish. maybe because these areas have been the most tragically neglected throughout human history.
yet, without these basics seen and taken totally seriously and given the energy they desperately need, i forsee only power-struggles and endless lack of any possibility for building trust and communication for ANY purpose, strategic or not.
Bill, The Tikkun Daily Blog has a comments policy, and we’d like commentators to follow it. It starts with ” we will delete any comments that are abusive, off-topic, or include personal attacks.” Last warning.
Ah Shira, you would have been a worthy addition to the Israel Stories project! Karen Armstrong’s “Charter for Compassion” has done some excellent work in moving in this direction.
Perhaps the problem is that leaders of groups tend to look for big solutions, and the only way empathy and compassion spread is slowly, one person at a time. It s hard to be successful at lighting a candle, when the tool one has chosen to use is a flamethrower.
But when I read Steven Pinker’s work, I feel hope, that the world is becoming more peaceful. Slower than we’d like, at desperate cost to some, but we are moving upward.
Thank you for your comment!
Shira, Negotiations are not pscho-therapy. It’s nuts and bolts how to get it done. It’s about borders and security issues. But it does come for a willingness to do so. That was the secret to negotiations between Sadat and Begin.
don, it sounds like you don’t want to waste energy/time on what comes across as vague guesses about what’s inside our heads and hearts. you want to get the problem solved solidly and on the ground. i think we absolutely share the sense of urgency to get the process solved before things get even worse.
also, though, i’ve noticed over the years that the psycho-(mind-heart)-probing that we try to put aside for practical purposes, keeps coming back to haunt us and trouble everyone over and over and at unexpected moments.
also, what i remember most about the saadat-begin experience was the powerful emotional sides to the experience for everyone, including begin and saadat ….(especially saadat, who may have even had intimatiions of what would happen to him on his return home…..as well as begin who had to withstand a barrage at him back home, too)…..and, yes, they hammered out and challenged one another hard till the agreement emerged. but, without what many believe was the 2 leaders’ shared mutual dream of a better life ahead, and the risks involved in breaking the stalemate of years, i wonder if the same success would have been reached on the ground at all.
But in the end it was bait land band borders, based out right down to Taba and the creation of a multi national peace force
Peter dropped the popular term, apartheid, on Israel, It’s an increasing popular tactic by the radical left. How is tis for apartheid. I mentioned Lebanon, well here is a fine comparison:
Note the author does not appear to be Jewish.
Where’s the international outcry against Arab apartheid? By KHALED ABU TOAMEHLAST UPDATED: 03/17/2011 03:40Comment: As Israel Apartheid Week continues, a Palestinian boy was left to die at Lebanese hospital because father couldn’t afford treatment. Mohammed Nabil Taha, an 11-year-old Palestinian boy, died this week at the entrance to a Lebanese hospital after doctors refused to help him because his family could not afford to pay for medical treatment.
Taha’s tragic case highlights the plight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who live in squalid refugee camps in Lebanon and who are the victims of an apartheid system that denies them access to work, education and medical care.
Remainder of article can be read here
Choose the Jewish state. And I’m not even Jewish.
Whereas one can cite biblical authority since G-d promised Jerusalem to the Jews, one can not defend democracy in the same sense. Don’t worry about America’s (or anyone else’s) opinion. The problem is arising because of how much power the Christians had with their Roman (Catholic) allies, not because of the greater truth.
Mark
Gothenburg NE
Peter, you know what is losing its struggle in the region, reason and rationalism. The Arab world and iran smell blood and they are not really in a talking mood as the possibility of a nuclear Iran is on the horizon. Israel remains the most productive and valuable asset in the Middle East
For a fascinating discussion of the role of reason and rationality relative to those of emotion and intuition in human behavior, please read “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion” by Jonathan Haidt.
Mark: Personal attacks will not be tolerated on this blog, even when they are as off topic as yours. The piece states that a Palestinian state is no longer possible, so your assertion is bizarrely irrelevant. And for the record, I’m not American.
Mr Radner,
Mark Marmorek is not American, he is a college instructor in Toronto. he once taught and empathized with a student who was convicted if conspiring to blow up downtown Toronto. Just to place things in context.
I’ve never taught college, only high school and online. I’ve sometimes managed empathy for Shareef (you can find my writings about him here, should you want.) Sometimes I find it hard to feel empathy for assholes, but I work on it. If not this lifetime, maybe I’ll manage better in the next. 😉
51 tahun kita merdeka, merdekakan kita sebenarnya?… ya dari pada penjajah yang menjajah tanah tumpah darah kita, merdekakah pemikiran kita?… apa erti kemerdekaan pada kita sedangkan bangsa kita masih lagi ditakuk lama, berapa kerat yang berani untuk keluar dari kepompong penjajah minda?.. sampai bila, kenapa? mengapa?.. kerana kita mudah lupa, kita lalai, kita alpa, kita asyik, jangan sampai satu hari nanti kita dijajah semula… tidak pada tanah tumpah darah kita bukan pada diri kita tapi pada anak-cucu kita sanggupkah anda habiskan hari-hari tua anda menangisi kesilapan masa silam kita?…merdekakah kita?