The New Republic

Marty, roused from his dogged pursuit of messrs. Finkelstein, Soros, Carter, Hill C etc., will have to pass the black cloak and knitted cap, along with the greasy bag of tater tots over to a pal along Dershowitz (who is practically squeeking with delight), and come to mini's rescue... I see it all...

- MrCookie1

June 3, 2007 at 12:49pm

... certainly seems an odd duck. Sometimes, as in his Plank posting that Judis deplores here, he's just Peretz's id (though a better writer). Other times, as in his recent piece on Karl Zinsmeister, he's a good reporter. I wonder if Peretz could give him room to blog in The Spine, where I and the rest of TNR's readers could avoid his commentary, and his actual reporting could be published out here in the normal parts of the magazine?

- rriley

June 3, 2007 at 1:29pm

Judis is a quack for his caveat on Hitchens, who needs no warning labels. The idea of a "Palestinian state" never looked more risible. So what are the choices? Lebanon seems unlikely to sign on for amnesty in immigration reform, Jordan has been running away from a condominium on the West Bank for decades, and Saddam is no longer a rescue option. I say trade the Pals to the Syrians for a left-handed relief pitcher and two draft choices.

- Robert Powell

June 3, 2007 at 2:04pm

For too long, the good, sensible, liberal voices at TNR (Chait, Chotiner, Cohn, Crowley, Zengerle) have let Kirchick and Peretz's inane anti-Arab rantings go unchecked. Thank God that Judis has the balls to stand up to the clowns.

- dmatt

June 3, 2007 at 2:04pm

Previous string on this topic notes Nation's broaching the topic of a "one-state" solution? Isn't this the actual subject? Meanwhile, back in Tyre and Sidon, the beat goes on.

- Robert Powell

June 3, 2007 at 2:18pm

I think you're right. The Nation suggested that it might be time to consider a one-state solution, and Kirchick blasted them for it. Then Judis blasted Kirchick for not realizing that in the past, the Nation and TNR have always supported a two-state solution. Hasn't Judis misread the Nation's editorial?

- hsrubin

June 3, 2007 at 2:34pm

"This month marks the fortieth anniversary of Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. It will not escape readers' notice that the three writers who reflect on the occasion in this issue, although coming from widely different backgrounds and perspectives--Meron Benvenisti is a native-born Israeli and former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, Saree Makdisi is a Palestinian-American academic and Brian Klug is a British (and Jewish) Oxford philosopher--express a similar pessimism regarding the two-state solution. Each of them favorably discusses some form of binational or democratic state in all of Israel-Palestine, whose citizens would have equal rights or shared sovereignty. Nation editors didn't seek out these conclusions, nor do they represent a change in our policy. For many years this magazine has supported a two-state solution in which Israel would fully withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967, in accordance with UN resolutions, and a State of Palestine would be formed in those territories, with its capital in East Jerusalem. But we recognize that as realities on the ground shift, so must our thinking. Many have begun to wonder whether partition is still possible, given the growing settlements in the West Bank; the collapse of the peace process; the hardening of Israeli attitudes in the face of a second, bloody intifada; the descent of the Palestinian national camp into fratricide; and the unwillingness or inability of the Bush Administration to re-engage in serious peace talks or even to recognize the democratically elected Palestinian government. But to abandon the two-state solution, as a way out of today's seemingly insuperable barriers, doesn't so much answer questions as raise new ones. The chief difficulty is perhaps in popular reception, from both Israelis and Palestinians: While a large percentage of Israelis--anywhere from 40 to 60 percent, depending on when and how they're asked--support a two-state solution, 95 percent or more viscerally, emphatically oppose both the binational and secular democratic models. The mainstream of the Palestinian liberation movement, for its part, has for three decades supported the two-state solution, and even the Islamist Hamas has indicated that it would acquiesce. As with the Israelis, there's no real political constituency in the Palestinian community for the binational or democratic model, just support from a certain, if growing, number of intellectuals. Also, the Palestinian case for a separate, independent state is supported by a vast body of international law and many UN resolutions. If the movement were to abandon that model of national liberation in favor of participation as equal citizens in one state or a binational polity, it would weaken these legal and diplomatic defenses, and the overwhelming consensus of the international community, in favor of the unknown. CONTINUED BELOW And while the chances for a two-state solution look particularly bleak now, circumstances can change rapidly. Witness the 2005 disengagement from Gaza: Apocalyptic settler resistance was predicted, and yet it came off without a hitch. Disengagement might have been a cynical ploy on Ariel Sharon's part to forestall negotiations, but it did seem to break the back of the Greater Israel movement. In its wake, some 50 percent of West Bank settlers have indicated their willingness to return to Israel. Furthermore, there is, despite the current diplomatic stasis, a living model for a fair two-state solution that could lead to peace not only between Israel and Palestine but between Israel and the entire Arab world: the recently reiterated Arab League proposal. The offer is there, if Israel and Washington have the courage to act on it. From the Palestinian point of view--and from that of anyone who supports minimal standards of human rights--it's inevitable that if the two-state solution fades, the calls for inclusion on fully equal terms in one state will grow. And from the Israeli perspective, every "defeat" of Palestinian resistance, every new settlement, will only hasten the day when two populations of roughly equal size, one Jewish and one Palestinian, will be seen by the international community as functioning in essentially one state, under an apartheid system. The "separation wall," which divides the two populations while imprisoning one under the control of the other, will only accelerate that perception. In other words, the Jewish state, qua Jewish state, will in the long run be just as threatened by continuation along the present unilateralist path as by a major shift toward negotiations and reconciliation. All Americans, whatever their ethnicity or religion, are deeply implicated in what happens in Israel/Palestine, given our government's identification with and massive aid to Israel. The conflict is a Middle East crisis, but whether we like it or not, it is very much an American dilemma. No issue inflames opinion against the United States more than its support for Israel's policies toward the Palestinians, which has put us on a collision course with the Arab and Muslim world. We must therefore continually rethink our assumptions. We at The Nation see it as our task to further the debate by providing a forum for it and by exploring all creative solutions. As in the past, we adhere to a general principle that's more important than any particular state formation: The two peoples must be afforded the right to live in peace and dignity, on fully equal terms, whether in one state or two."

- MrCookie1

June 3, 2007 at 2:40pm

That is indeed the actual subject, but the question was obscured by JK's oddly inept landing, like a suddenly confused seagull trying to go for two fish at the same moment. The Nation editorial was of course discussing the broad implications of a one-state solution, while JK implied that they were foolishly or maliciously endorsing one.

- ironyroad

June 3, 2007 at 2:50pm

John B. Judis writes:

A final word: Writers at The New Republic have consistently criticized left-wing blogs for taking a sectarian take-no-prisoners attitude toward publications and organizations on the center-left or center with whom they disagree, including The New Republic and the Democratic Leadership Council. This statement by Kirchick exemplifies the same kind of behavior, although from the right toward the left.

It was good to see a New Republic writer criticize the sloppy commentary by James Kirchick. It requires little in the way of courage to criticize James Kirchick who sits next to bottom on masthead of The New Republic.

However, not a single New Republic writer has been able to muster either the courage or the intellectual integrity to criticize Martin Peretz at the top of the masthead for writing a Spine blog in which he slandered the captured BBC journalist Alan Johnston who is currently facing mortal danger. The comments by Martin Peretz epitomize this sectarian take-no-prisoners attitude toward publications and organizations on the center-left or center with whom they disagree.

For the benefit of those unwilling to soil their fingers by linking to The Spine here is the despicable blog by Martin Peretz:

Frankly, I don't have much sympathy for Alan Johnston, who is among the people he loves, the people for whom he did the kind of propaganda in which the BBC specializes, authoritative in voice, lachrymose in message, banal in argument. And I don't think that his taped message to the world is one of those pathetic instances of the Stockholm syndrome in which people have been won over by their captors. His captors, who call themselves the Army of Islam (what else?), may not be poor Johnston's friends. But, in the objective sense, he is theirs. Unless, of course, when and if they release him into the arms of the British National Union of Journalists, which has pronounced an interdict against Israel, his three months as a prisoner may have swayed him a bit towards understanding that a cause that incarcerates innocents (and sympathetic innocents, no less) is not a just cause at all.

In any case, as an AP dispatch in Ha'aretz makes clear, Johnston has blathered the entire line--both narrative and sentient--of the terror international and its armed divisions in Gaza. The only problem he had was distinguishing who was responsible for what. There were three guilty parties in his recitation: Israel, America and Great Britain. The Brits took the brunt of his critique. Why not? He's a Brit himself. You can't prove your fidelity to fanatics these days simply by mouthing slogans at Israel and at George Bush. You have to kick your mother.

The moral and intellectual fall of Martin Peretz seems to be endless.

- ndmackenzie

June 3, 2007 at 3:21pm

since I haven't read it I can't say if Kirchick is right or not. I did read one of the book reviews and I can say that the idea of forming "a binational or democratic state in all of Israel-Palestine, whose citizens would have equal rights or shared sovereignty." This is a fantasy, as any Jew who has lived in a majority Muslim state can attest. " is not only a fantasy, it is a dangerous fantasy. And I am not even bringing up the numerous historical distortions presented in that review. I wish Mr. Judis would have addressed the three articles separately.

- jacksondyer

June 3, 2007 at 3:22pm

Ah finally.. one of the TNR contributors takes a stance against Kirchik's zealotism.

- jobeek2

June 3, 2007 at 4:20pm

Taking on Kirchik doesn't take much courage. Peretz displays the very same "sectarian take-no-prisoners attitude toward publications and organizations .. with whom" he disagrees. Worse, perhaps, still. Perhaps then, on reflection, a bit cowardly to take on the staff newbie, while remaining silent about the big guy engaging in the same practices.

- jobeek2

June 3, 2007 at 4:25pm

"since I haven't read it [the editorial] I can't say if Kirchick is right or not." If you scroll upwards a few inches, you'll find the entire text at post #7.

- ironyroad

June 3, 2007 at 4:38pm

I do agree with you that taking on the beard - mini - and staying away from the Main Player - marty - is a bit, well, not really cowardly, but let us just say, non heroic. I do sense though, that a big break, new TNR v Marty's increasingly irrelevant ossified TNR is coming and like all internecine/generational splits, it may be hurtful and flesh will torn... but, if this happens, it will be beneficial to the life and relevance of this magazine.

- MrCookie1

June 3, 2007 at 4:43pm

Kirchik's own views are not so problematic as his distortion of the editorial. It seems Judis also sort of misses that in his reply. As others have pointed out, and as anyone can now see by scrolling up to #7, the balance of the editorial is opposed to a single-state Israel/Palestine. Does Kirchik perhaps miss the distinction between "binational" and "two-state" in the editorial? Or does he just object to the tone so strongly that he isn't bothering to comprehend the argument? I think that must be it, or else he'd have been even more upset by what they actually DID say (supporting a two-state solution in order to avoid a trend towards apartheid).

- frippo

June 3, 2007 at 4:43pm

John B. Judis writes:

The two magazines have often disagreed on particulars, but like The Nation, The New Republic has long been on record supporting a two-state solution to the conflict.

The problem is that regardless of the personal opinions of indivudual writers, The New Republic appears to have no institutional committment to the following:

As in the past, we adhere to a general principle that's more important than any particular state formation: The two peoples must be afforded the right to live in peace and dignity, on fully equal terms, whether in one state or two. (my emphasis)

These words end the editorial in The Nation. Any staffer who believes The New Republic to be committed institutionally to full equality between Israelis and Palestinians has not been reading the magazine.

- ndmackenzie

June 3, 2007 at 6:31pm

has no business writing for TNR. His gratuitous bullshit is more trying than a James Michener novel. Once started, you pray for the ending.

- mpatrickhendri

June 3, 2007 at 7:10pm

There's an adult around on the weekend. I hope this won't result in a "Spencer Ackerman special" for Mr. Judis.

- miceelf

June 3, 2007 at 8:14pm

- jacksondyer

June 3, 2007 at 8:38pm

"Nation editors didn't seek out these conclusions, nor do they represent a change in our policy." One wonders why they printed these articles then. "For many years this magazine has supported a two-state solution in which Israel would fully withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967, in accordance with UN resolutions, and a State of Palestine would be formed in those territories, with its capital in East Jerusalem." Well this was always one model of the two State solution. The more realistic one would hold that the borders of these States would be arrived at through negotiations and would not necessarily endorse the 67 lines although they would probably pretty much conform to them with modifications. "But we recognize that as realities on the ground shift, so must our thinking." Realities are always shifting does that mean that we should be changing constitutions and borders every few generations? "Many have begun to wonder whether partition is still possible, given the growing settlements in the West Bank; the collapse of the peace process; the hardening of Israeli attitudes in the face of a second, bloody intifada; the descent of the Palestinian national camp into fratricide; and the unwillingness or inability of the Bush Administration to re-engage in serious peace talks or even to recognize the democratically elected Palestinian government." These laundry list of changing realities are not commensurable. The fact that there is "bloody civil war in Gaza" is not the same kind of obstacle to a two State solution as either the building of settlements or the intifada. Settlements can be moved for the sake of a peace deal and hopefully the intifada will end at the conclusion of a peace treaty. As for the Palestinian civil war, that is an internal affair of the Palestinian people just as the bickering over how Jewish should Israel be is an internal Israeli affair. "But to abandon the two-state solution, as a way out of today's seemingly insuperable barriers, doesn't so much answer questions as raise new ones." This is the least of the problems with such a "final solution" (I am using the terms with all its ignominious historical associations). A binational State means a majority Arab State and the demise of the Jewish State. It does not mean a State where two cultures can live side by side in peace and harmony. There are a number of insurmountable obstacles of which the most important are religion, language, and culture. Then there is the issue of who will own which parcel of land. In a binational State the "refugees" will come knocking at doors and claiming that its their land that the people are living on. In a binational State life will be even more violent than it is today. It will be Iraq raised to the nth degree. Israel/Palestine isn't Belgium or Switzerland and will never be. It will be lucky if it avoids the fate of Rwanda. More likely it will look like Lebanon for a while before it descends into Rwanda. Finally, the Jews who are not known for being stupid even if those on the extreme-left embrace stupidity and blindness for the sake of peace, will never go for it.

- jacksondyer

June 3, 2007 at 8:58pm

Anything that could be constructed in "Palestine", even with Divine intervention, is unlikely to meet the test. Do we really need another Liberia?

- Robert Powell

June 4, 2007 at 7:45am

Means the end of the Jewish state, right? (That's why 95 percent of Israelis oppose it.) If the Nation's editors are interested in exploring that possibiltiy, or however they want to phrase it, then let hem say so directly.

- jhildner

June 4, 2007 at 10:50am