SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Mine Enemies Make Me Wiser

THE SPINE AUGUST 12, 2009

Mine Enemies Make Me Wiser

BY MARTIN PERETZ

The verse is from Psalms 119, that is, King David, poet and hero.

Robert Malley and Hussein Agha are (let me just to be polite say "adversaries" instead of) enemies of Israel. That is why they are so welcome in the New York Review of Books and, of course, on the op-ed page of the New York Times where their latest missive, "The Two-State Solution Doesn't Solve Anything," appeared on Tuesday. (The same piece was published simultaneously in the Guardian, the closest thing to a pro-jihadist publication in ordinary journalism.) While fronting as an academic at St. Antony's College, Oxford, Agha makes no bones about his role as a strategist for the Palestinian leadership or as one of his admirers and the brains behind "J-Street," Daniel Levy, (the son of Lord Levy but that's another ugly story) characterizes him, "a track-II activist." In any case, Agha is not a flack for the official Palestinians; he is really and for all intents and purposes just one of them, even more under their intellectual discipline than Rashid Khalidi. Unlike Khalidi, he is also coarse.

Whether Agha is track-II or track-I, however, Robert Malley was once a real comer. He was a special assistant on Israeli-Arab affairs to President Clinton and then reappeared with basically false narratives of the Barak-Arafat negotiations as the Democratic administration limped to an end. When Barack Obama was running for the nomination, the Clinton campaign put out rumors that Malley was one of Obama's middle east advisers, and then the McCain campaign picked up the same tale, with even less scare-success than Hillary had.

I was one of those who put the kibosh on the story, and I was correct. Malley was not attached to the Obama campaign and he is not attached in any way to the present administration. You can understand why. Primarily, it is because he is against a "two-state solution." There were hints of that in his previous appearances in print. But there are no deceptions in the present Times article. The Times and the NYRB, for that matter, have previously published encomia for a "one-state solution." You will recall Tony Judt's outcroppings for that. But, then, you should also recall Leon Wieseltier's devastation in TNR.

The road to a two-state solution gets more obtruded with time. That is not because of the Israelis, whatever political obstacles there were for Bibi Netanyahu to return to his prior commitment to the formula in his first term as prime minister. Let's face facts: every Israel prime minister except Yitzhak Shamir has favored a two-state solution. It was the essence of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine which was the underpinning of Israel's international legality. Ben Gurion was for a two-state solution, and Sharret and Eshkol and Allon and Golda Meir and Begin and Rabin and Peres and Sharon and Olmert and Netanyahu, too. Had the Arabs accepted a two-state solution after the Six Day War, they would have gotten everything back that they lost, save for the ancient Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. But that is history that almost no one knows which is because almost no one knows any history at all.

The two-state solution is imperfect in that it won't fulfill all of the historic ambitions of the peoples in conflict. But, of course, the major impediment for the Arabs of Palestine and the Arabs outside Palestine is that Israel is and can only be a Jewish state. There is a certain insane chutzpah for the Arabs to object to the Jewish character of Israel. The fact is that its Jewish character was written into its very charter by the General Assembly 62 years ago. Indeed, the whole idea of peoplehood which informed the Wilsonian framework of the post-World War I formula for peace after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire is deeply enmeshed with Zionism. The envisioned Jewish commonwealth was as clear as a nation-state could be. The map of Europe was also almost axiomatic. Only in the Middle East (and, there, only outside of Palestine), however, did the cartography of new countries have to be imagined and invented. The states that were thus created are the cobbled-together and hobbled last impositions of imperialism on the natives: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Jordan. The emirates of the region are just jokes. Well, maybe you do want to go to the Louvre-in-the-sands. And the Guggenheim, too.

Agha and Malley assert at the end of their article that "the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, as in a sense its always been, how to define the state of Israel." Why the essential Jewish character of Israel should be problematic when all of the neighboring states--those actually adjoining and also the non-abutters--define themselves as both Arab and Muslim are exempt from the tribulations of self-definition is difficult to assess. It's not that any of those states are at all achievers. In fact, there is no Arab state that is a success, let alone a secular success.

Imagine for a moment the one-state solution in historic Palestine west of the Jordan. What peace will there be? What economic progress? What laws and what justice? What science? What kind of class system? Try to deny that all of this would be a nightmare.

The one-state solution is a fraud. Those who press it know that it is a fraud. And those who publish it do, as well.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 98 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

98 comments

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Robert Malley's father, Simon, was an Egyptian journalist (of Jewish origin) who founded the reliably anti-Zionist publication French magazine "Afrique-Asie".

- amidut

August 12, 2009 at 11:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

..Why the essential Jewish character of Israel should be problematic when all of the neighboring states--those actually adjoining and also the non-abutters--define themselves as both Arab and Muslim are exempt from the tribulations of self-definition is difficult to assess...

Not really  that difficult!

- basman

August 13, 2009 at 12:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

amidut:

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

george:

It does if it's an orange tree.

And few are more driven to both confuse and fuse apples with oranges in that neck of the woods than Marty Peretz.

gw

- iambiguous

August 13, 2009 at 5:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The other day the New York Times published an op-ed by Robert Malley and Hussein Agha, The Two state solution doesn't solve anything: They conclude: For years, virtually all attention has been focused on the question of a future Palestinian state, its

- Anonymous

August 13, 2009 at 8:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All of the two state proposals are prescriptions for genocide.  As long as Saudi oil money rules the roost there will be no progress for amity.  Malley/Agha is just another in the long line of tropes to set Israel on the road to extinction.  We all know this.  There is only one solution that preserves the Jewish character and nature of Israel: and that is a one state solution for two peoples.  It requires Israel to become a Republic with a Constitution that recognizes two separate communities, religious freedom, civil education etc.  Will it work?  Can it work?  It is a two generation experiment but better for the Jews to take on their own religious fanatics before they become "arabs" and encourage the not inconsiderable number of Muslims who do not want to linger under corrupt and reactionary rule, to ally tacitly with the Jews to build something better than anywhere else in the Middle East.

- jono39

August 13, 2009 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When I read this op-ed, I wondered if you would comment on it. I am glad to see that all Lovers of Zion can depend on you. As for the one state solution - proposed by Buber and Magnus of Hebrew U. it was long ago rejected by the Arabs. . Now that the Arabs, i.e., Palestinian are approaching the possibility of a state a panic sets in - the new campaign will not be for an "end to the occupation" but rather the end of the concept of a Jewish state. It is amazing that of all the newly post-wwII states created the world cannot accept the only one, against all odds, that has become a success story.

Modern Zionism was born out of the naive belief that if the Jews had a state of there own they would be accepted as a normal people, now it seems that the Jews will only be accepted if they don't have a state of their own.

Screw the NYT and all its editorial writers - Israel will be around a hell of a long time after the NYT is dead and buried.

- jneuberg

August 13, 2009 at 10:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love Israel with all my heart, but I am not positive that one state with approximately 50/50 Jewish/Arab population is worse than two separate states that are likely to be enemies. A single state may actually solve Many problems of security that would be problematic with an independent Palestinian state that Israel would be compelled to monitor. It is certainly possible to imagine Palestinians embracing multiculturlaism and prosperity if it were offered to them.

Of course, this would have to be completed in stages. Hillel Halkin suggested some time ago that there should be a partial "Right of Return" as a quid pro quo for allowing all the settlements to remain intact. Over time, as these settlements grow, perhaps more Palestinians would be permitted to become permanent residents of Israel proper. As they live closer together, perhaps the hate would subside. As that happens, perhaps a single political entity can eventually emerge.

I read recently that a large percentage of Israeli Arabs would gladly serve in the IDF. I actually think that it would be a tremendous benefit for Arabs to serve. I can also see big problems, but maybe they should be addressed as an initial step in making Israeli Arabs feel like real citizens.

- r.ennis

August 13, 2009 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Given the enmity between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, it's time to consider a three-state solution.

- nbarry

August 13, 2009 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It is certainly possible to imagine Palestinians embracing multiculturlaism and prosperity if it were offered to them."

r.ennis, I would like to have some of what you are smoking.

- JPKatz

August 13, 2009 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JPKatz, I share your scepticism but stranger thing have happened. Look at Cyprus for example. Besides, I fear that a two state solution will put all of Israel within range of Iranian supplied rockets, leading to some sort of permanent occupation, which would put the situation back to square one,

- r.ennis

August 13, 2009 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One state, two state, three states. We can discuss these alternatives till the cows come home, but it makes no difference if the Arabs pay lip service to agreement while privately considering merely "phase one" in a long-range Judenrein plan.

In terms of confidence bulding measures, I think it's the Arabs turn to show some good faith. Israelis have little reason to trust them after the Oslo debacle and the Gaza nightmare.

- dkrieger

August 13, 2009 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anyone who proposes a one-state solution in historical Palestine is duty-bound to explain exactly how groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (and, to be fair, far-right Israeli groups like Kahane Chai) are going to be induced to live in a single, multi-ethnic state where they cannot simply rule the way they see fit -- and in our present environment, not some magical future time after cooler heads have prevailed.  If they can't do that, they are not to be taken seriously, no matter what their C.V. (and that includes late-period Edward Said, Tony Judt, Ilan Pappe and the authors of the Times Op-Ed).

On the other hand, it seems like lots of online commentators are embracing the vogue of all sorts of mini-states in Palestine -- a Palestinian Hamas state in Gaza, a Palestinian Fatah state in the populated areas of the West Bank, a right-wing Jewish state in the settlements, a left-wing Jewish state in Tel Aviv and Ra'anna, an Israeli Arab state in the Galilee and the Triangle, and a rump Jewish state everywhere else.  There is historical precedent, after all -- there were seven Canaanite nations in the land before the Israelites showed up, and 11 tribal allotments (albeit in an area bigger than historical Palestine).  Everybody back to the Bronze Age!

- wildboy

August 13, 2009 at 2:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

r.ennis said:

"JPKatz, I share your scepticism but stranger thing have happened."

This is not an answer to Katz' objection.

Lets deal in reality here.

There is no Arab or Muslim state that has embraced real multiculturalism, meaning the belief that all cultures and religitions should have equal rights under the law in a secular society.

"I fear that a two state solution will put all of Israel within range of Iranian supplied rockets, leading to some sort of permanent occupation, which would put the situation back to square one."

If an independent Palestinian State will be a threat to Israel, then a single State with the same people who would make up that Palestinian State would be an evern greater threat.

Living side by side with people who hate you could lead to a Rwandan type situation.

An independent (disarmed) Palestinian State livnig in peace alongside Israel is the way to go.

- J. Dyer

August 13, 2009 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jneuberg said:

"Modern Zionism was born out of the naive belief that if the Jews had a state of there own they would be accepted as a normal people, now it seems that the Jews will only be accepted if they don't have a state of their own."

This of course is a mirage since as soon as the Jews become Stateless again all the old prejudices against Jews will resurface within a generation or less.

Besides, we are not just talking about the abolition of a State, but wholesale genocide since Israelis will not just give up their independence willingly.

- J. Dyer

August 13, 2009 at 3:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

r.ennis said:   "Look at Cyprus for example."

Cyprus is not a good example, sinde both communities on the island, Turkish and Greek can look to their brethren in Turkey and Greece for protection.

And while the Arabs of Palestine can look to their brethren in a dozen or more countries, the Jews, an orphan people, have no such option.  

This is why the whole debate is skewed with fantasy claims about Jews being a powerful force in the world.

- J. Dyer

August 13, 2009 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Having watched Daniel Levy destroy Shmuel Rosner in their BloggingHeads dialogue I would love to see a BloggingHeads between Martin Peretz and Daniel Levy.

bloggingheads.tv/.../9972

- ndmackenzie

August 13, 2009 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, all the old prejudices against Jews have already resurfaced (to the extent they have gone under the surface in the first place).  The cruel irony is that, while many of the founders of Israel assumed that the "normalization" of Jews as a people with a sovereign state would end anti-Semitism, it has done nothing of the sort.  Which is actually a good argument against any one-state solution for Jews and Muslims in Israel/Palestine.

- wildboy

August 13, 2009 at 4:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Cyprus is not a good example, sinde both communities on the island, Turkish and Greek can look to their brethren in Turkey and Greece for protection."

Good point Jackson, but that leaves Israel no long term viable option except permanent occupation which probably is not viable either.  

- r.ennis

August 13, 2009 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...ndmackenzie said:

Having watched Daniel Levy destroy Shmuel Rosner in their BloggingHeads dialogue I would love to see a BloggingHeads between Martin Peretz and Daniel Levy.

bloggingheads.tv/.../9972...

Destroy?

Not a chance.

Do you care to debate the case for that non destruction?

I'd think not.

Easy it is to pop off.

Harder it is to actually get down to cases and make an argument. You argue in bad faith, forcing evidence to fit your presuppositions.

- basman

August 13, 2009 at 5:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Occupation": we here, those rational, need to come to terms with that.

My notion is that Israel should leave every scrap of land behind (save fort the Jersualem adjacent communities) that is consistent with its security.

I'm happy to be furher enlightened.

- basman

August 13, 2009 at 5:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Somebody else said this in the NYTimes today, but the Malley piece is long on intellectual theory and short on pragmatics.  Like it or not, for whatever rightful claims of the Palestinians may have, ultimately the problem is with the Arabs: they either accept the presence of a non-Muslim state in their midst or there will be a regional catastrophe that will dwarf Hiroshima/Nagasaki.  

- Lymon1

August 13, 2009 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a late arrival (and late at night) a few comments:

a)  Not surprisingly, I second Jackson's comments (saved me a lot of typing).

b)  There are no good solutions, only the less bad ones.  Unfortunately we are dealing with moving targets and so what might appear to be a less bad one, can easily & quickly morph into the worst possible case. Many, probably most, Israelis would point to unilateral disengagement as an example of an idea that was thought to be doable (albeit with a lot of pain) but now in the aftermath of Lebanon2 (and maybe Lebanon3 coming soon to a theater near you) and Gaza, unilateral withdrawals are thought to be suicidal.

c) "Land needed for security" presumes land needed to block a rain of rockets.  That should include the central mountain range (e.g., Katyusha rockets launched from the heights of Gush Etzion can easily reach the coastal plane including Tel Aviv).  Indeed that would also mean a wide buffer of 15-20 Km or so east of the green line in order to keep the densely populated coastal plain and B-G Int'l airport out of Qassam range.

d)  Last but by no means least.  Watch for the NY Times to push the rise of the "moderates" in the "new & improved" Fatah, because that is what they want to believe and will squelch whatever facts contradict that.  Noah Pollack over at "Contentions" (here: www.commentarymagazine.com/.../76021) does a short but revealing comparison of the reportage of the recently completed Fatah convention by the Times' Isabel Kershner on the one hand (www.nytimes.com/.../12fatah.html) vs. the Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh on the other hand (www.jpost.com/.../Satellite).

Keep in mind that Toameh is an Israeli Arab (Muslim) with family ties to the P.A. territories.  Obviously he is fluent in Arabic, fully conversant in Palestinian culture & politics and doesn't need a fixer to get around the P.A.  Kershner is a starry-eyed western lefty living in Israel for many years.  Who do you think has a better handle on what is going on?  But who will have a greater influence on the Obamanaut's thinking and policy?

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

August 13, 2009 at 6:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lymon,

Do you have a link to that comment?

hg

- ginzy

August 13, 2009 at 6:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

e)  One more option (more or less bad, like the others):  Following an Israeli withdrawal from most (undefined) of Judea & Samaria, the territory gets re-attached to Jordan but this time with Int'l recognition & support from the Arab league.  The P.A. establishment won't like it, but many at the grass roots level remember their years under Jordan fondly.  Jordan won't want to do it (they have their own, existing Palestinian demographic problem as well) but might cave-in if they are convinced that it is the least bad option from their perspective.  Would also require all sorts of trade, financial, investment, and armament sweeteners tossed in to Jordan.

hg

- ginzy

August 13, 2009 at 6:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

r.ennis said:

"Good point Jackson, but that leaves Israel no long term viable option except permanent occupation which probably is not viable either.  "

That may be so, but living without a sovereign Jewish  State is the worse option of all.

Besides, who said that freedom was  easy or cheap?

- J. Dyer

August 13, 2009 at 8:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ginzy said:

"e)  One more option (more or less bad, like the others):  Following an Israeli withdrawal from most (undefined) of Judea & Samaria, the territory gets re-attached to Jordan but this time with Int'l recognition & support from the Arab league...."

This is my preferred option.

- J. Dyer

August 13, 2009 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Daniel Levy is a bloviating neurotic with delusion of "moral" grandeur.

- J. Dyer

August 13, 2009 at 9:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wildboy said:

“Jackson, all the old prejudices against Jews have already resurfaced (to the extent they have gone under the surface in the first place).  The cruel irony is that, while many of the founders of Israel assumed that the "normalization" of Jews as a people with a sovereign state would end anti-Semitism, it has done nothing of the sort.”

It has gone a long way in mitigating antisemitism in the modern world. Ironically it did so by drawing upon itself the focus of all the anger at the existence a Jewish State of the antisemites.  (Antisemitism is at bottom an uncontrollable anger at the existence of Jews, period.) In this way it made it easier for you and me to breathe a little easier.

With the disappearance of the Jewish State the focus will again be on “cosmopolitan Jews,” on “Capitalist Jews,” on “stiff necked” Orthodox Jews, on Jews without a country of their own.

Israel is merely the name of the pretext for Jew hatred in the world today.

- J. Dyer

August 13, 2009 at 9:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wildboy said:

“Jackson, all the old prejudices against Jews have already resurfaced (to the extent they have gone under the surface in the first place).  The cruel irony is that, while many of the founders of Israel assumed that the "normalization" of Jews as a people with a sovereign state would end anti-Semitism, it has done nothing of the sort.”

It has gone a long way in mitigating antisemitism in the modern world. Ironically it did so by drawing upon itself the focus of all the anger at the existence a Jewish State of the antisemites.  (Antisemitism is, at bottom, an uncontrollable anger at the existence of Jews, period.) In this way it made it easier for you and me to breathe a little easier.

With the disappearance of the Jewish State the focus will again be on “cosmopolitan Jews,” on “Capitalist Jews,” on “communist Jews,” on “stiff necked” Orthodox Jews, on Jews without a country of their own.

Israel is merely the name of the pretext for Jew hatred in the world today.

- J. Dyer

August 13, 2009 at 9:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

-- Daniel Levy is a bloviating neurotic with delusion of "moral" grandeur.

As opposed to J. Dyer who is a bloviating psychotic with delusion of "moral" grandeur.

- ndmackenzie

August 13, 2009 at 9:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ndmackenzie said:

"As opposed to J. Dyer who is a bloviating psychotic with delusion of "moral" grandeur."

I have no illusions about the immoral and Jew hating mackenzie.

- J. Dyer

August 13, 2009 at 9:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ndmackenzie said:

"As opposed to J. Dyer who is a bloviating psychotic with delusion of "moral" grandeur."

I have no illusions about the immoral Jew hating cowardly mackenzie.

- J. Dyer

August 13, 2009 at 9:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A voice of reason:

"Al-Arabiya TV Deputy Secretary-General Calls for Resettlement of Palestinian Refugees

Daoud Al-Shiryan, Al-Hayat columnist and deputy secretary-general of Al-Arabiya TV, recently published several articles criticizing how the Palestinian refugees have been treated by the Arab countries in which they live. He called on these countries to integrate the refugees into their societies and to resettle them before they are forced to do so by the international community.

Objecting to Refugee Resettlement Is Objecting to Peace "

www.memri.org/.../latestnews.cgi

- J. Dyer

August 13, 2009 at 10:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jews are experts at living and thriving as minorities in host countries.  Would they be able to turn a single state Palestine in which they were roughly equal in population with non-Jews into a New York City on the Jordan?  Maybe they could.  

- gurdjieff66

August 14, 2009 at 2:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Would they be able to turn a single state Palestine in which they were roughly equal in population with non-Jews into a New York City on the Jordan?  Maybe they could."

and maybe there really is a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny....

hg

- ginzy

August 14, 2009 at 6:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

martin:

The one-state solution is a fraud. Those who press it know that it is a fraud. And those who publish it do, as well.

george:

Okay, maybe your enemies do make you wiser. But my point has always been that you are your own worst enemy. And how much wiser can you possibly be when everything you trumpet here loops back into itself like the beastly bloviators we hear across the entire political spectrum on the internet.

You all share the same dysfunctional, authoritarian complex.

Indeed. One can imagine the lot of you up on a stage. You glower at each other in a circular firing squad. Then you open your mouths and start shooting each other with words.

In the end, of course, the denoument is always the same. Each of you is convinced he was the last wise man standing. Instead, there only are hundreds and hundreds bloviators behind you waiting for their turn up on the stage.

Take a bow?

george

- iambiguous

August 14, 2009 at 7:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unfortunately, Ginzy and Jackson, Jordan would have to be a willing partner to your plans for it. So I believe it is a non-starter. It also leaves open the question of Gaza.

What about offering the Palestinians a "Right of Return" conditioned on it being mutual, i.e. Israelis can settle anywhere in Judea and Samaria (and Gaza) if they wish, with both Palestinians and Israelis maintaining their respective citizenships? This takes care of the demographic threat, permits an independent IDF for defense and sets the stage for an eventual two state confederation at some unforeseeable time in the future. Obviously intermarriage of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs is a problem that would have to be dealt with. I'm just trying to think constructively here and without malice.

Furthermore, Ginzy as someone directly affected, do you believe that allowing Israeli Arabs to serve in the IDF is viable?

- r.ennis

August 14, 2009 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Less than an hour before Shabbat so little time to type.

Israeli Arabs **CAN** volunteer to serve in the IDF if they want to and some (notably a fair number of Bedouin) do.  Israeli Arabs can volunteer to do National Service, often within their own communities, and more do that than serve in the IDF.  There is tremendous pressure within Israeli Arab society **NOT** to volunteer for National Service, ?? ????? (a fortiori) not to volunteer for IDF (the Bedouin mostly view themselves differently from Arabs).

Arabs will serve freely or be drafted into the IDF when the middle east becomes Europe (as opposed to Europe becoming the middle east which is steadily happening).  Europeans don't need (or have) meaningful armed forces (except maybe for Britain.  As long as Israel needs a meaningful army for defense or deterrence, it won't happen beyond a few volunteers.

As I said, Jordan would have to be persuaded that taking responsibility for the "West Bank" is in their interest as the least bad options compared to all of the alternatives.  They are the most terrified of having a Palestinian state on their border, especially if it becomes Islamist.  They already have a tense "Hudna" with a not insignificant Salafi population.

Have to run.

??? ???? -- Shabbat Shalom,

hg

- ginzy

August 14, 2009 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

gurdjieff66 said:

“Jews are experts at living and thriving as minorities in host countries.  Would they be able to turn a single state Palestine in which they were roughly equal in population with non-Jews into a New York City on the Jordan?  Maybe they could.”

Jews were expert at living as minorities they were also experts at being discriminated against, being expelled and being massacred.

Each time Jews thrived in a foreign land, be it Muslim or Christian Spain, Poland, Germany, Russia, or the Soviet Union and the West in general a reaction set in within a couple of generations which made them pay for being successful.

Then there are those countries like the Muslim ones in the mid East were Jews never shed the status of dhimmis.

A one State solution is a final solution to the Jewish State and that’s all it is. Jews will not thrive there any more than Christians thrive in the Middle East.

- J. Dyer

August 14, 2009 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

r.ennis said:

"Unfortunately, Ginzy and Jackson, Jordan would have to be a willing partner to your plans for it. So I believe it is a non-starter. It also leaves open the question of Gaza."

Well of course, but consider that if a one State solution is enactedcd the next step will a demand for a union with Jordan by the Arabs living on that "one State."  It's just a matter of time.

The problem with all these dreamers here is that they never think about the next step.

As Machiavelli said in the Discourses people living in what they consider foreign occupation will promise anything till they take power. After that all bets are off.

- J. Dyer

August 14, 2009 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Furthermore, Ginzy as someone directly affected, do you believe that allowing Israeli Arabs to serve in the IDF is viable?” re-ennis

I wouldn’t trust the Israeli Arab leadership many of whom have made common cause with the PLO and as long as they keep being re-elected by the Arabs in Israel I wouldn’t trust their serving in the army neither.

On the other hand, many Israeli Arabs, Bedouins for example, do serve in the army.

- J. Dyer

August 14, 2009 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

r-ennis: "I'm just trying to think constructively here and without malice."

No one here thinks otherwise, but sometimes constructive thoughts make possible  destructive acts.

- J. Dyer

August 14, 2009 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ginzy,

You will need to read this after Shabbos, but you really need to disabuse yourself of the Israeli right-wing's fantasy that Jordan will somehow again become responsible for the West Bank and the Arabs living there.  It will never ever ever happen as long as the Hashemites are in power -- and every country in the region (not to mention the US and Europeans) wants them in power in Jordan.  Yes, King Abdullah I conquered the West Bank and part of Jerusalem and got along well enough with the Jews to allow Israel to exist after 1949, but Hussein gave up any claims to those areas in the 1970s and the Hashemites know that any attempt to rule over the West Bank Arabs would be a dire threat to the stability of their rule in their own country.  The only way that Jordan would ever resume responsibility for the West Bank Arabs would be in the event of a coup in Jordan that overthrows the Hashemites and creates a majority-Palestinian government that dedicates itself to a reunion with the West Bank.  Of course, such a government would most likely also want a "reunion" with the rest of historical Palestine (sans Jews), so Israel would never accept it.  So much for the mythical "Jordan option".

- wildboy

August 14, 2009 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"....but you really need to disabuse yourself of the Israeli right-wing's fantasy that Jordan will somehow again become responsible for the West Bank and the Arabs living there.  It will never ever ever happen as long as the Hashemites are in power -- and every country in the region (not to mention the US and Europeans) wants them in power in Jordan."  wildboy

Yes, but in the context of a "one State scenario" where a majority of Palestinian Arabs on both sides of the Jordan push for a union, it's hard to see how the Hashemites (or the West with its record of failure in Lebanon and elsewhere) will be able to stand in the way.

- J. Dyer

August 14, 2009 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"....but you really need to disabuse yourself of the Israeli right-wing's fantasy that Jordan will somehow again become responsible for the West Bank and the Arabs living there.  It will never ever ever happen as long as the Hashemites are in power -- and every country in the region (not to mention the US and Europeans) wants them in power in Jordan."  wildboy

Yes, but in the context of a "one State scenario" where a majority of Palestinian Arabs on both sides of the Jordan push for a union, it's hard to see how the Hashemites (or the West with its record of failure in Lebanon and elsewhere) will be able to stand in the way.

- J. Dyer

August 14, 2009 at 12:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fair point, Jackson, but what makes you think that some kind of "condominium" between Hashemite-ruled Jordan (with a majority Palestinian population) and the West Bank makes such a scenario any less likely?  If anything, it makes it much more likely as the Hashemites would find themselves ruling over a much larger population that has no loyalty or relationship to them.  At least most of today's Jordanians of Palestinian descent are Ok with Hashemite rule as it has brought stability to the country over the last 40 years or so.  Not so those who live in the West Bank.  Anyway, isn't it a bit passe to have two sovereign states (Jordan and Israel) decide to dispose of the fates of people who are not resident in either country or citizens of such country?

- wildboy

August 14, 2009 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would appreciate a more dispassionate and less ad hominum report on Malley's background and views, and their evolution over time. Wouldn't mind the same on Daniel Levy from the pen of someone other than Mr Peretz.

A link to Wieseltier's response to Tony Judt and others would also be convenient, and appreciated.

Much water has flowed down the Jordan, and evaporated from the Dead Sea, since the time of Judah Magnes and Martin Buber and their Brit Shalom proposals. Given the current realities of power, ideology, culture, language, and history in Israel/Palestine, it is very difficult for me to imagine a workable single (and democratic) state at this moment in history. In addition, I see no reason, in principle or otherwise, not to support the existence of a self-governing state reflective of Jewish history, tradition, values, and culture. It will not be the state of the Socialist Zionist dreamers that captured my imaginations many decades ago, and it will have its share of imperfections, as do all polities of which I am aware (most certainly including those in Israel's neighborhood, both immediate and somewhat more removed geographically). I am not certain that the greatest talents of the Jewish people over history have been found in the domain of self-government, but witness the world, that is not the criterion for statehood in the modern period.

I do hold out hope for eventual movement toward economic co-operation--perhaps including economic federation or confederation-- among Jewish and Arab states in the region, including but not necessarily limited to Israel, Palestine(s?), and Jordan. In the course of time, given self-respecting nationhood among the peoples of the region, perhaps current hatreds will cool, and economic self-interest will prevail over ethnic and religious ideologies. That will take time--I cannot imagine moving directly from here to there. It will also require considerable external support--few, if any, of these regimes will be truly "viable" without external support for an extended period (as Israel, Jordan, Egypt have all received, both militarily and economically, for decades past).

Putting the pieces in place for such an evolution seems to me far more urgent, and far more promising, than seeking to square the circle resolving the competing national narratives of Jews and Arab Palestinians as proposed by Agha and Malley, and other proponents of a one state approach.

Alan Jay Weisbard ("The Wise Bard")

- weisbardaj

August 14, 2009 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are a wise bard.

Nice post.

- basman

August 14, 2009 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Daniel Levy posts his articles on his blog at:

www.prospectsforpeace.com

I realise the prospect of peace does not thrill Martin Peretz or his acolytes.

The Tony Judt article on "Israel: The Alternative" is at:

www.nybooks.com/.../16671

Leon Wieseltier's response is at:

www.tnr.com/.../story.html

I think the single state solution is not stable. However, with their being no end of the occupation in sight Israel seems intent on rendering a single state the ONLY solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

- ndmackenzie

August 14, 2009 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wildboy said:

“Fair point, Jackson, but what makes you think that some kind of "condominium" between Hashemite-ruled Jordan (with a majority Palestinian population) and the West Bank makes such a scenario any less likely? “

It will probably make it more likely.

The advantage is that it will be part of a two State solution and with Jordan as a guarantor of stability the odds of the PLO or Hamas firing rockets into Israel will be much diminished. Also Jordan’s interest will be in economic growth rather than in futile and self defeating confrontation.

Finally, by linking the Palestinians to Jordan the myth of a “Palestinian” people separate from the Arab world will become just that a myth. The conflict if it were to continue would an Arab Israeli conflict rather than a “Palestinian” Israeli one.

- J. Dyer

August 14, 2009 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

weisbardaj said:

 'I am not certain that the greatest talents of the Jewish people over history have been found in the domain of self-government, but witness the world, that is not the criterion for statehood in the modern period."

Meaning what? There have been  very few periods of Jewish self government in the last couple of thousand years.

"It will also require considerable external support--few, if any, of these regimes will be truly "viable" without external support for an extended period (as Israel, Jordan, Egypt have all received, both militarily and economically, for decades past)."

Israeli statehood is viable economically without external assistance. Most of the aid given to Israel goes for defense. In the context of peace such aid would not be necessary.

- J. Dyer

August 14, 2009 at 4:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

btw: Not the straightforward translation

of that line in the psalm.

- yerubal

August 14, 2009 at 6:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Not the straightforward translation..."

a bit of creative translation and interpretation.  Marty gave it a Nitzschean twist.

- J. Dyer

August 14, 2009 at 7:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yerubal caught a pretty amusing error. The King James version puts it:

Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies:

for they are ever with me.

- ndmackenzie

August 14, 2009 at 7:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is the Hebrew version:

?????????, ????????????? ???????????:    ???? ???????? ????-???

There is more than one way of translating this.

Here is Robert Alter's

Your command (singular not plural as the KJ has it) makes me wiser than my enemies (because I have them forever)

Still the emphasis in the line is on my enemies: ?????????

Literally:    "than my enemies, your command makes me wiser...."

btw: the King James version has some pretty strange translation of a number of passages.  

- J. Dyer

August 14, 2009 at 8:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is an anecdote about antisemitism in the NY Times by Victor Navasky  that is quite memorable:

“El Sid”

“The former ‘Nation’ editor and publisher remembers Sidney Zion, crusading journalist and renegade Jew”   By Victor Navasky

“I’ve already said that Sid had a love-hate relationship with the Times. Let me give an example. In his last years at the Times, Sid got a tip that Judge Henry Friendly, then perhaps the preeminent appellate court judge in the country and prominently mentioned as a possible U.S. Supreme Court nominee, many years earlier failed to disqualify himself from ruling on a case in which he had a conflict of interest. Assured by Managing Editor Abe Rosenthal that if he got the goods the Times would print the piece, Sidney spent the next weeks definitively documenting the story. But when the time came to print it, Rosenthal was overruled by James Reston, who was then running the paper. Reston summoned Zion into his 10th floor office, and from behind his imposing desk, explained that if Friendly actually received a Supreme Court nomination, the Times would run the story. But absent that, Reston was not about to run a piece that would cast a dark shadow on Friendly’s otherwise distinguished career.

“The difference between you and me, Mr. Zion,” Reston said, “is that you were brought up as a poor Jew on the scrappy streets of Passaic, New Jersey, whereas I was brought up in the Church of Scotland outside of Glasgow.” At this point, Sidney rudely interrupted. “I thought that the difference between us,” he said, “is you are sitting there, whereas I am sitting here.””

www.tabletmag.com/.../el-sid

- J. Dyer

August 14, 2009 at 9:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ginzy:

Less than an hour before Shabbat so little time to type.

george:

Hmm...

What happens if you type on Shabbat? Does it break the fourth commandment? Is God careful to take into account time zones? It may have been the Shabbat in an hour where you are but for folks East of Israel may already be well into the Shabbat.

Also, in my own Bible [The Big Lebowski] Walter Sobchak makes references to it:

"I told those fucks down at the league office a thousand times that I don't roll on Shabbos!"

and:

"Saturday, Donny, is Shabbos, the Jewish day of rest. That means that I don't work, I don't get in a car, I don't fucking ride in a car, I don't pick up the phone, I don't even turn on the oven...."

And:

"My point is, here we are, it's shabbas, the sabbath, which I'm allowed to break only if it's a matter of life or death..."

And:

The Dude: "You're living in the fucking past"

Walter: "Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax... "

george:

Walter and The Dude also enjoy making fun of nihilists. Being a nihilist myself, I took umbrage. But friends pointed out how grasping the irony embedded in the The Big Lebowski is like taking apart a set of Russian nesting dolls. Just when you start thinking you've got the irony by the balls you realize it's just another level that spirals all the way down to Andy Warhol.

Then down to the Big Bang itself.

gw

- iambiguous

August 15, 2009 at 12:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JD:

The problem with all these dreamers here is that they never think about the next step.

george:

Imagine a room filled with dreamers. Each one represents a religious order from around the globe. Then, one by one, they all stand up and say, "We are God's chosen people because..."

Now, given the fact that believing in the right God is literally [or so they say] a matter of life and death....salvation, immortality....how do we narrow it down to THE God? Or is blind faith always the next step here?

That or Soren Kierkegaard's leap of faith? Or Blaise Pascal's wager?

george

- iambiguous

August 15, 2009 at 12:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No new messages, yet.

- J. Dyer

August 15, 2009 at 10:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right,  the Palenstinians have mulitple nations lining up to protect them (done a great job so far) and nobody, absolutely nobody, is there for Israel.

It's just ridiculous.

- P.E.Overbrook

August 15, 2009 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

«Daniel Levy is a bloviating neurotic with delusion of "moral" grandeur.»

I love this sort of description. Glad to see everyone at their posts.

- luispc

August 16, 2009 at 5:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

P.E.Overbrook said:

“Right,  the Palenstinians have mulitple nations lining up to protect them (done a great job so far) and nobody, absolutely nobody, is there for Israel.”

Uberbrook, is both ignorant and ridiculous:

The Arabs of mandate Palestine had more than a half dozen Arab nations go to war with Israel for its sake. Later on the PLO had the support of the Arab League, the Soviet bloc, and many third world nations. This support is still there in terms of money and diplomacy. Moreover, even though the Soviets are not there any more the Muslim world, some of whom, like Iran, support the Palestinians with weapons of war.

The UN, which is supposed to be neutral, has become a disseminator of antisemitic propaganda.

Israel has had only one steadfast ally the US.

- J. Dyer

August 16, 2009 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

P.E.Overbrook said:

“Right,  the Palenstinians have mulitple nations lining up to protect them (done a great job so far) and nobody, absolutely nobody, is there for Israel.”

Uberbrook, is both ignorant and ridiculous:

The Arabs of mandate Palestine had more than a half dozen Arab nations go to war with Israel for its sake. Later on the PLO had the support of the Arab League, the Soviet bloc, and many third world nations. This support is still there in terms of money and diplomacy. Moreover, even though the Soviets are not there any more the Muslim world, some of whom, like Iran, support the Palestinians with weapons of war.

The UN, which is supposed to be neutral, has become a disseminator of antisemitic propaganda.

Israel has had only one steadfast ally the US.

Finally, just because these allies haven’t done much to better the lives of the Palestinians doesn’t mean they are not trying to destroy Israel. In fact the main reason the Palestinians are in such bad shape is that they more interested in destroying Israel than in bettering their own lives.

Failure of aim isn’t proof of a lack of support.

- J. Dyer

August 16, 2009 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luispc,  Glad to see Luis is back at his post.

- J. Dyer

August 16, 2009 at 10:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luispc said:

"«Daniel Levy is a bloviating neurotic with delusion of "moral" grandeur.»

I love this sort of description."

Well check out the sorry blog of Daniel Levy:

www.prospectsforpeace.com

Leaving aside the pretentious name of his blog all his friends who post there are "great and distinguished authors" while the people who oppose his views like Nathan Sharansky are merely "right wing and occupation apologists."

Any debater who can't respect the people he argues against especially on human rights issues doesn't stand for peace or for human rights.

Levy can descry the just criticism of 'human rights watch' for fundraising in Saudi Arabia all he wants, but it's not something easily explained.

- J. Dyer

August 16, 2009 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As long as we are on the topic of enemies making one wiser....

Last week HRW released one of a string of "reports" on Israel's ostensible "war crimes" during Cast Lead.  The latest report was written by one Joe Stork, HRW's deputy director of HRW’s Middle East and North Africa programs (the director is Sarah Whitson, more on her later) a rabid Israel hating radical going back to the 1970's.

One of Israel's more interesting (and intellectually honest), left-wing but unabashedly Zionist columnists Ben-Dror Yemini reviews and reveals Storks ugly, bigoted history as a charter member of the modern-day antisemitic radical left (ndmac would probably love this guy) which spawned the current generation of progressobabbelians.  Yemini's column appears in today's edition of the Hebrew language daily Ma'ariv (here: www.nrg.co.il/.../244.html ).

Among other "progressive" positions, Stork supported the Munich massacres.

Although Ma'ariv ended its English language web site several years ago, you non-Hebrew readers are in luck today, as Noah Pollak at Contentions has provided an English language translation of Yemini's column here: www.commentarymagazine.com/.../76201

Regarding Sarah Whitson, Stork's apparent boss at HRW, she is no slouch either, having a long and storied record of hostility toward and bias against Israel.  She, of course, led HRW's fund raising junket to Saudi Arabia (hey, when it comes to supporting HRW Director Ken Roth's $350,000 salary, you have to think big).  David Bernstein, whose WSJ piece told the sorry story of HRW's Saudi solicitations also has a nice bias-bio (with links) of Sarah Whitson here: volokh.com/.../archive_2009_08_02-2009_08_08.shtml

Add to the above mix NGO Monitor's dissections of HRW's inherently flawed methodology and it should be clear that the HRW emperor is buck naked.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

August 16, 2009 at 5:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

-- ndmac would probably love this guy

The kind of guys I do not love are those like Hershel Ginzburg who openly commit war crimes by settling as Israelis in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These kind of guys have long since betrayed their religion and their God in favor of the militaristic racism Europeans rightly call neo-nazism.

- ndmackenzie

August 16, 2009 at 8:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ndmackenzie said:

"The kind of guys I do not love are those like Hershel Ginzburg who openly commit war crimes..."

What else would one expect from an antisemite like mackenzie. I suppose being British he thinks he has a right to be judge, jury and executioner.

In any case, it is mackenzie friends in the PLO and Hamas who stand accused as criminals for mounting a war against civilians.  Mackenzie is an enabler and should also stand trial as a co-conspirator.

- J. Dyer

August 16, 2009 at 10:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In my travels in Israel the last three weeks I encountered many war criminals like Ginzy. They are the kind that mackenzie's nightmares are made of: happy Israelis. Young israeli women either pregnant, carrying a baby or pushing a toddler's stroller, or all three at once. What? Jews, happy? mackenzie must be turning and tossing with the dreadful injustice of it all.

- noga1

August 17, 2009 at 2:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the idea of letting a certain number of Palestinians settle in Israel as non-voting residents, and an identical number of Jews settling in the new Arab state in West Bank and Gaza, is a promising one.  At least an idea worth putting on the table.

- gurdjieff66

August 17, 2009 at 3:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

-- In my travels in Israel the last three weeks I encountered many war criminals like Ginzy. They are the kind that mackenzie's nightmares are made of: happy Israelis. Young israeli women either pregnant, carrying a baby or pushing a toddler's stroller, or all three at once. What? Jews, happy?

Ginzy doesn't live in Israel, he lives in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

I'm sure had you travelled through Germany in the 1930s you would have found many happy Germans, all as certain then as are now the Israelis who live in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that tomorrow belongs to them.

- ndmackenzie

August 17, 2009 at 4:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga:

In my travels in Israel the last three weeks I encountered many war criminals like Ginzy. They are the kind that mackenzie's nightmares are made of: happy Israelis.

george:

I'm sure there were lots of happy Americans around when the Indian lands were plundered. Just as there were lots of happy Americans around who had slaves to do all the back breaking work.

Right?

Fast forward to all the Germans who were giddily happy plundering the possessions of the Jews sent off to the extermination camps.

Twist the rationalizations into whatever moral pretzel floats your boat, sure, but for Israelis to plunder the lands of others who were guilty only of being pawns on a board owned and operated by all the happy folks in the "civilized world" ever slicing and dicing "the masses" to suit the needs of global capitalism, speaks volumes about just how far down into the sewer some hypocrites are willing to go.

george

- iambiguous

August 17, 2009 at 4:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mackenzie: “I'm sure had you travelled through Germany in the 1930s you would have found many happy Germans, all as certain then as are now the Israelis who live in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that tomorrow belongs to them.”

I am sure that mackenzie’s forebears did travel through Germany (just like the Jerusalem Mufti a few years later) at the time and saw the Jews, then as now, as colonizers who didn’t “belong there.”

His use of the nazi analogy is an indication of his deep antisemitic hatred of Jews.  

- J. Dyer

August 17, 2009 at 8:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The same applies to the happy poster George Walton another antisemitic hypocrite who doesn't seem to understand that he and his family have benefited from the "plundering of Indian lands."

- J. Dyer

August 17, 2009 at 8:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The false analogy of "Arabs" as "Indians" is false as well as tiresome.

It is the Jews were the "Indians" whose land was plundered by the Arab invaders (and before them the Romans, and the Greeks).

In any case, there is a historical connection between Jews and the land of Israel which is lacking with Eurpeans (like mackenzie and George Walton) in the lands in which they settled.

- J. Dyer

August 17, 2009 at 8:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More in support of Hershel Ginsburg’s post above:

“Human Rights Watch and the Veteran Extremist”

“OK, if the following is true, then I have completely lost trust in Human Rights Watch.”

David T, August 17th 2009, 9:05 am

www.hurryupharry.org/.../human-rights-watch-and-the-veteran-extremist

None of this surprises me since I have had little trust in these hypocritical “human rights” NGO in the first place. NGOism is the invention of former leftists who realize that they dream of a “proletariat revolution” is not about to happen and that the Soviet Union had completely discredited communism as a legitimate political force.

‘Human rights” are no being used as a political tool in order to push an anti-Western, antisemitic, and anti-Capitalist agenda.

- J. Dyer

August 17, 2009 at 8:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I think the idea of letting a certain number of Palestinians settle in Israel as non-voting residents, and an identical number of Jews settling in the new Arab state in West Bank and Gaza, is a promising one.  At least an idea worth putting on the table."

Me too, obviously. Posting insults at each other, which has become almost a full time activity for many on this site will accomplish absolutely nothing but ill will.  

- r.ennis

August 17, 2009 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Me too, obviously."

Why so, why are you in favor of letting " a certain number of Palestinians settle in Israel as non-voting residents?"

- J. Dyer

August 17, 2009 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"(W)hy are you in favor of letting " a certain number of Palestinians settle in Israel as non-voting residents?"

1. As a quid pro quo for letting settlers stay where they are while still being Israeli citizens.

2. To defuse the "Right of Return" issue.

3. To lay the groundwork for an eventual rapprochement.

4. Because, even if not accepted, it puts Israeli on the moral high ground, without giving anything away.

- r.ennis

August 17, 2009 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mackenzie's and George's hostile responses to the idea that Israelis are happy were so predictable. They are nothing but antisemitic cliches, both of them.

- noga1

August 17, 2009 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga,

If you were here in Israel why didn't you look me up?  I would have loved to give you a Gush Etzion tour (it covers 2,000+ years of history & archeology & wine).  No charge.  It's a hobby of mine.

hg

- ginzy

August 17, 2009 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for the cite and link to the Leon Wieseltier response to Tony Judt. It is indeed an impressive response. Has Judt ever explicitly taken it on?

To J. Dyer: I have no particular stake in extending a debate on Jewish capacity for wise and prudent self-government. I did have in mind the entire reach of Israelite/Jewish history, at least back to the decision to institute the monarchy. I find myself largely in agreement with Samuel on that point. In later times, my view is influenced by the work of Yehoshofat Harkabi, Israel's one time chief of military intelligence and Hebrew U. scholar.

On viability: Israel has probably received more external financial aid per capita (from both governments, particularly the US, and the worldwide Jewish community) than any entity in world history, with the possible exceptions of the Vatican and the Palestinians of Gaza. My impression is that those representing Israel have not stressed its "viability" (in the absence of external support) in seeking those funds--to which I have contributed to the extent of my means since the early 1970s. There was a period, particularly during the 1990s, when a number of prominent Israelis argued that the country had become sufficiently prosperous and self-sustaining that it should abjure the charity of others. To the best of my knowledge, that never became Israeli policy.

To the extent Israel has become economically self-supporting at European levels, that is an achievement to be celebrated. But if that were the test for Israel's creation, we would still be waiting (whether for Godot, or the moshiah, I will leave to others to judge). But the quest for viability, as Israel itself proves, is an ongoing process, and the fact that a new state may require external sources of nurture do not necessarily counsel against its creation in the modern world. The reduction in risk to world peace of a two, or three, or more state solution in Israel/Palestine/Jordan/Lebanon...is worth some continuing subsidy, whether from the US, the West, the UN, Saudi Arabia, or the Gulf States...

--The Wise Bard

- weisbardaj

August 17, 2009 at 3:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why should it be unthinkable for Israel to include Arabs with full rights of citizenship, and Palestine to include Jews with full rights of citizenship in that polity?

More interesting, over the course of time, a confederation of economic partners in which Jews living in areas surrounding Israel might combine (extraterritorial) Israeli citizenship with permanent residency rights in the state in which they reside, and Arab permanent residents of Israel with the choice of full citizenship in a nearby Palestinian State?

What is the fixation with "equal numbers", or the notion of mandated "non-voting" residency? Or is this meant to apply solely to a specified number of Palestinian refugees allowed by Israel to settle within its territorial borders under some fudge on the Palestinian right of return, as a tradeoff for Jewish settlers in the "territories"?

--The Wise Bard

- weisbardaj

August 17, 2009 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why should it be unthinkable for Israel to include Arabs with full rights of citizenship, and Palestine to include Jews with full rights of citizenship in that polity?"

Not unthinkable. Only premature while there is such hatred and distrust.

- r.ennis

August 17, 2009 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There was a period, particularly during the 1990s, when a number of prominent Israelis argued that the country had become sufficiently prosperous and self-sustaining that it should abjure the charity of others. To the best of my knowledge, that never became Israeli policy."  self declared wise bard

This isn't a complete account of what happened.

Israel, especially the Likud, wanted to stop non military American aid, but it was the US government that insisted on its continuance. This was because unless Israel received aid the aid given to to Egypt would be in some jeopardy.

As to your first point, I have no idea what you are driving at.

“To J. Dyer: I have no particular stake in extending a debate on Jewish capacity for wise and prudent self-government.”

Now, what world government would stand the test of having produced “wise and prudent” governments for most of its history? Certainly not the ancient Greek; most countries have had periods of wise governance but it usually doesn’t last. The countries that survive do so because of their ability to use force.

“I did have in mind the entire reach of Israelite/Jewish history, at least back to the decision to institute the monarchy.”

Good for you. This doesn’t mean anything in historical terms. Jewish history is very long and the fact that the people survived at all, they must have been doing something right.

- J. Dyer

August 17, 2009 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“What is the fixation with "equal numbers", or the notion of mandated "non-voting" residency? self declared  Wise Bard

In the modern world, the world were people like to give lip service to the notion of equal rights, the idea of a non voting group of residence in a country would come to seem as at best discrimination and at worse as apartheid.  Beware of fixing a difficult problem with temporary solutions. Allowing a group of Palestinians to settle in Israel without the right of vote, even if they agreed to it, is not a good idea; such a contract could not be made binding on their offspring.

In any case, demography in a democratic world is destiny.

“More interesting, over the course of time, a confederation of economic partners in which Jews living in areas surrounding Israel might combine (extraterritorial) Israeli citizenship with permanent residency rights in the state in which they reside, and Arab permanent residents of Israel with the choice of full citizenship in a nearby Palestinian State?”

First let’s have a prosaic peace; afterward we can begin to dream utopian schemes.

- J. Dyer

August 17, 2009 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Not unthinkable. Only premature while there is such hatred and distrust."

Agree, ennis, see my next posts which in part were also addressed to you.

- J. Dyer

August 17, 2009 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually in his first term as PM, Netanyahu ended US civilian aid to Israel over a period of several years.  The only US aid Israel receives now is military aid, much of which must be spent in the USA, and some of which is used in joint R&D projects that benefit both countries (e.g., the Chetz / Arrow anti-missile system, and the anti-rocket defenses currently under development).

hg

- ginzy

August 17, 2009 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

«If you were here in Israel why didn't you look me up?  I would have loved to give you a Gush Etzion tour (it covers 2,000+ years of history & archeology & wine).  No charge.  It's a hobby of mine.»

If you extend the invitation, I'll take it. I was planning to go to Israel with my family this year. I couldn't for family reasons that extend until next year (new baby). But in two, maybe three years time, I'll surely go.

- luispc

August 17, 2009 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If you were here in Israel why didn't you look me up?  I would have loved to give you a Gush Etzion tour ..."

Thanks, ginzy. We did travel through Gush Etzion on our way from Jerusalem to Zur Hadassa.

- noga1

August 18, 2009 at 2:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga,

J'lem to Tzur Hadassa (I assume you went through the tunnels) doesn't even reach the northern edge of Gush Etzion (you did pass by Beitar Illit).

Do you have family in Tzur Haddassah?  It's a nice town. My youngest daughter learned horseback riding their about 6-7 Years ago.

hg

- ginzy

August 18, 2009 at 7:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay luis, although the tour is not made for young kids.  one condition -- no lectures about Spinoza and how he is representative of Judaism.

hg

- ginzy

August 18, 2009 at 7:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Beware of fixing a difficult problem with temporary solutions. Allowing a group of Palestinians to settle in Israel without the right of vote, even if they agreed to it, is not a good idea; such a contract could not be made binding on their offspring."

Why not? Israelis in Palestine would be subject to the same situation, so where is the discrimination? Sure, the fix is temporary. In the long run, my vision would be a two-state confederation, one mostly Jewish, one mostly Arab, with a common capital in Jerusalem. The next generattion is sure to see things differently, if they are not indoctrinated in hate. And the more interaction, the quicker that change will come.  

- r.ennis

August 18, 2009 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ginzy: make a spot for me and my wife on the tour as we may well be in Israel this winter. Here's the difference between me and Luis: him you have to tell "no lecture on Spinoza"; me you have to tell "no dirty jokes and not to play my Eminem cds too loudly".

- basman

August 18, 2009 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

r.ennis,

There has been loads of interaction for over 40 years. There are scads of programs having Pal kids meet and talk or play soccer or go to camp or what have you with Israeli kids and they have been for years.  It doesn't make a difference.  There is this naive fantasy among many Westerners that if somehow Pals & Israelis would just get to know each other everything would be wonderful.  We do know each other.

Marwan Bargouti speaks a fluent Hebrew and was the darling of Israeli lefties through the '90's (for some hopeless naifs, he still is).  Didn't make a difference.  He is now serving 5 consecutive(?) life sentences for murder + 40 years for a slew of assault & batteries, all committed during the Oslo Accords War **AFTER** he knew so many Israelis.

For a more reality-based assessment of the Pal-Israeli conflict see Caroline Glick's piece "The Stabilization Plan" in the June 2009 Commentary, here:

www.commentarymagazine.com/.../the-stabilization-plan-15160

Granted, not very optimistic, but Israelis are now extremely skeptical and wary about "Peace in Our Time" kinds of promises.  See the recent election results.  Frankly, most Israelis at this point would love to part with the Pals if doing so wouldn't produce a rain of rockets & Iran at our doorstep.  Halkin's ideas are pure LaLaLand.

BTW, there are some Pals (the ones you don't hear about) for whom the idea of the P.A. & its leadership class evolving into a state is terrifying & would like nothing more than to be annexed by Israel & become Israeli citizens.  More and more Pals from  the eastern parts of J'lem are moving into various western J'lem neighborhoods as insurance against what they see as the crazy ideas of Clinton (B&H), Obama & the like.

hg

- ginzy

August 18, 2009 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fair enough Basman... your caveat is that you take me out to lunch as part of the tour either at the G.E. winery or at Gavna's (two fine dairy restaurants).  Also no dirty jokes or eminem CDs.

Other caveat -- work (what I do for $$) permitting.  Advanced notice is appreciated.

hg

- ginzy

August 18, 2009 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ginzy, if so many Arabs prefer Israeli citizenship, why are you so frightened that a few more will turn the place into an Islamist nightmare? These two concepts are inconsistent. Unfortunately, Israel's tactical objectives in the short run are at odds with strategic objectives in the long run.

I also fear that time is running out. Support here may be high but criticism is becoming increasingly shrill, even among Jews. I attended a meeting for Sen Specter in Pittsburgh arranged by the local UJF and was shocked at how critical many of the questioners were.  That's also a reality based assessment.

- r.ennis

August 18, 2009 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

your caveat is that you take me out to lunch as part of the tour either at the G.E. winery or at Gavna's (two fine dairy restaurants).  

That's no caveat at all.

It would be my pleasure to take you to lunch anywhere you want with no needed quo for that quid.

- basman

August 18, 2009 at 12:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close