One of the problems you have is that you take for granted that those who disagree with you are in favour of “privilege” and oppose “universalism”. You fail to understand that you are the one who believes that every time the rights of Jews and the rights of Palestinians contradict each other, the Palestinians must prevail. On top of that, you seem to genuinely ignore what are the rights and duties of a nation state (perhaps you should read Yakobson and Rubinstein again). You can’t blame Israel for violating international law and argue, in the same breath, that it can’t benefit from it. A state is required to grant equal civil and political rights to all its citizens. It is not required to be culturally neutral nor to have a neutral immigration policy. However, it is precisely because I care for the rights of Palestinians too that I was already in favour of a confederal solution to the conflict while you were still a steadfast proponent of “separation.” A confederation (with a joint army and a joint foreign policy) would give this new polity all the trappings of a joint country without depriving any people of its right to self-determination.
Isaiah Berlin used to say that we live in a world of conflicting rights, and those who are willing to do away with all rights that step in the way of those they cherish most inescapably veer into tyranny (abolishing democratic rights for the sake of equality, for example).
There are creative ways to accommodate both Palestinian and Israeli rights. You should know better. Using the refugee issue to justify the dismantling of Israel is just disingenuous.
Finally, Yemini and Hazkani’s claims are not mutually exclusive. Uri Avnery himself said that at the outset of the war (which killed 1% of Israeli Jews, 8% of Jewish males aged between 19 and 21, and displaced 10% of Israeli Jews), the Yishuv genuinely feared annihilation. However, after its early successes, it decided to take revenge and conquer as much land as possible. Once again, you seem to be fond of false dilemmas, just like Yemini and Haskani!
One last thing: anti-Zionists love to say that Jewish statehood is anachronistic (Tony Judt), but you are those who transpose today’s reality onto the past. Jews are not in danger anymore. However, in the late 1940s, the world was still divided between countries that persecuted Jews and those that refused to welcome them. It was impossible at the time to predict that their situation would improve so much during the second part of the 20th century. This is why the creation of a Jewish state was seen as a necessity by most progressive minds. As for those who (anachronistically) claim that a Jewish state should have been established in Germany after WW2, they seem to ignore that the Yishuv already existed way before the Holocaust.
Isaac Deutscher used to compare the Israel-Palestine conflict to a man jumping off a building in fire who injures a passer-by. While the Israeli right resolve this dilemma by saying that the Palestinians had no right to walk on their side of the street to begin with, you fail to realize that you are blaming Jews for not staying in the blaze. This argument is not very convincing either!
I’m writing from the South Hebron Hills where I am with the Center for Jewish NonViolence. Just read your piece, Peter. Many thoughts, but for the minute just this. Hillel’s three questions (if not for myself, if only for myself; if not now…) seem to be at the core here. People sometimes see his questions as trite, but in the context of Israel/Palestine, these questions are heartbreaking. I sit here in a village in the Firing Zone where people are trying to live their lives and raise their children while their whole village is now threatened with complete demolition with no right to rebuild or return. It tastes like dust in my mouth to ask “Is this good for us as Jews?”
Hillel’s last question (If not now, when?) needs to be understood as not valuing one question over the other. They are equal in value and in time. This is tough. Hillel’s questions have no easy answers. Neither does Peter’s
All the Palestinian organizations we are working with are dedicated to nonviolent resistance and would not work with us if we weren’t so dedicated as well. Palestinian nonviolent resistance is happening every single day and is more extensive in participation, but gets less attention in the media. Many organizations (such as the Youth of Sumud and Masafer Yatta Community Council) all operate on nonviolent principles and strategies. The resisting villages are as well.
Really consider why you don’t know this. Is it because it is easier on your conscience to assume that all Palestinian resistance to being occupied is violent?
Peter, while I applaud the willingness to confront arguments against your position of a one-state solution, I don't think either one of them is the strongest argument against the 1SS.
The strongest argument against the 1SS is that the Jewish people will no longer be equal to the dozens of other nations who have states. They will no longer have a voice or a vote at the United Nations. In a 1SS, they would once again be a minority in a secular (at best) or more likely Arab state, with the government of that state speaking not for them but for the Palestinian Arab majority.
You referenced this when you wrote "But putting that aside, I think the answer is probably no. I can’t guarantee that a future equal Israel-Palestine would necessarily, you know, send planes to pick up some persecuted group of Jews in the Horn of Africa. I mean, why would Palestinian political leaders necessarily feel like that was one of their paramount concerns?"
So you can't deny that the Jewish people would suffer, lose their rights, lose their voice and be worse off in your 1SS. That's the whole point of your second argument, the particularism argument. But rather than raise up the Palestinians and advocate for them to have their own state, the state they want and have murdered thousands of people in pursuit of, you call for the Jewish people to be cast down instead. No wonder you're struggling with the second one. You know, in your heart, it's wrong. Very, very wrong.
Why do you assume that Israelis would lose their power in a shared state? Unless you see their power as only possible within a brutal oppression of Palestinians?
Simple math. There are 14 million Palestinian Arabs and 6 million Israeli Jews. In a single state, the Palestinian Arabs would be the democratic majority by a huge margin, and thus be able to use their democratic rights to remake that single state into whatever form they would like. I have absolutely no reason to expect they wouldn't use that vote to make the single state the same as the current state of Palestine: an Arab Muslim state with Islam as its official religion and shar'ia law as the basis of its laws.
That's the total population of Palestinians around the world, not in Palestine. The analogue to that is the total population of Jews, which his around 15 million.
Palestinians living in Palestine are around the same as the population of Jews in Palestine.
The total population of Palestinians living in Palestine plus the population of Palestinians who are living in refugee camps in Syria, Jordan etc. who would be moving to your one state is around 10.5 million, which is still a much larger majority of the 6 million Israeli Jews (assuming, of course, that every single Jew remains, a huge assumption). Jews from around the world would not be moving to this single state, because they're not forced to languish in refugee camps under apartheid conditions.
What makes you think Palestinians won't use their vote in a single state to make this new state the same as the state of Palestine (and most other Arab majority states): An Arab Muslim state with Islam as the official religion and shar'ia as the basis for the law?
"the Jewish people will no longer be equal to the dozens of other nations who have states."
Jewish people are citizens of different nations including Israel, USA, ...etc. Jews do not need Israel to have rights. They already have rights. May be too many rights.
Palestinians on the other hand, need to have Palestine/Israel to have rights.
Jews being 40-50% of the electorate would be a significate portion of the population who are unlikely to vote for all Palestinian leaders in a binational state. Even Palestinians are unlikely to vote all Palestinian leaders, since people don't only vote for members of their own nation/ethnicity.
On top of that the history of Zionism and Israel/Palestine has been one where Jews have been dominant and privileged at the expense of Palestinians. So the chances that a previously subjugated group constituting half or slightly more than half of the population will take over the entire government of a state they share with the people who subjugated them are not high. And if that *does* end up happening (unlikely) because that it is how the democratic process unfolds, then that is just what people will have to accept. Airlifting Jews from Africa is not more important than people having basic rights in their own country, and the supposed need to do this (because this is obviously a regular occurrence, lol) does not justify violating those rights.
You're making numerous assumptions based on no evidence and no precedent. Why should anyone support you gambling millions of Jewish lives on these baseless predictions?
Your statement about taking over the government shows that you have little to no understanding of how the Middle East works. In Palestine, and many other ME countries, once an election happens (IF an election happens), the winning party takes over the entire government by force and rules it as an authoritarian dictatorship. That's what happened in Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and others. So, YES, the chances of a group constituting half of the population taking over the entire government of the state they share is high. Very high.
"Airlifting Jews from Africa is not more important than people having basic rights in their own country,"
Yes, I know that for you and Peter Jewish lives are not as important as Palestinian comfort, but if you actually wanted people to have basic rights in their own country, you would support the two state solution. It would give both peoples their basic rights in their own countries.
Beinart, what's so jarring about El-Kurd's quote? He doesn't give a fuck about what happens to Israeli Jews in a one state solution, and NEITHER DO YOU.
You don't care that they lose their national rights, their sovereignty, their representation at the UN. You don't care that they'll be under the control of a Palestinian Arab majority that absolutely hates them and has been taught from birth to fight and kill them. You don't care that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Lion's Den will be let loose into Israel to do whatever they want to any Israeli Jew they get their hands on, and the government will no longer be interested in or able to protect them.
What is particularly disgusting about this entire argument you make over and over is that you're willing to gamble the lives of millions of innocent people, people who are part of a historically oppressed minority group, people who have been persecuted, abused, and genocided throughout history, without even an iota of evidence that anything will work out the way you say it will but you're not even willing to put yourself among them. You don't live in Israel, so you just sit in your ivory tower looking down and judging other people thousands of miles away, making pronouncements based on no evidence but rather your insipid feelings of how the world works. I think it's ridiculous and disgusting that you're rendering moral judgements on Israelis and telling them how to run their lives.
I see your only response to Israel's legitimate security concerns about Palestinian terrorism and murder is the race card and your baseless claim with no evidence that the Palestinians will become 100% peaceful if they're "allowed to participate in politics", and that's not even close to good enough.
El-Kurd is saying what you and your supporters are all thinking. He just has the courage to say it out loud.
Assuming that the risk is as you claim -- which is itself a racist and implausible assumption --, that is just a risk, with some possibility that things will work out fine. But the oppression of Palestinians is not a risk but an actual reality happening right now. You think that the mere possibility of harm of Jews worse than actual oppression of Palestinians. This tells me everything I need to know about you.
Given how no "one state solution" has ever succeeded in the history of humanity, it is no more taking a risk than jumping off a bridge is "taking a risk" that you won't die. Asserting there's a "possibility that things will work out fine" is laughably naive and childish. Why not expel all the Palestinians to Jordan then? After all, there's a possibility that things will work out fine!
Self-defense is not oppression, and the human rights of Jews supersede Palestinian desire for property. The fact you think Palestinian comfort and greed for land is more important than the right of Jews to live tells me everything I need to know about *you!*
“Given how no "one state solution" has ever succeeded in the history of humanity,”
What do you mean? Any western nation with a pluralistic society can be considered a “one-state” solution of some form or another—the United States, for example. Many have had civil wars and violent separatist movements but remained intact as a single state.
I think one of the limits of the particularist framing that Beinart talks about is a blinkered tendency to see the Zionist struggle for Jewish self-determinism as fundamentally unique in history with a need for its own set of rules.
Yes, let's use the United States as an example of a successful one state solution. The imperialist colonizers coming in, committing genocide, and reducing the indigenous population to a nice, small, manageable amount. Regardless of whether or not you think Jews or Palestinians are the indigenous population, I don't think that 'solution' is acceptable.
There's no one state solution in which two independent warring nations with equivalent populations were forced together into a single state and everything worked out fine. A civil war is one nation splitting apart and then coming back together, and I think you're smart enough to recognize the difference. Zionism isn't inherently unique, it's yet another example of an indigenous nation seeking independence and self-rule from a larger empire. There's tons of examples of that throughout modern history, both successful and unsuccessful. Just look at the Armenians, the Kurds, the Scots, the Tibetans, and the Ukrainians today.
Regardless, I'm glad we agree that the 1SS is not a good idea and Beinart should not be advocating for it.
Not even just western nations: Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Libya—were all the models for how post-Ottoman multi-sectarian mandates were to be arranged as new primordial nation-states by France and Britain.
The origin of Arab rejectionism and the Israel/Palestine conflict in fact was that the British were supposed to create a one-state “Palestine” as they did Iraq—a single mandate with multiple political/cultural groups, e.g., Kurds, Sunni, Shia, Jews, in the case of Iraq, all sharing whatever power was allowed under the mandate in some way.
Instead the Brits issued the Balfour declaration in an attempt to divert mass immigration of Eastern European Jews from Britain into Palestine, as opposed to indigenous Jews living as a small minority among Arabs as they had done in the region for 2000 years prior. The Palestinian Arabs understandably saw this as a raw deal by the British from Day 1.
Personally, I don’t think a 1SS in historic Palestine will work any better now than it did under the British Mandate, but the jury is in that the 2SS as a proposal hasn’t fared any better. Regardless, I’d argue that the majority of nation-states in existence are “one-state solutions”
The term 'one state solution' is specific to the Israel/Palestine conflict, so it's nonsensical to talk about the success or failure of one-state solutions around the world/throughout history. However, if you mean binationalism or multi-nationalism: that already exists in Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, and South Africa, among others.
Show me any instance in history in which one group forcing another to be under occupation and statelessness, denying them basic rights, after expelling them from parts of their land, has been sustained. I'll wait.
So then you admit it's never been attempted before? Wouldn't that be a further reason not to attempt it then? Also you should look up a little place called Yugoslavia, and another one called Czechoslovakia. And none of your examples were of two warring nations being slammed together into a single state by an outside force against their will.
And your challenge is a red herring. Palestinian are not stateless. Their state is recognized by the UN. Try again.
A modern Jewish state also hadn't been tried before 1948. So is that a reason not to have tried it? You can't possibly believe that trying new things is always bad.
I didn't 'admit that it's never been attempted before'. I asked what the 'it' refers to. As I said already, binationalism and multinationalism have already been tried with success.
I never said that anything should be forced by outside entities against the will of the people in Israel-Palestine. There are people within the territory who support this. I never said anything about the means to achieve a one-state solution.
These are not two warring nations: they are a subjugating nation and a subjugated nation. The fighting is likely to stop when Palestinians are free. But regardless, the mere possibility of civil war between two nations is not a good enough reason to deny the rights of either one of them. If it is, then why should it be Palestinians and not Jews? Your same logic could be used to argue for the absence of a Jewish society in Palestine and the existence only of a Palestinian state.
Oh their state is recognized by the UN, has it? I have been decisively refuted!
I don't believe trying new things is always bad, or that anybody should be denied rights, you are dishonestly strawmanning my position. What I'm saying is that one state solutions like the kind you and Beinart are agitating for HAVE been tried in the past and have ALWAYS failed.
It's not relevant that there are people there who want it. They are an extreme minority and don't get to force their will on the rest of the population. You would think a Palestine supporter of all people would understand that.
The Palestinians were slaughtering Jewish children decades before there even was an Israel, let alone an occupation. You need to learn not only the history of the conflict but it's current situation. Go and learn, and then come back and talk.
Why is it racist to say "Palestinians just want to kill the Jews. They wanna drive the Jews into the Sea. And look at the Hamas charter" but it's fine to say Netanyahu and Israel just want to ethnically cleanse and subjugate the Palestinians?
Racism has to be backed up by a system of power and privilege, and the power is in the hands of Israel right now. Furthermore, there is a difference between generalizing about all Palestinians (a nation) and talking about Netanyahu (a horrible individual) and the Israeli govt. (the govt. of a state currently oppressing a people).
Racism: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
Where's the part about the power and the privilege? I don't see it.
So it would be OK to say "Palestine just wants to kill the Jews and drive them into the sea"? Since you're talking about a government, a government of a state currently terrorizing and murdering people?
Great, glad to hear it. Next time, don't just make things up about what racism is.
So it would be OK to say "Palestine just wants to kill the Jews and drive them into the sea"? Since you're talking about a government, a government of a state currently terrorizing and murdering people?
Thank you once again, Peter, for this humble, sincere and honest examination of the arguments regarding the Palestinian-Israeli relationship. You know, in your heart, that you are right. Very, very right.
The assumption that things are going more or less OK for Israeli Jews now does not take into account the huge amount of PTSD, anxiety disorders, ongoing fear, periodic flare ups and wars, the toll of having kids in the army and the West Bank and them damaged by doing what they do, the fear of losing them, the fear of living in close quarters with enemies in the most dense country in the world, a country with a triple climate change crisis, the time and financial costs, and much more, it all means a totally abnormal life. It seems like these are discounted, and it is true that people get used to live under war conditions, but is it worth it, if a better way can be tested? I don’t think Israel, with the most powerful military in the Middle East, will be conquered, and it can resort back to wars if it fails. But I think we have not yet learned the lesson of Rabbi Shimeon Ben Gamliel. We remember the quote of Rabbi Shimeon Hatzadik, he of Sheik Gerach, the head of the old order before the destruction of the Temple, who said the world stands on the Torah, Avoda (service in the Temple), and G’milut Hasadim (voluntary giving to the poor). But we should better remember the words of Rabbi Shimeon Ben Gamliel, who after the destruction declared that the world exists because of Truth, Justice and Peace. It is worth trying for the good of the Jews in Israel.
Thank you, Peter, for your humility and honesty, your willingness to acknowledge your uncertainty about the incontrovertibility of your current positions. Those qualities—coupled with intelligence, extensive knowledge, openness to the irreducible plurality of views, and deep caring about much more than being right—are what keep me listening and learning from you even though I don’t always agree with where your evolving arguments take you.
Yes to Hillel’s three criteria of a fully realized humanity. But, needless to say, Hillel’s teaching isn’t a formula for resolving the often seemingly irreconcilable conflict between universal and particular values or obligations. There is and can be no such formula, though there are many pretenders. Which is why your avowed skepticism about views is so important. It seems to me that only in a climate of shared skepticism about the ultimacy of views is it possible for creative and non-triumphalist solutions to intractable conflicts to emerge. “From the place where we are right, flowers will never grow in the spring.” (Yehuda Amichai)
Even as staunch and unapologetic an advocate for the rights of Palestinians as Edward Said confessed to worrying about the fate of Jews in a Palestinian-majority binational state. Keep worrying, Peter! It’s the least we all can do. Yes, we must make up our minds and make our wager in terms of action on that basis, but always—as you model so beautifully—provisionally.
“The essential contradiction in human life is that man, with a striving after the good constituting his very being, is at the same time subject in his entire being, both in mind and in flesh, to a blind force, to a necessity completely indifferent to the good. So it is; and that is why no human thinking an escape from contradiction.
“…[A]n infinite distance separates the good from necessity [or—their equivalents—justice from force] They have nothing in common. They are totally other. Although we are forced to assign them a unity, this unity is a mystery; it remains for us a secret. The genuine religious life is the contemplation of this mystery.” (Simone Weil, “Is There a Marxist Doctrine?”, 1943, in Oppression and Liberty, 1973)
I got a great idea for you, Gregg! Instead of putting millions of people at risk and "worrying about their fate," you DON'T advocate for an absurd pipe dream that's unprecedented in history and that neither Palestinians nor Israelis want? And instead, you advocate for the worldwide consensus of the solution to the conflict, which is a two state solution of a Jewish state of Israel alongside a Palestinian Arab state of Palestine?
You're wrong on every level. Of course the status quo is not unprecedented. Occupations are incredibly normal: Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, Germany and Japan post World War II. What isn't normal is Palestine's refusal to end the fighting and make peace.
A one state solution has literally never worked in history. Slamming two warring nations together into one state has only ever lead to civil wars and ethnic cleansing.
And also the Palestinian leadership considers the status quo to be far from unacceptable:
"In The West Bank We Have A Good Reality...We Are Having A Good Life." - Mahmoud Abbas.
They seem pretty happy with the status quo. Bummer for you, huh?
Temporary occupations or permanent annexations have happened elsewhere, but a state first expelling the majority population of a land and then trying to simultaneously have the land but not the people on the land (or keeping those people under subjugation) has not been sustained anywhere in the world.
"... has only ever lead to civil wars and ethnic cleansing."
Oh so ethnic cleansing is a bad thing? Wow who knew!
Damn a Mahmoud Abbas quote. I'm totally convinced.
Of course it's been sustained. Expulsions have happened all the time, just look at the Native Americans expelled from 99% of North America. America is perfectly sustainable now. Of course this isn't desirable, but that's a different question.
Yes, ethnic cleansing is a bad thing, which is why I'm trying to keep it from happening again. Do you agree with me or are you just going to keep talking shit?
And yes, Mahmoud Abbas is the unquestioned leader and spokesperson of the Palestinian people. Sorry the actual reality on the ground doesn't fit your prejudices. Deal with it.
The Native Americans still live in the Americas, and have citizenship in the countries they live in.
Palestinians have been ethnically cleansed, genius. You're supporting their ethnic cleansing, and pretending to be against ethnic cleansing.
I could not care less what Mahmoud Abbas says. The fact that Palestinians are under subjugation is something anyone operating on more than 10% brain capacity can see.
Well said, Peter. For a deep, seriously deep, conversation between a Palestinian and an Israeli scholar (both friends), your subscribers will learn from this event at Harvard. WARNING: Coffee, or stronger, recommended while watching:
One of the problems you have is that you take for granted that those who disagree with you are in favour of “privilege” and oppose “universalism”. You fail to understand that you are the one who believes that every time the rights of Jews and the rights of Palestinians contradict each other, the Palestinians must prevail. On top of that, you seem to genuinely ignore what are the rights and duties of a nation state (perhaps you should read Yakobson and Rubinstein again). You can’t blame Israel for violating international law and argue, in the same breath, that it can’t benefit from it. A state is required to grant equal civil and political rights to all its citizens. It is not required to be culturally neutral nor to have a neutral immigration policy. However, it is precisely because I care for the rights of Palestinians too that I was already in favour of a confederal solution to the conflict while you were still a steadfast proponent of “separation.” A confederation (with a joint army and a joint foreign policy) would give this new polity all the trappings of a joint country without depriving any people of its right to self-determination.
Isaiah Berlin used to say that we live in a world of conflicting rights, and those who are willing to do away with all rights that step in the way of those they cherish most inescapably veer into tyranny (abolishing democratic rights for the sake of equality, for example).
There are creative ways to accommodate both Palestinian and Israeli rights. You should know better. Using the refugee issue to justify the dismantling of Israel is just disingenuous.
Finally, Yemini and Hazkani’s claims are not mutually exclusive. Uri Avnery himself said that at the outset of the war (which killed 1% of Israeli Jews, 8% of Jewish males aged between 19 and 21, and displaced 10% of Israeli Jews), the Yishuv genuinely feared annihilation. However, after its early successes, it decided to take revenge and conquer as much land as possible. Once again, you seem to be fond of false dilemmas, just like Yemini and Haskani!
One last thing: anti-Zionists love to say that Jewish statehood is anachronistic (Tony Judt), but you are those who transpose today’s reality onto the past. Jews are not in danger anymore. However, in the late 1940s, the world was still divided between countries that persecuted Jews and those that refused to welcome them. It was impossible at the time to predict that their situation would improve so much during the second part of the 20th century. This is why the creation of a Jewish state was seen as a necessity by most progressive minds. As for those who (anachronistically) claim that a Jewish state should have been established in Germany after WW2, they seem to ignore that the Yishuv already existed way before the Holocaust.
Isaac Deutscher used to compare the Israel-Palestine conflict to a man jumping off a building in fire who injures a passer-by. While the Israeli right resolve this dilemma by saying that the Palestinians had no right to walk on their side of the street to begin with, you fail to realize that you are blaming Jews for not staying in the blaze. This argument is not very convincing either!
I’m writing from the South Hebron Hills where I am with the Center for Jewish NonViolence. Just read your piece, Peter. Many thoughts, but for the minute just this. Hillel’s three questions (if not for myself, if only for myself; if not now…) seem to be at the core here. People sometimes see his questions as trite, but in the context of Israel/Palestine, these questions are heartbreaking. I sit here in a village in the Firing Zone where people are trying to live their lives and raise their children while their whole village is now threatened with complete demolition with no right to rebuild or return. It tastes like dust in my mouth to ask “Is this good for us as Jews?”
Hillel’s last question (If not now, when?) needs to be understood as not valuing one question over the other. They are equal in value and in time. This is tough. Hillel’s questions have no easy answers. Neither does Peter’s
Can you tell me where to find the Center for Arab Nonviolence?
All the Palestinian organizations we are working with are dedicated to nonviolent resistance and would not work with us if we weren’t so dedicated as well. Palestinian nonviolent resistance is happening every single day and is more extensive in participation, but gets less attention in the media. Many organizations (such as the Youth of Sumud and Masafer Yatta Community Council) all operate on nonviolent principles and strategies. The resisting villages are as well.
Really consider why you don’t know this. Is it because it is easier on your conscience to assume that all Palestinian resistance to being occupied is violent?
Thank you for the information. I wish you the best of luck in your nonviolent resistance against the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.
Peter, while I applaud the willingness to confront arguments against your position of a one-state solution, I don't think either one of them is the strongest argument against the 1SS.
The strongest argument against the 1SS is that the Jewish people will no longer be equal to the dozens of other nations who have states. They will no longer have a voice or a vote at the United Nations. In a 1SS, they would once again be a minority in a secular (at best) or more likely Arab state, with the government of that state speaking not for them but for the Palestinian Arab majority.
You referenced this when you wrote "But putting that aside, I think the answer is probably no. I can’t guarantee that a future equal Israel-Palestine would necessarily, you know, send planes to pick up some persecuted group of Jews in the Horn of Africa. I mean, why would Palestinian political leaders necessarily feel like that was one of their paramount concerns?"
So you can't deny that the Jewish people would suffer, lose their rights, lose their voice and be worse off in your 1SS. That's the whole point of your second argument, the particularism argument. But rather than raise up the Palestinians and advocate for them to have their own state, the state they want and have murdered thousands of people in pursuit of, you call for the Jewish people to be cast down instead. No wonder you're struggling with the second one. You know, in your heart, it's wrong. Very, very wrong.
Why do you assume that Israelis would lose their power in a shared state? Unless you see their power as only possible within a brutal oppression of Palestinians?
Simple math. There are 14 million Palestinian Arabs and 6 million Israeli Jews. In a single state, the Palestinian Arabs would be the democratic majority by a huge margin, and thus be able to use their democratic rights to remake that single state into whatever form they would like. I have absolutely no reason to expect they wouldn't use that vote to make the single state the same as the current state of Palestine: an Arab Muslim state with Islam as its official religion and shar'ia law as the basis of its laws.
Want to give a citation for these figures?
Sure, I'll put it into Google for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians - Total population: 14.3 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Jews - Total population: 7.1 million total, 6.3 million of which live in Israel.
That's the total population of Palestinians around the world, not in Palestine. The analogue to that is the total population of Jews, which his around 15 million.
Palestinians living in Palestine are around the same as the population of Jews in Palestine.
The total population of Palestinians living in Palestine plus the population of Palestinians who are living in refugee camps in Syria, Jordan etc. who would be moving to your one state is around 10.5 million, which is still a much larger majority of the 6 million Israeli Jews (assuming, of course, that every single Jew remains, a huge assumption). Jews from around the world would not be moving to this single state, because they're not forced to languish in refugee camps under apartheid conditions.
What makes you think Palestinians won't use their vote in a single state to make this new state the same as the state of Palestine (and most other Arab majority states): An Arab Muslim state with Islam as the official religion and shar'ia as the basis for the law?
"the Jewish people will no longer be equal to the dozens of other nations who have states."
Jewish people are citizens of different nations including Israel, USA, ...etc. Jews do not need Israel to have rights. They already have rights. May be too many rights.
Palestinians on the other hand, need to have Palestine/Israel to have rights.
I have no doubt you think Jews have too many rights.
Why can't Palestinians be the ones to be citizens of different nations including Jordan, Chile, etc.? Why the obvious double standard?
Jews being 40-50% of the electorate would be a significate portion of the population who are unlikely to vote for all Palestinian leaders in a binational state. Even Palestinians are unlikely to vote all Palestinian leaders, since people don't only vote for members of their own nation/ethnicity.
On top of that the history of Zionism and Israel/Palestine has been one where Jews have been dominant and privileged at the expense of Palestinians. So the chances that a previously subjugated group constituting half or slightly more than half of the population will take over the entire government of a state they share with the people who subjugated them are not high. And if that *does* end up happening (unlikely) because that it is how the democratic process unfolds, then that is just what people will have to accept. Airlifting Jews from Africa is not more important than people having basic rights in their own country, and the supposed need to do this (because this is obviously a regular occurrence, lol) does not justify violating those rights.
You're making numerous assumptions based on no evidence and no precedent. Why should anyone support you gambling millions of Jewish lives on these baseless predictions?
Your statement about taking over the government shows that you have little to no understanding of how the Middle East works. In Palestine, and many other ME countries, once an election happens (IF an election happens), the winning party takes over the entire government by force and rules it as an authoritarian dictatorship. That's what happened in Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and others. So, YES, the chances of a group constituting half of the population taking over the entire government of the state they share is high. Very high.
"Airlifting Jews from Africa is not more important than people having basic rights in their own country,"
Yes, I know that for you and Peter Jewish lives are not as important as Palestinian comfort, but if you actually wanted people to have basic rights in their own country, you would support the two state solution. It would give both peoples their basic rights in their own countries.
Beinart, what's so jarring about El-Kurd's quote? He doesn't give a fuck about what happens to Israeli Jews in a one state solution, and NEITHER DO YOU.
You don't care that they lose their national rights, their sovereignty, their representation at the UN. You don't care that they'll be under the control of a Palestinian Arab majority that absolutely hates them and has been taught from birth to fight and kill them. You don't care that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Lion's Den will be let loose into Israel to do whatever they want to any Israeli Jew they get their hands on, and the government will no longer be interested in or able to protect them.
What is particularly disgusting about this entire argument you make over and over is that you're willing to gamble the lives of millions of innocent people, people who are part of a historically oppressed minority group, people who have been persecuted, abused, and genocided throughout history, without even an iota of evidence that anything will work out the way you say it will but you're not even willing to put yourself among them. You don't live in Israel, so you just sit in your ivory tower looking down and judging other people thousands of miles away, making pronouncements based on no evidence but rather your insipid feelings of how the world works. I think it's ridiculous and disgusting that you're rendering moral judgements on Israelis and telling them how to run their lives.
I see your only response to Israel's legitimate security concerns about Palestinian terrorism and murder is the race card and your baseless claim with no evidence that the Palestinians will become 100% peaceful if they're "allowed to participate in politics", and that's not even close to good enough.
El-Kurd is saying what you and your supporters are all thinking. He just has the courage to say it out loud.
Assuming that the risk is as you claim -- which is itself a racist and implausible assumption --, that is just a risk, with some possibility that things will work out fine. But the oppression of Palestinians is not a risk but an actual reality happening right now. You think that the mere possibility of harm of Jews worse than actual oppression of Palestinians. This tells me everything I need to know about you.
Given how no "one state solution" has ever succeeded in the history of humanity, it is no more taking a risk than jumping off a bridge is "taking a risk" that you won't die. Asserting there's a "possibility that things will work out fine" is laughably naive and childish. Why not expel all the Palestinians to Jordan then? After all, there's a possibility that things will work out fine!
Self-defense is not oppression, and the human rights of Jews supersede Palestinian desire for property. The fact you think Palestinian comfort and greed for land is more important than the right of Jews to live tells me everything I need to know about *you!*
“Given how no "one state solution" has ever succeeded in the history of humanity,”
What do you mean? Any western nation with a pluralistic society can be considered a “one-state” solution of some form or another—the United States, for example. Many have had civil wars and violent separatist movements but remained intact as a single state.
I think one of the limits of the particularist framing that Beinart talks about is a blinkered tendency to see the Zionist struggle for Jewish self-determinism as fundamentally unique in history with a need for its own set of rules.
Yes, let's use the United States as an example of a successful one state solution. The imperialist colonizers coming in, committing genocide, and reducing the indigenous population to a nice, small, manageable amount. Regardless of whether or not you think Jews or Palestinians are the indigenous population, I don't think that 'solution' is acceptable.
There's no one state solution in which two independent warring nations with equivalent populations were forced together into a single state and everything worked out fine. A civil war is one nation splitting apart and then coming back together, and I think you're smart enough to recognize the difference. Zionism isn't inherently unique, it's yet another example of an indigenous nation seeking independence and self-rule from a larger empire. There's tons of examples of that throughout modern history, both successful and unsuccessful. Just look at the Armenians, the Kurds, the Scots, the Tibetans, and the Ukrainians today.
Regardless, I'm glad we agree that the 1SS is not a good idea and Beinart should not be advocating for it.
Not even just western nations: Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Libya—were all the models for how post-Ottoman multi-sectarian mandates were to be arranged as new primordial nation-states by France and Britain.
The origin of Arab rejectionism and the Israel/Palestine conflict in fact was that the British were supposed to create a one-state “Palestine” as they did Iraq—a single mandate with multiple political/cultural groups, e.g., Kurds, Sunni, Shia, Jews, in the case of Iraq, all sharing whatever power was allowed under the mandate in some way.
Instead the Brits issued the Balfour declaration in an attempt to divert mass immigration of Eastern European Jews from Britain into Palestine, as opposed to indigenous Jews living as a small minority among Arabs as they had done in the region for 2000 years prior. The Palestinian Arabs understandably saw this as a raw deal by the British from Day 1.
Personally, I don’t think a 1SS in historic Palestine will work any better now than it did under the British Mandate, but the jury is in that the 2SS as a proposal hasn’t fared any better. Regardless, I’d argue that the majority of nation-states in existence are “one-state solutions”
The term 'one state solution' is specific to the Israel/Palestine conflict, so it's nonsensical to talk about the success or failure of one-state solutions around the world/throughout history. However, if you mean binationalism or multi-nationalism: that already exists in Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, and South Africa, among others.
Show me any instance in history in which one group forcing another to be under occupation and statelessness, denying them basic rights, after expelling them from parts of their land, has been sustained. I'll wait.
So then you admit it's never been attempted before? Wouldn't that be a further reason not to attempt it then? Also you should look up a little place called Yugoslavia, and another one called Czechoslovakia. And none of your examples were of two warring nations being slammed together into a single state by an outside force against their will.
And your challenge is a red herring. Palestinian are not stateless. Their state is recognized by the UN. Try again.
A modern Jewish state also hadn't been tried before 1948. So is that a reason not to have tried it? You can't possibly believe that trying new things is always bad.
I didn't 'admit that it's never been attempted before'. I asked what the 'it' refers to. As I said already, binationalism and multinationalism have already been tried with success.
I never said that anything should be forced by outside entities against the will of the people in Israel-Palestine. There are people within the territory who support this. I never said anything about the means to achieve a one-state solution.
These are not two warring nations: they are a subjugating nation and a subjugated nation. The fighting is likely to stop when Palestinians are free. But regardless, the mere possibility of civil war between two nations is not a good enough reason to deny the rights of either one of them. If it is, then why should it be Palestinians and not Jews? Your same logic could be used to argue for the absence of a Jewish society in Palestine and the existence only of a Palestinian state.
Oh their state is recognized by the UN, has it? I have been decisively refuted!
I don't believe trying new things is always bad, or that anybody should be denied rights, you are dishonestly strawmanning my position. What I'm saying is that one state solutions like the kind you and Beinart are agitating for HAVE been tried in the past and have ALWAYS failed.
It's not relevant that there are people there who want it. They are an extreme minority and don't get to force their will on the rest of the population. You would think a Palestine supporter of all people would understand that.
The Palestinians were slaughtering Jewish children decades before there even was an Israel, let alone an occupation. You need to learn not only the history of the conflict but it's current situation. Go and learn, and then come back and talk.
Why is it racist to say "Palestinians just want to kill the Jews. They wanna drive the Jews into the Sea. And look at the Hamas charter" but it's fine to say Netanyahu and Israel just want to ethnically cleanse and subjugate the Palestinians?
Racism has to be backed up by a system of power and privilege, and the power is in the hands of Israel right now. Furthermore, there is a difference between generalizing about all Palestinians (a nation) and talking about Netanyahu (a horrible individual) and the Israeli govt. (the govt. of a state currently oppressing a people).
Racism: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
Where's the part about the power and the privilege? I don't see it.
So it would be OK to say "Palestine just wants to kill the Jews and drive them into the sea"? Since you're talking about a government, a government of a state currently terrorizing and murdering people?
Ok I have been totally convinced because obviously dictionary definitions resolve all disputes.
Great, glad to hear it. Next time, don't just make things up about what racism is.
So it would be OK to say "Palestine just wants to kill the Jews and drive them into the sea"? Since you're talking about a government, a government of a state currently terrorizing and murdering people?
Thank you
Thank you, Virginia. I very much appreciate it
thank you
You're welcome.
what are you referring to?
beautiful
Peter, are the Ukrainians being particularist because they don't want Russia taking over their country?
keen to watch this
Thank you for those kind words and the quotes, which I'd never heard before
Thank you once again, Peter, for this humble, sincere and honest examination of the arguments regarding the Palestinian-Israeli relationship. You know, in your heart, that you are right. Very, very right.
The assumption that things are going more or less OK for Israeli Jews now does not take into account the huge amount of PTSD, anxiety disorders, ongoing fear, periodic flare ups and wars, the toll of having kids in the army and the West Bank and them damaged by doing what they do, the fear of losing them, the fear of living in close quarters with enemies in the most dense country in the world, a country with a triple climate change crisis, the time and financial costs, and much more, it all means a totally abnormal life. It seems like these are discounted, and it is true that people get used to live under war conditions, but is it worth it, if a better way can be tested? I don’t think Israel, with the most powerful military in the Middle East, will be conquered, and it can resort back to wars if it fails. But I think we have not yet learned the lesson of Rabbi Shimeon Ben Gamliel. We remember the quote of Rabbi Shimeon Hatzadik, he of Sheik Gerach, the head of the old order before the destruction of the Temple, who said the world stands on the Torah, Avoda (service in the Temple), and G’milut Hasadim (voluntary giving to the poor). But we should better remember the words of Rabbi Shimeon Ben Gamliel, who after the destruction declared that the world exists because of Truth, Justice and Peace. It is worth trying for the good of the Jews in Israel.
Thank you, Peter, for your humility and honesty, your willingness to acknowledge your uncertainty about the incontrovertibility of your current positions. Those qualities—coupled with intelligence, extensive knowledge, openness to the irreducible plurality of views, and deep caring about much more than being right—are what keep me listening and learning from you even though I don’t always agree with where your evolving arguments take you.
Yes to Hillel’s three criteria of a fully realized humanity. But, needless to say, Hillel’s teaching isn’t a formula for resolving the often seemingly irreconcilable conflict between universal and particular values or obligations. There is and can be no such formula, though there are many pretenders. Which is why your avowed skepticism about views is so important. It seems to me that only in a climate of shared skepticism about the ultimacy of views is it possible for creative and non-triumphalist solutions to intractable conflicts to emerge. “From the place where we are right, flowers will never grow in the spring.” (Yehuda Amichai)
Even as staunch and unapologetic an advocate for the rights of Palestinians as Edward Said confessed to worrying about the fate of Jews in a Palestinian-majority binational state. Keep worrying, Peter! It’s the least we all can do. Yes, we must make up our minds and make our wager in terms of action on that basis, but always—as you model so beautifully—provisionally.
“The essential contradiction in human life is that man, with a striving after the good constituting his very being, is at the same time subject in his entire being, both in mind and in flesh, to a blind force, to a necessity completely indifferent to the good. So it is; and that is why no human thinking an escape from contradiction.
“…[A]n infinite distance separates the good from necessity [or—their equivalents—justice from force] They have nothing in common. They are totally other. Although we are forced to assign them a unity, this unity is a mystery; it remains for us a secret. The genuine religious life is the contemplation of this mystery.” (Simone Weil, “Is There a Marxist Doctrine?”, 1943, in Oppression and Liberty, 1973)
I got a great idea for you, Gregg! Instead of putting millions of people at risk and "worrying about their fate," you DON'T advocate for an absurd pipe dream that's unprecedented in history and that neither Palestinians nor Israelis want? And instead, you advocate for the worldwide consensus of the solution to the conflict, which is a two state solution of a Jewish state of Israel alongside a Palestinian Arab state of Palestine?
The status quo is also unprecedented in history. Unlike a one-state solution though, the status quo is also unacceptable.
You're wrong on every level. Of course the status quo is not unprecedented. Occupations are incredibly normal: Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, Germany and Japan post World War II. What isn't normal is Palestine's refusal to end the fighting and make peace.
A one state solution has literally never worked in history. Slamming two warring nations together into one state has only ever lead to civil wars and ethnic cleansing.
And also the Palestinian leadership considers the status quo to be far from unacceptable:
"In The West Bank We Have A Good Reality...We Are Having A Good Life." - Mahmoud Abbas.
They seem pretty happy with the status quo. Bummer for you, huh?
Temporary occupations or permanent annexations have happened elsewhere, but a state first expelling the majority population of a land and then trying to simultaneously have the land but not the people on the land (or keeping those people under subjugation) has not been sustained anywhere in the world.
"... has only ever lead to civil wars and ethnic cleansing."
Oh so ethnic cleansing is a bad thing? Wow who knew!
Damn a Mahmoud Abbas quote. I'm totally convinced.
"They seem pretty happy with the status quo."
Lol!!
Of course it's been sustained. Expulsions have happened all the time, just look at the Native Americans expelled from 99% of North America. America is perfectly sustainable now. Of course this isn't desirable, but that's a different question.
Yes, ethnic cleansing is a bad thing, which is why I'm trying to keep it from happening again. Do you agree with me or are you just going to keep talking shit?
And yes, Mahmoud Abbas is the unquestioned leader and spokesperson of the Palestinian people. Sorry the actual reality on the ground doesn't fit your prejudices. Deal with it.
The Native Americans still live in the Americas, and have citizenship in the countries they live in.
Palestinians have been ethnically cleansed, genius. You're supporting their ethnic cleansing, and pretending to be against ethnic cleansing.
I could not care less what Mahmoud Abbas says. The fact that Palestinians are under subjugation is something anyone operating on more than 10% brain capacity can see.
Is that the Mahmoud Abbas who is Israel’s puppet in the West Bank? Abbas and Netanyahu, two degenerates on the make.
Hmm, who should I believe, a Palestinian who has lived in the West Bank his entire life, or two anonymous Internet trolls?
If Abbas doesn't represent the Palestinians and speak for them, then who does?
Well said, Peter. For a deep, seriously deep, conversation between a Palestinian and an Israeli scholar (both friends), your subscribers will learn from this event at Harvard. WARNING: Coffee, or stronger, recommended while watching:
https://youtu.be/0lGLNmkk7og
I'm surprised you're such a fan of that Israeli scholar. After all, don't you believe expulsion is in his DNA?