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.
"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.
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)
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.
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:
I think Muhammad El-Kurd was also responding to the dominating/manipulative nature of the question. In that way I think his response was apt.
The question you raised is difficult to answer. If someone doesn't care about morality then it's hard to convince them to do the morally right thing. If you have to appeal to Jewish Israeli material interests, then maybe you can argue that the security situation for Jewish Israelis will improve when there isn't an angry population of oppressed people willing to take up arms against them. The worry about not airlifting Ethiopian Jews is a total red herring, as Ethiopian Jews are discriminated against in Israel anyway, many are not allowed to move to Israel, the current govt. doesn't seem to care at all about them as it is quite right-wing, and it is certainly possible that they would be helped even in an equal single state. Also, the more fascistic a country becomes, the worse things become for the population within the country too, especially for the more vulnerable members of it (Jews of colour, LGBT Jews, etc.). So the moral corruption that subjugating others will also probably negatively impact the material conditions of Jewish Israelis.
The comparison at least between Hamas, the elected representatives of the Palestinians, and Hamas and ISIS is apt.
But if that comparison offends your sensibilities, apply the logic to white supremacists in the modern US. An angry population, certainly, which considers themselves oppressed and willing to take up arms against their 'oppressors'. Should we give them what they want?
You think telling Israeli Jews that they have to welcome into their country millions of unvetted enemy nationals, the same enemy nationals whose country has been killing them for decades, and doing so will IMPROVE their security situation? That's a joke, right?
I know I should probably not condescend to talk to you, but I will do it anyway and just say that if you think having enemies is safer than not, then you live in a delusional world.
What's your evidence that the war will end if the Palestinians stop being "oppressed"?
Fatah Charter under Goals section: "Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."
They want to completely liberate Palestine and eradicate the Zionists. It's right there in black and white.
Why did you put 'oppressed' in inverted commas? Are you saying Palestinians aren't oppressed?
What you're calling 'the war' is a conflict that started with the dispossession of Palestinians. The main motive behind Palestinian violence against Israelis -- as stated by members of these armed groups themselves -- is to resist against their own oppression. It may not be the only motive, but it is the main motive.
Fatah is not equivalent to all Palestinians. I shouldn't have to state such obvious things. Furthermore, even that charter was written within the context of existing conflict and oppression.
"They want to completely liberate Palestine and eradicate the Zionists."
Who's 'they'?
Anyway the burden of proof is not on those who advocate for equality and freedom to prove that things will be fine if people's basic human rights are not violated. Those who advocate for oppression have the burden of proof to try to justify their oppression. So we don't have to prove that everything will be fine -- which we can't do anyway since we don't know exactly what will happen in the future -- in order for Palestinians to have basic rights and for us to try to put an end to their oppression.
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.
"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.
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)
The status quo is also unprecedented in history. Unlike a one-state solution though, the status quo is also unacceptable.
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!!
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 think Muhammad El-Kurd was also responding to the dominating/manipulative nature of the question. In that way I think his response was apt.
The question you raised is difficult to answer. If someone doesn't care about morality then it's hard to convince them to do the morally right thing. If you have to appeal to Jewish Israeli material interests, then maybe you can argue that the security situation for Jewish Israelis will improve when there isn't an angry population of oppressed people willing to take up arms against them. The worry about not airlifting Ethiopian Jews is a total red herring, as Ethiopian Jews are discriminated against in Israel anyway, many are not allowed to move to Israel, the current govt. doesn't seem to care at all about them as it is quite right-wing, and it is certainly possible that they would be helped even in an equal single state. Also, the more fascistic a country becomes, the worse things become for the population within the country too, especially for the more vulnerable members of it (Jews of colour, LGBT Jews, etc.). So the moral corruption that subjugating others will also probably negatively impact the material conditions of Jewish Israelis.
That's right, give the haters what they want and they won't be so angry and stop killing you.
Apply this logic to the Nazis, ISIS, white supremacists in the US, and see how far that gets you.
I want you to think about the fact that you just compared Palestinians to Nazis and ISIS.
The comparison at least between Hamas, the elected representatives of the Palestinians, and Hamas and ISIS is apt.
But if that comparison offends your sensibilities, apply the logic to white supremacists in the modern US. An angry population, certainly, which considers themselves oppressed and willing to take up arms against their 'oppressors'. Should we give them what they want?
You think telling Israeli Jews that they have to welcome into their country millions of unvetted enemy nationals, the same enemy nationals whose country has been killing them for decades, and doing so will IMPROVE their security situation? That's a joke, right?
I know I should probably not condescend to talk to you, but I will do it anyway and just say that if you think having enemies is safer than not, then you live in a delusional world.
What's your evidence that the war will end if the Palestinians stop being "oppressed"?
Fatah Charter under Goals section: "Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."
They want to completely liberate Palestine and eradicate the Zionists. It's right there in black and white.
Why did you put 'oppressed' in inverted commas? Are you saying Palestinians aren't oppressed?
What you're calling 'the war' is a conflict that started with the dispossession of Palestinians. The main motive behind Palestinian violence against Israelis -- as stated by members of these armed groups themselves -- is to resist against their own oppression. It may not be the only motive, but it is the main motive.
Fatah is not equivalent to all Palestinians. I shouldn't have to state such obvious things. Furthermore, even that charter was written within the context of existing conflict and oppression.
"They want to completely liberate Palestine and eradicate the Zionists."
Who's 'they'?
Anyway the burden of proof is not on those who advocate for equality and freedom to prove that things will be fine if people's basic human rights are not violated. Those who advocate for oppression have the burden of proof to try to justify their oppression. So we don't have to prove that everything will be fine -- which we can't do anyway since we don't know exactly what will happen in the future -- in order for Palestinians to have basic rights and for us to try to put an end to their oppression.
* So the moral corruption that subjugating others will bring will also probably negatively impact the material conditions of Jewish Israelis.