On the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, some speak of a bi-national state as the optimal solution. In their vision, they see Israel-Palestine as a sort of Belgium or, to a lesser extent, Canada- a country where Jews and Palestinians co-exist under one democracy and lead their lives together happily and peacefully. Just recently the Palestinian chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, was quoted saying that perhaps this is the best solution for the region. What they seem to neglect, the people who side a bi-national state solution, apart from the fact that the parties involved don’t seem to want this solution, is the road map that would lead to this utopia. It’s difficult to see now, but the Israeli current government is in fact walking that exact path – and yet, I think the people who side a bi-national state solution object the current Israeli policy. You see, the way to a one-state solution, Israel-Palestine, takes the region through the most horrible type of an apartheid regime, before arriving at its desired end. There really seems to be no other way. And furthermore, it works vice versa as well: As long as the peace process is delayed by a headstrong Israeli government, which also issues an increasing number of bills concerned with nothing more than preserving the pure ethnicity of Israel – in other words: As long as Israeli government walks down the path to a full, formal apartheid, it is walking down a bloody path to a bi national state. They say history repeats itself. As Douglas Adams once wrote, it has to – nobody listens.
Three seemingly unrelated trends are distinguishable in Israel’s current policy. One is the treatment of non-citizens in Israel. This mainly refers to Refugees from the Darfur genocide, work-immigrants and illegal, as well as legal foreign workers. However, this also includes other types of non-Jews: Non-Jews who were married to Israeli citizens who passed away or divorced them before their naturalization was complete, for example. All these are often tied together, as if a refugee from the Darfur hell is anything like a foreign worker whose permit expired two months ago and as if these two are anything like a work-immigrant who never had a permit to begin with. The problem is that while Israel has a very strict, clear policy as to who can be a citizen, it has virtually no immigration policy. Whatever immigration policy it does have, Israel fails to enforce.
Well, Israel over-enforces now. 1200 families of foreign workers whose license expired, with children who were born and raised here, kids who speak Hebrew and relate to Israel as the only place they’ve ever known, are facing deportation. The Prime Minister keeps postponing decision about their fate, and so they are facing the unknown. Israel now operates its own immigration police – a unit called Oz, which stands both for “Courage” in Hebrew, and the Hebrew initials of the term “Ovdim Zarim” – foreign workers. The courageous Oz troopers hunt down illegal aliens and, in an act of pure bravery, deport them. The problem is that Oz troopers don’t ask questions. What dangers await this work-immigrant with an expired visa when he gets to his home country? How long has he lived here?
Some of the readers will have raised an eyebrow by now. If they are illegal, they think, they ought to be deported. That’s true. But it’s not as if Israel had decided to put an end to foreign work. Others will come to replace them. The current Israeli minister of interior affairs, Eli Yishai of the racist, ultra orthodox conservative party Shas, who leads the war against foreigners, is also the minister who issued the largest quantity of work permits in former terms, and is just about to break his own record this term. Since an illegal worker is only illegal because his or her visa has expired, one might ask why not extend the permit of the people who are already here, rather than deport them and bring others to replace them. One possible answer would be that if this indeed is done, the manpower agencies would be less profitable, so one might conclude that minister Yishai may be operating to increase the profit of such agencies, out of, perhaps, his own narrow interest. People with money who need politicians in order to make more money can often be very persuasive.
But let us put aside, momentarily, the more debatable subject of work immigrants. Let’s talk about refugees. Several hundred Sudanese have managed to infiltrate Israel in their attempt to escape the bloody ethnocide there. Recently it has been proposed to put them in labour camps: They will go out to work every day, and their salary will be taken away from them to finance the camp they will stay in. Apart from the horrible historic connotation this has – I mean, this is far worse than your old Jewish person in a German made car, isn’t it? – there’s also something fundamentally wrong in the very attempt to deter refugees from hitting your shore. These people are fleeing for their lives, for heaven’s sake.
And that’s not even it. Oz’s brave troopers have recently started to operate against other types of non-Jews. There are two major types of non-Jews non-citizens who aren’t work immigrants: One is non-Jews who are married to Israeli citizens, and did not yet finish the long process of naturalization in order to become permanent residents. Should the spouse now die, or divorce them, they will face deportation.
The other type is people who immigrated here by virtue of the law of return, but are suspected to have given false information. A brief explanation: Israel grants automatic citizenship to any Jew, or anyone who has at least one Jewish parent or grandparent. This is called “The law of return” (Hok HaShvut, in Hebrew). But the ministry of pure bloodinterior continues to investigate them years after they got their citizenship, and if they find a piece of evidence that maybe the grandfather of the family wasn’t Jewish, they take away their citizenship and, well, deport them. This can be done after the family has lived in Israel as citizens for years, after the children have served in the Israeli army, and so on.
So, the ministry of interior is operating to keep Israel free of non-Jewish blood. However, Israel already has non-Jewish citizens. I’m talking about the roughly 1.5 million Israeli Palestinians – that is, Palestinians who are Israeli citizens. Trust the Israeli government that the second trend in its decision making process will address this inherent danger to Jewish purity of blood.
The second trend is the continuous discrimination policy against Israeli Arabs. An Israeli court recently ruled that the law enforcement authorities treat Arabs and Jews differently. This surprised no one: The discrimination in all aspects of life is obvious to anyone who doesn’t wish to remain oblivious to it. For example: Israel tears down houses built illegally by Israeli Arab citizens all the time. However, Israel doesn’t issue any building permits to its Arab citizens. If an Arab Israeli citizen wishes to build a house, there are two ways he can go about doing that: He can apply for a permit, be turned down, appeal, be turned down again and so on and so forth, until maybe one day his application will be accepted (slim chances at best). Or he could build illegally. Again, this is only illegal because Israeli authorities arbitrarily deem it such, by simply not issuing enough permits. And then the bulldozers come and tear the house down, because it was built illegally – of course, there was no other way to build it. Arabs don’t really need a roof over their heads, do they?
In Jerusalem, the authorities are taking “Legality” to its extreme limit: After tearing down numerous houses in eastern Jerusalem for being illegal – and in eastern Jerusalem, maybe more than anywhere in Israel, it is impossible to get construction permits – and after occupying Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem with Jewish residents (Sure enough, they – the Jewish residents – did get permits for construction), the authorities are moving to the next logical stage: They issued evacuation notices to the people of Wallage, an Arab village that is, apparently, within the municipal annexed territory of Jerusalem. Their houses are to be destroyed to make room for a new Jewish neighbourhood there.
Yes, you heard correctly: Out go the Arabs, in come the Jews. And this is all done legally, of course. The law always sides the landlord. I was talking to one of the gardening workers where I live, a nice man from the Israeli-Arab village Abu Gosh. He told me that about 30 “Israelis” are now leasing apartments in the village, and was very excited about how they picked his village to live in. I commented that all Abu Gosh residents are Israelis, and that he probably meant to say “Jews”. “You know”, he said to me, “They (The authorities, R.A.) have so many ways to tell me, every day, that I’m not Israeli, that I’m not equal – I sometimes begin to believe them”.
The third trend in Israeli policy is its attempts to bring an end to the peace process, but not by bringing the process to a successful end. Israel is stalling, taking its time, while the settlements keep on growing and the separation wall keeps biting off more and more Palestinian lands. Just recently, the Israeli government authorized a bill that states Israel will not reach a peace agreement with any Arab state before this state offers compensation for the property of Jews who fled from that country to Israel. That means Israeli law will prohibit peace with the Palestinians before all the Arab nations cough up some money. It’s, indeed, one of those meaningless bills meant to stir up some headlines and gain some votes because it sounds good; but one which will be easy to pass in case there’s a real peace agreement. But still, it serves to show just how willing Israel (and Israeli public opinion) is to achieve such an agreement.
The trail is pretty obvious: Settlements and the Separation Wall will impose the borders of semi-independent Palestinian autonomies, separated geographically and dependent on the government in Jerusalem for basic economic needs, unable to provide for themselves due to their structure. Or in other words, bentustans. Then, Israeli non-Jews will be deported – Arabs to the bentustans, which will be known as the Palestinian Authority, other non-Jews to their origin countries, leaving Israel the ethnocracy that South Africa never managed to become. This horrific kind of apartheid will surely provoke resistance, and the area will be stained with the blood of all parties involved. After a few decades, Israelis will cave in to the international pressure and their own sense of justice, and the apartheid regime will collapse. A bi-national state will emerge from it. We know how the process works- we’ve seen it before.
It’s truly tragic: The Israeli government seems to think it is safe-guarding the Jewish state, when in fact it promotes a bi-national state solution to be arrived at after years of discrimination and segregation of the worst kind. The people who promote this solution are ignoring, or perhaps ignorant of, the way such a solution is to be achieved: Through bloodshed and misery. And in between, the window of opportunity in which it is possible to reach an agreement for a two state solution is closing down, perhaps it’s already closed. Israel is hopping down the bunny trail all the way to South Africa.
Since Israel has control of all of Palestine and has had this control since 1967, you already have one state. The basic options are continuing a state where civic rights depend on ethnic affiliation (Jewish supremacist to one extent or another) or granting all residents citizenship rights.
The Jewish supremacist option requires increasing pressure, since all residents consigned to the lower class will resist this designation. This is already happening, with a greater Judification (to coin a word) of Israel, which pushes out the liberal humanists living in Israel (you know, the ones who don’t see race (ethnicity, the family one is born into) as a good justification for the specific rights granted to a person.
Policing the racial affiliation of citizenship becomes the greatest priority in such a state, and maintaining subjugation of the people who do not belong to the upper race.
I’m not sure how much longer people like you will be willing to live in a society that keeps up the racist behaviors you mention.
The alternative is quite alarming: it involves granting the Arabic-speaking residents of Palestine/Israel full civic rights, and sharing resources, including political and electrical power, land and water, education and all other resources.
That means that people don’t get “extras” just because they’re Jewish.
Which option would you rather live in? A Jewish theocracy which tries to perfect itself to the חומרא דחומרא of the greatest חומרות?
Or an imperfect state that is as boring and irritating as, indeed, Belgium, where the Flemmings and Walloons haves just as bad a history as the Palestinian Arabs with the Zionist Jews except *FAR LONGER* than since 1888 (at the outside), which is when Jews started talking about taking over Palestine from the existing residents?
I fail to understand the logic of your arguments against a bi-national state.
As a supporter of such a state, I do not say ‘I hope that things get so bad that people will realize that this is the only solution’. I say – ‘This is the only solution; I hope people will realize it ASAP; If that won’t happen, things will unfortunatly get bloodier and bloodier until they do realize it’.
@Dena Shunra:
“Since Israel has control of all of Palestine and has had this control since 1967, you already have one state.” –>I also have 2 nationalities, the members of both are reluctant to share their lives together under one state, according to all polls made. The one state is (Still, relatively) easily dividable.
“The basic options are continuing a state where civic rights depend on ethnic affiliation (Jewish supremacist to one extent or another) or granting all residents citizenship rights.” –>Another, quite popular one is to divide the land between the two nations, setting up two nation-states, hopefully democratic ones. So popular this idea, in fact, that it is exactly what the United Nations suggested for the region.
“Policing the racial affiliation of citizenship becomes the greatest priority in such a state, and maintaining subjugation of the people who do not belong to the upper race.”–>Indeed, that’s the path I’m describing. Can you give me a realistic scenario in which a one, binational, equal state is established here before we hit such catastrophe?
“The alternative is quite alarming: it involves granting the Arabic-speaking residents of Palestine/Israel full civic rights, and sharing resources, including political and electrical power, land and water, education and all other resources.
That means that people don’t get “extras” just because they’re Jewish.”–>I rather think this would mean the Arabs won’t get less because they’re Arabs, but that’s not even the point. Again, can you draw me a map of how to get there? One that doesn’t involve the Jewish people suddenly waking up in the morning realizing they’ve done something horribly wrong. How are you going to move from a society that voted in masses to Liberman to a society that accepts Arabs as equals?
“Which option would you rather live in? A Jewish theocracy which tries to perfect itself to the חומרא דחומרא of the greatest חומרות?
Or an imperfect state that is as boring and irritating as, indeed, Belgium, where the Flemmings and Walloons haves just as bad a history as the Palestinian Arabs with the Zionist Jews except *FAR LONGER* than since 1888 (at the outside)”—>A Jewish democracy alongside a Palestinian one.
“which is when Jews started talking about taking over Palestine from the existing residents?”–>Oh, I guess that’s a way history can be told, if we wish to indulge in story-telling and conspiracy innuendos on the brink of anti-Semitism and Arendtism. “And after all, we all are ill with a consuming historic fever”.
——–
@Nadav Perez:
“As a supporter of such a state, I do not say ‘I hope that things get so bad that people will realize that this is the only solution’. I say – ‘This is the only solution; I hope people will realize it ASAP; If that won’t happen, things will unfortunatly get bloodier and bloodier until they do realize it’” —-> So tell me, please, how is it going to happen? What will make (Both people, but especially) the Jewish people of Israel wake up one morning and accept as full partners the Palestinians behind the wall? If you can show me a REALISTIC path to get us there, I will spin on a dime. I happen to think nations only come to their collective senses after such blight is wrought over their bankrupt estate, that no ceremony of words can patch up the havoc, to paraphrase Plath.
First, thanks for your response, Rod.
Note: “You have” is in the plural sense of you, not a single individual.
Two nationalities in one state, deeply hostile to each other? That describes Belgium just as well.
As to the ease of divisibility: it doesn’t seem particularly easy to divide it without pushing out (exiling) all the pesky undeclared, informal, but very existent villages.
The Partition Plan was put forth in 1947. It hasn’t worked particularly well in any former colony where it was attempted. Moreover, the conditions have changed since then, both in terms of the displaced Palestinians and in terms of the millions of Jews (and almost-Jews, and wannabe Jews, and migrant laborers) brought into Palestine by Israel’s government in the apparent hopes of displacing them. The 1948 land grab (nationalization of all Arab-owned land, for example, as well as the Present-Absent Act that grabbed land from internal refugees) shuffled land ownership quite thoroughly. It will have to be addressed, which would lead to a basic two-states-one-on-top-of-the-other situation. I don’t think it can be divided.
–>“Policing the racial affiliation of citizenship becomes the greatest priority in such a state, and maintaining subjugation of the people who do not belong to the upper race.”–>Indeed, that’s the path I’m describing. Can you give me a realistic scenario in which a one, binational, equal state is established here before we hit such catastrophe?
No, I cannot. I think that any Israeli remaining there endangers both their integrity and their body. That is another tragedy of Zionism, because those of you who were born there or moved there in good faith are not to blame for the manipulations of the early leaders. But if the only way forward involves bathing in blood, a sensible person will go up, down, or sideways to avoid it for himself/herself and his/her children, I think.
–>”How are you going to move from a society that voted in masses to Liberman to a society that accepts Arabs as equals?”
You’re trying to make me cry, right?
—>”A Jewish democracy alongside a Palestinian one.”
Do you see a path from the current situation to that one? It seems to be another lachrymogenic statement.
–>“which is when Jews started talking about taking over Palestine from the existing residents?”–>Oh, I guess that’s a way history can be told, if we wish to indulge in story-telling and conspiracy innuendos on the brink of anti-Semitism and Arendtism.
In 1888, which happens to be the year my great grandfather was born, the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine was kicked about as an actual option, without benefit of a Messiah. The idea of taking it over from the current population was part and parcel of the notion, albeit not stated as explicitly as one would have liked, in the interest of full disclosure. As events transpired, the local population’s worst nightmares about it came true. There’s nothing anti-Semitic about knowing that, nor about thinking that was a terrible idea.
I’m not sure what “Arenditsm” is, so I cannot argue yea or nay on that.
@Rod Avissar: I never said that the path to a bi-national state was easy or simple. The reason I support it is that it is the only viable option – the only solution I see for both the Jewish and the Palestinian people fulfill their right of self determination.
Sure, the Jewish citizens of Israel reject this idea. Which is why I write blog posts trying to convince as many as I can. Public opinion is not a pre-given condition (and on the possibilty of change, see Ali Abunimah’s interesting article about the white acceptance of the ‘one person, one vote’ system in South Africa, and the (possible) implications for Israel/Palestine. I’m not sure the comparison holds, but it is a reminder of the fluidity of public opinion.
@Dena Shunra:
“Two nationalities in one state, deeply hostile to each other? That describes Belgium just as well.” –>And Yugoslavia, and Ireland, and the Kurds and Iraq/Turkey, and India-Pakistan. The examples of two nationalities separating themselves are far vaster than those of nationalities choosing to live together, which include, to my knowledge, 3 countries – Switzerland, Belgium and Canada.
“The Partition Plan was put forth in 1947. It hasn’t worked particularly well in any former colony where it was attempted. Moreover, the conditions have changed since then, both in terms of the displaced Palestinians and in terms of the millions of Jews (and almost-Jews, and wannabe Jews, and migrant laborers) brought into Palestine by Israel’s government in the apparent hopes of displacing them. The 1948 land grab (nationalization of all Arab-owned land, for example, as well as the Present-Absent Act that grabbed land from internal refugees) shuffled land ownership quite thoroughly. It will have to be addressed, which would lead to a basic two-states-one-on-top-of-the-other situation. I don’t think it can be divided.” —>Not only can it be divided, but the basic outlay of such division is well known ever since 1993. All agreements, semi-agreements, peace initiatives and so on revolve around the same solution, with more-or-less similar borders, based, of course, on the June 4th 1967 borders. This is what people come up with when they’d rather make history rather than be a slave of it.
“I think that any Israeli remaining there endangers both their integrity and their body. That is another tragedy of Zionism, because those of you who were born there or moved there in good faith are not to blame for the manipulations of the early leaders. But if the only way forward involves bathing in blood, a sensible person will go up, down, or sideways to avoid it for himself/herself and his/her children, I think.” —>So, you don’t actually support a binational democratic one state solution. Rather, you support a Palestinian one-state solution, and think that all Jews (I assume you meant “Jew” when you said “Israeli”. Needless to say, that term does include Palestinian-Israelis and Druses, as well as Bedouins) should leave. Why pretend to support a one, binational state solution if this support is merely a thin academic cover for an entirely different stand? It’s one thing to oppose a two-state solution because you feel the a binational solution is achievable and more just, it’s an entirely different thing to oppose a two-state solution because you support one, Palestinian, Juden-Frei state.
“You’re trying to make me cry, right?” —>No, that’s just an added bonus.
“—>”A Jewish democracy alongside a Palestinian one.”
Do you see a path from the current situation to that one? It seems to be another lachrymogenic statement.” –>Oh, that path exists for almost two decades now. It’s laid down pretty well in the Geneva accord, and is, according to polls, accepted by the majority of people from both nations.
“In 1888, which happens to be the year my great grandfather was born, the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine was kicked about as an actual option, without benefit of a Messiah. The idea of taking it over from the current population was part and parcel of the notion, albeit not stated as explicitly as one would have liked, in the interest of full disclosure. As events transpired, the local population’s worst nightmares about it came true. There’s nothing anti-Semitic about knowing that, nor about thinking that was a terrible idea.
I’m not sure what “Arenditsm” is, so I cannot argue yea or nay on that.”—> The anti-Semitic innuendo is, of course, in the perception that the Jews decided, and then it just happened. The Brits – you know, the lawful owners of the place – just caved in to Jewish world-domination/media domination/money/witchcraft when they issued the Balfour declaration not even 30 years afterwards, and the UN, dominated from above by a bunch of red-sea pedestrians, approved the establishment of a Jewish state,
About Hanna Arendt, I would have expected you’d be well familiar with her.
——–
@Nadav Perez:
“I never said that the path to a bi-national state was easy or simple. The reason I support it is that it is the only viable option – the only solution I see for both the Jewish and the Palestinian people fulfill their right of self determination.” —-> If your support of such a solution is purely academic, deriving from obscure perceptions of right and wrong, and you know the path would be messy and tragic, than you support a myth, not a realistic plan. Of course, some might say that given the fact neither side prefers such a solution, that’s a risky game to play.
“ure, the Jewish citizens of Israel reject this idea. Which is why I write blog posts trying to convince as many as I can. Public opinion is not a pre-given condition (and on the possibilty of change, see Ali Abunimah’s interesting article about the white acceptance of the ‘one person, one vote’ system in South Africa, and the (possible) implications for Israel/Palestine. I’m not sure the comparison holds, but it is a reminder of the fluidity of public opinion.”—> My point exactly. I believe in the power of blogging, of course, but I find it a very thin straw to grab when trying to explain your way towards your solution.
Of course, public opinion can change. I don’t want to go through 40+ years of full, upfront, apartheid (Of which SA still is recovering, some 30 years later) for the public opinion to change, just because you happen to think a one state solution is just. That was exactly my point in this post.
@Rod Avissar: What in my comment made you think that my support is ‘purely academic’?
and as for the minimal support: I take example from my parents, who understood berfore the end of 1967 that the only way to maintain a jewish state is a two-state solution. Many people (those who didn’t called them outright traitors) told them that their position is urealistic, because neither sidewants it. Do you think their struggle, too, was hopeless?
yes, I believe it failed, because the settelers where quicker; but the battle of public opinion was won.
I believe – I hope – that my struggle over the public opinion will be quicker; I know that my solution, as opposed to their solution, only becomes more and more realistic over time.
But this talk is empty if you do not accept my in assumption: that the two-state solution is no longer a viable option, as Ariel and Maale-Edumim will not be evacuated, and a Palestinian state cannot exist with these two settelments in place.
Once you accept that assumption, the question of support of the bi-national state is no longer a reason not to support it; As the bi-national state is the only democratic, humanistic solution, the question is how to bring its impelmentation in the most peaceful, and quick, manner.
As to SA: Maybe you havn’t noticed, but israel is implementing an apertheid regime for more that 40 years now. The fact that we, in pre-’67 Israel, don’t see it daily – does not mean that it doesn’t exist.
@Dena Shunra: only regarding the last issue, of 1888, the Jews couldn’t have conspired to take over Palestine from its (then) current inhabitants, if only because Palestine was never “owned” in any sense of the word, by its inhabitants. There was no Palestinian state or even a Palestinian province of an empire, until the British Mandate broke off the Transjordan from its plot of land.
So much for that. The Zionists, at any rate, had no problem with the continued residence of Arabs in the Jewish state – that is, except for the hateful violence those very Arabs displayed time and time again against the Jews in Palestine. Saying that their nightmarish visions of what would happen actually came true ignores the fact that they came true primarily through the actions of those same Arab inhabitants who never once stopped fighting against the Jewish immigrants.
Nimrod, I find it rather unpleasant to argue with you due to the ad hominem thrusts and personal attack (ok, you think I’m an anti-Semite and you *do* want to make me cry; can we put that aside, though, and discuss the merits of the argument?)
You say: “Not only can it be divided, but the basic outlay of such division is well known ever since 1993.” and “based, of course, on the June 4th 1967 borders.”
I think you’re ignoring the basic problem, which dates to 1948.
You ignore what I’m responding to when I say that “I think that any Israeli remaining there endangers both their integrity and their body” – that is a response to YOUR statement, that describes a binational state as a bloody catastrophe. *IF* (and only if) catastrophe is the only way forward, leaving Israel is the only sensible thing to do for those who can. However that premise of catastrophe is not a foregone conclusion. It is YOUR opinion. I think it is only one of the possible outcomes.
I hope that clarifies my position and nullifies your straw man argument about my not actually supporting a binational democratic one state solution. To restate: IF the only ways forward are genocide or leaving, I support leaving – but I don’t believe those are the only ways forward. I’d appreciate an acknowldgement of my position, since it’s pretty insulting to be told “you don’t actually believe what you say you do”.
As to your other two ad hominem attacks. You say that the Brits were the lawful owners of the place and that they caved in to Jewish pressure when issuing the Balfour declaration. That’s you speaking, not me. I’m talking about the plan by Zionist Jews to organize into a takeover of lands and a change in the ethnic character of Palestine (sometimes supported with a slogan claiming that there was no one actually living there).
About Hanna Arendt – I certain know her work, but I am not familiar with Arendtism.
@Dubi “taking over” was not done from a state-type political entity but in a dunam-po-dunam-sham manner. People were definitely living there, some Jews, many Muslims, Christians, and other flavors. The 1888 plan was to bring Jews there and give it an overwhelmingly Jewish character.
As to what the Zionists felt about the population currently living there and vice versa – that is a separate dispute.
@Dena Shunra: No, it is not a separate dispute. It is exactly the same dispute, because if all the Jews wanted was to immigrate to Palestine, without requiring the uprooting of the Palestinians, but actually promoting the development among the entire population – old and new – then that is nothing like what you said.
And there was no slogan saying no one was living in Palestine. There was a slogan saying that it is a land without *a* people. The indefinite article is critical here, because there WAS no “people” in Palestine. The Palestinian national identity only developed as a reaction to Zionism, perhaps as early as the 1920’s. If the inhabitants of Palestine are not *a* people, if they don’t mind whether they are ruled by the Brits, the Turks or the Syrians, then they shouldn’t mind being ruled by the Jews (as long as it is a fair and benevolent government, which is more than can be said about the British).
@Dena Shunra:
1. Pointing to an anti-Semite POSITION (And even more so, saying that a position is close to anti-Semitism, which is what I did) is definitely not an ad-hominem argument. Consider:
A: “I think the Jews have all the money and are secretly engaged in an attempt to take over the world so they could eat non-Jews”
B: “Hey, A, y’know what? That’s an anti-Semitic thing to say. Your are an anti-Semite!”
A: “Hey, B, now, that’s an ad-hominem argument. Let’s stick to the matters at hand, shall we? Refute my arguments!”
In other words, if you can’t defend your position against claims about hints of anti-Semitism in it, calling these claims “Personal attacks” is definitely not the way to go.
2. “I think you’re ignoring the basic problem, which dates to 1948.” – Oh, no, I’m not ignoring anything. I just happen to know I don’t live in 1956. You see, even the disputed parties managed to move on from what you define “The basic problem”. Like I said, while your position clearly remains a slave of history, some more pragmatic people would rather make it.
3. “You ignore what I’m responding to when I say that “I think that any Israeli remaining there endangers both their integrity and their body” – that is a response to YOUR statement, that describes a binational state as a bloody catastrophe. *IF* (and only if) catastrophe is the only way forward, leaving Israel is the only sensible thing to do for those who can. However that premise of catastrophe is not a foregone conclusion. It is YOUR opinion. I think it is only one of the possible outcomes.”
->Come now, that’s not nice. Let me refresh your memory:
I asked you ” Can you give me a realistic scenario in which a one, binational, equal state is established here before we hit such catastrophe?”
You replied: “No, I cannot”. Again: “No, I cannot”. So YOU said you cannot come up with a realistic scenario in which one, binational, equal state is established here without going through terrible atrocities first.
Then, you further elaborated: “I think that any Israeli remaining there endangers both their integrity and their body”. You didn’t say “IF and only IF there’s no avoiding such catastrophe then any Israeli remaining…”. After YOU acknowledged that there’s no realistic scenario to bring about the solution you believe in without staining our boots with blood on the way there, YOU also claimed that ANY Israeli remaining in the region is in danger.
But you didn’t stop there. You went on to pin that situation on Zionism. Indeed, you claimed: “That is another tragedy of Zionism, because those of you who were born there or moved there in good faith are not to blame for the manipulations of the early leaders”. And again, there were no restrictions on that clause. “That is another tragedy of…”, not “That might be” or “Under your premise, that would be…”. Is.
And then you came up with the perfect conclusion, of course: “But if the only way forward involves bathing in blood, a sensible person will go up, down, or sideways to avoid it for himself/herself and his/her children, I think”.
And that was all in one paragraph, was it not? Just a few quick scrolls up will show it.
So, to recap:
YOU said that you believed in a one, binational state solution. You then admitted to not seeing any realistic way of getting there. You then claimed that “any Israeli remaining there endangers both their integrity and their body”, and that “f the only way forward involves bathing in blood, a sensible person will go up, down, or sideways to avoid it for himself/herself and his/her children, I think”, which to me seem to be a very strong opinion supporting Israelis leaving Israel (Not for the first time, by the way). So, please, clarify for me: How do you support a bi-national state if you’re at the same time saying one of the nationalities should get the hell out because they’re endangering themselves? Because to me, it still sounds as if you claim to hold on to one position, while advocating a completely different one.
4. “However that premise of catastrophe is not a foregone conclusion. It is YOUR opinion. I think it is only one of the possible outcomes.”
->Which brings up the question again: Can you draw me a realistic map of any of these options? Because you said you couldn’t, but I’d be overjoyed to learn you changed your mind.
5. “I hope that clarifies my position and nullifies your straw man argument about my not actually supporting a binational democratic one state solution.”
->Um, no, it doesn’t. It’s only straw man if you can’t base it on what the other person actually said. I think I just did that.
6. “To restate: IF the only ways forward are genocide or leaving, I support leaving – but I don’t believe those are the only ways forward”
->When you were asked, you clearly stated you see no other way forward. Which, according to the position quoted up here, means you support leaving. QED.
7. “I’d appreciate an acknowldgement of my position, since it’s pretty insulting to be told “you don’t actually believe what you say you do”.”
->I acknowledged the position you expressed in its entirety. If you are offended by the only possible conclusion of your own words, it seems I’m merely the proxy through which you insult yourself.
8. “You say that the Brits were the lawful owners of the place and that they caved in to Jewish pressure when issuing the Balfour declaration. That’s you speaking, not me”
-> Of course. Saying that would have made you a down-right anti-Semite rather than someone on the brink of anti-Semitism. You left it an unsaid. The Zionist (Or was it the Elders of Zion?) congregated, plotted to drive the Palestinian away from their land, – and all the parties involved just let it happen. Now, dear reader, fill in the blanks by yourself. That’s the dictionary definition of innuendo. As Dubi wisely pointed out, there was no Palestinian people in 1888. However, I find it futile to argue historic facts with someone who releases dark statements such as “the plan by Zionist Jews to organize into a takeover of lands and a change in the ethnic character of Palestine”, which reek of conspiracy and evil. I can almost picture their rolling, dry laughter. I assume you’ve heard an anti-Semitic view or two in your life. Most of them begin just like that. So yes, this statement does contains anti-Semitic innuendos. No, that’s not an ad-hominem argument.
So, how did it come to pass that the Brits were willing to help “the Zionist Jews” realize their plot to “a takeover of lands and a change in the ethnic character of Palestine”? Oh, and while we’re there: That is probably the most cumbersome, awkward and, well, suggestive way of saying “Immigrate”. Also not by chance. Jews don’t “immigrate”. They “plan to change the ethnic character of a place”. As opposed to Turkish emigrants to Austria, for example, who just immigrate, and do not change the ethnic character and so on. Tiny innuendos, but the choice of words is intriguing, and doesn’t seem to be coincidental. Anyway, back to the topic. How did it happen? Have the Brits lost their mind? Were they looking for trouble in the region? What could possibly have pushed them into supporting such malice?
@Dubi Kanengisser: This humanistic vision of ‘immigrat[ion] to Palestine, without requiring the uprooting of the Palestinians’ is, possibly, partly accurate for the first ‘Alyah’ (Zionist immigration wave. But if you continue just a bit forward, the second Alyah made uprooting the local population its main objective (see ‘Kibush Haavoda’, the conquer of labor, and even more so – ‘Kibush Havoda’, the conquer of land)
@Nadav Perez: grrr. the second one should be ‘Kibush Haadama’.
[...] Walking A Deadly Path [...]
[...] סוף יש לנו ויכוח אמיתי בישראלפט. אני כתבתי, דובי הגיב. המשך [...]
[...] Walking a Deadly Path – נמרוד אבישר (נובמבר 2009) [...]