Ah yes, the two-state solution.
So worthy of praise.
Why not a four-state solution - even better. Or an eight-state solution. Better still.
Or even (since there were originally 12 tribes of Israel, why not a thirteen-state solution (12 states in Israel and one for the Palestinians) - but, then again, the Palestinians would then want 12 states too. For a total of 24 states.
Much, much better.
Better than just one-state.
4
Will the US be willing to accept millions of Jewish refugees? Because that's what will be needed if Palestinians get equal voting rights in Israel. It will cease to become a democracy and become just like every other Arab country in the region. Are we pretending that the Palestinian majority would give Israeli Jews the same voting rights? If it's wrong for one side, it's wrong for the other. But we know the answer is pre-ordained if the Palestinians have a majority. There would be exactly one election.
11
Just a small correction: Most references to possible future outcome, such as the death of the two state solution, should be replaced with past tense. These are fait a complet - the extensive settlements sprawled across the whole of the West Bank with hundred of thousands of settlers say that this wheel cannot be turned back. And maybe, this outcome of a single state solution, reflects the actual will of the Palestinians. They always opposed the the intention to establish a Jewish state in the region as expressed by the Balfour declaration of 1917 and the UN decision to divide the land between the two people of 1947. But it is should have been the interest of Israel's self preservation to stick with that two state direction and avoid taking any steps that may interfere with its eventual implementation. Unfortunately, Israel has been taken over by Messianic group in the early 1970s, that has managed to convince the country that a Jewish control over the whole area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean while keeping the Jewish identity of the state is possible. As past history has shown us (the Jewish people), every awakening from such Messianic hallucination is extremely costly and painful. Alas, those that do not learn from their own history are doomed to repeat it.
10
I like how you admit you can't force Jordan and Egypt to take the West Bank and Gaza - which they don't want - but of course we can all force Israel to accept national suicide by incorporating these same regions. Seems legit. Jews can't say "no."
The only issue is that full withdrawls can and will result in immediate rocket attacks and other murderous mischief, but that's a problem that can be solved with sufficiently advanced technology and other mitigating factors. Eventually, you'll be left with a pushing contest where no one wants these areas, since they're just bleeding national wounds waiting to happen, and just keeps trying to force them on one-another. You want Israel to take them, or Jordan, or Egypt? Do what we've always done in history, invade, crush them, and force them. Or just make it worth their while somehow. Otherwise expect a throaty, "no, thanks, I'm full, really."
8
Although I have always lauded Zionism's left wing roots (liberal is too soft and mushy a term), I do not think it is necessarily liberal or left wing to support a Palestinian State.
There are many arguments against the formation of a Palestinian State (there is no language or religion that is defined as being Palestininian, never in history has there been a Palestinian state and when Gaza and the West Bank were under the dominion of Egypt and Jordan respectively, nobody said that Egypt and Jordan were disregarding the national aspiratons of Palestinians -- and there are so many more arguments). but whenever I discuss more than a few of those reasons, the NY Times refuses to publish what I have to say. So I will stop right now, except to say:
The great masses of people only know that which is contained in current news reports. As such, they are unqualified to render a judgment regarding the issues in the middle east.
13
Bannon is right. The only solution that will work is a three-state solution: Egypt takes back Gaza; Jordan takes back the West Bank. Israel stays within its current borders. The Palestinians have proven that they cannot govern themselves.
6
This column draws a lot of conclusions from thin air, no evidence to support them. The outlines of a solution are clear: the Palestinians will get their state; the borders will be drawn by Israel if they refuse participate in the process; it won't include any of Jerusalem; it won't be as big as they want; no "refugees" will be moving to Israel; Hamasistan (aka Gaza) will not be included in the Palestinian state; and the Arab countries are going to shrug.
Fifty years ago the Arab countries started a war and lost it. For fifty years, they refused to negotiate a surrender, hoping the Arab League or the Europeans or the UN would intervene and reverse their loss. Now it's too late to negotiate; they have nothing to offer.
9
“Residents of the Autonomy” - state subjects would be better.
1
While I agree with Ms. Goldberg's opinion, one issue that she does not address is what to do with Hamas and other radical Palestinian forces that will never accept Israel existence, whatever its ultimate boundaries may be. It seems reasonable to me that if there is going to be a peace under a two-state solution, Israelis would have the right to expect this to include a total cessation of all attacks on its citizens and territory. I am not sure how to answer this problem.
Any thoughts?
5
I think the two state solution was a useful fiction for a while - but the political risks for implementation by the PLA and the Israeli government were always very very high. And not only the political risks, the personal ones too. Remember Rabin's assassination. Trump brought the day closer when Palestinians will demand Israeli citizenship and all that goes with it. Think about it - the potential for an intifada to JOIN Israel. Not so far fetched as one might think. And no moral argument to be had against it. The situation is not entirely different from the annexation of much of Mexico by the US after the Mexican-American War, except for the demographic implications. Should there not be a one state solution, there will be a (and in large measure already is) a new Pale of Settlement, but this time for Palestinians. Not a good thing.
1
It will be interesting to see if pro-Israel organizations and donors continue as a driver of U.S. policy even if Israel pursues increasingly apartheid-like and anti-democratic policies. The pessimist in me (and, indeed, some of the comments criticizing the column) suspects that it will, at least in the short and medium run. My guess that Netanyahu, a student of U.S. politics, has already concluded that this is the case.
8
"But Palestinians and Israelis alike understood Trump to be giving the Israeli government carte blanche to continue claiming Palestinian territory."
The Israelis have had carte blanche for many decades now, despite Washington's "condemnations" of the land grabs - never rising above the level of rhetoric, and often accompanied by increased aid, arms transfers etc.
Liberal Zionism has been a charade over the same time period.
10
Rather than ask "Is Liberal Zionism Dead?", here are the questions Michelle Goldberg should be asking:
Why is Jerusalem considered "Palestinian territory"? When in history were the Palestinian Arabs ever sovereign in Jerusalem (or anywhere else, for that matter)? Why is it such a terrible idea to recognize that Jerusalem, the most important city in Judaism for 3000 years, is the capitol of Israel?
Why can Israel have an Arab minority of 1.7 million (over 20% of the population) who have full equal rights as citizens (other then not being drafted into the IDF....but they can volunteer), vote, and elect their representatives to the Knesset, yet the idea of a few thousand Jews living on the West Bank means "the end of the 2-state solution"? Where else in history do you find a group (the Arabs of Palestine) that has repeatedly rejected compromise peace proposals, chose the path of terror and violence, lost each armed struggle it started, and yet has their situation described by a journalist as "the suffering of the Palestinian people"?
Those would be interesting questions to address, not this recycle/rehash of conventional progressive, liberal so-called thinking.
10
I don't feel that liberal Zionism is completely dead, because I still know a lot of Democrats that support Israel and are very liberal such as both of my senators that include Chuck Schummer and Kirsten Gillibrand. As a matter of fact, I can still remember when a lot of liberal Democrats where standing on the steps on City Hall over in NYC with a bunch of state and city politicians that were all for Israel that also included NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and my stat's governor Andrew Cuomo along with several others, plus I do know that Hillary Clinton is known for being pro-Israel. The only problem is that I find them to be on the decline since the far left tends to side with groups that are actually sympathetic to Palestinian groups such as Hamas, which tends to make me feel disturbed on why they would take such a side. What really angers me is how a pro-Israel supporter such as Gillibrand could support someone like Linda Sarsour and call her the face of the women's rights movement even though she openly states that she supports Shariah Law, which is the very thing feminists are fighting against. I'm glad that Rossanne Bar, a known actress and another liberal Zionist, called her out and said that you can be a feminist and support Israel especially when it's pretty much the only country in the region that even respects women's rights. Overall, I will say that Michelle Goldberg is about half right to this statement. I consider myself a liberal Zionist by my nature.
3
For decades I drank the two-state Kool Aid. But it is hard to ignore the deals Arafat turned down, the billions of aid (mostly from the West) that disappeared without any meaningful improvement to the lives of Palestinians, the use of the Palestinians as a tool by terrorists and Arab nations to drive hatred of Israel and the success of the Israeli economy despite no oil and having hostile neighbors all around it.
So after decades as a two-stater I have switched. I have concluded that the Palestinians would be better off as citizens of Israel--which, unlike virtually all of its Arab neighbors, is an actual democracy with institutions and a respected court system--than as continuing pawns of the Arab world, photo-ops for the anti-Semitic left in the EU, and tools of terrorist groups who want to use them to attack Israel.
They have gained nothing over decades. Let Israel take them in. Make them citizens, rather than refugees. Let them legally work and open businesses. Let them raise their families and worship as they wish. Give them a stake in their own future. Give them their dignity. This is what they deserve.
20
Only one thing can stop Israel from becoming a full-fledged apartheid state, and that is the American public coming to their senses and realizing what Israel has become. Netanyahu, and sadly the majority of Israelis, have no interest in a two-state solution because they want ALL the land and small details, such as the fact that ALL the settlements are illegal, don't bother them. It is long past time for the United States to put an end to this because it has become the roadblock to a just solution. The American veto has become a license for Israel to to behave cruelly and illegally with impunity. If any other country was behaving this way the US would hit them with harsh sanctions.
8
Passing the Mideast peace torch to Trump is a loss. Pray to maintain the status quo then when he's out in 2020 pray again that we have a republican or democratic with the background and intelligence to bring this to a two sate solution already. Baruch hashem.
1
Either the Palestinians have their own state, or they have full rights to vote for members of the Knesset and take up residence in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem like any Israeli does.
Anything else is apartheid.
"Look at Iran/Saudi Arabia/Egypt" whoever else is not a proclamation of Israeli democracy. It's a proclamation of defeat. Not even in the sad, authoritarian America of 2017 do we force different religious groups to different roads, do we demolish homes without due process, etc.
5
The Palestinians are cramped up in the West Bank towns whereas the Jewish settlers have exclusive use of the fertile farmlands and aquifers in the West Bank. Palestinians have no right to free movement whereas settlers have Jew only roads. Palestinians are not allowed to establish trade with any other country except through Israel. This is apartheid.
South African apartheid was abolished through sanctions. The same can work in Israel. BDS is a step in the right direction.
9
The Israel of Likud and Bibi is not one a majority of Jews in the U.S. an support.
3
I hear the phrase "liberal Zionism" a lot lately. But I don't know what it is. From this article, it appears that liberal Zionism for Ms. Goldberg is a Zionism that supports a two-state solution. What would that make "conservative Zionism"? Are we witnessing the triumph of conservative over liberal Zionism, or is the term, fitting for inclusion in an NYT headline, actually absurd?
In the event, it would have been nice had Ms. Goldberg interviewed an actual Israeli for this piece and not relied entirely on Mr. Barghouti.
And, though it's been said elsewhere in these responses, the Palestinians have thus far turned down at least four proposals for their own state, most recently offered by Ehud Barak and then by Ehud Olmert. A plethora of Palestinian excuses attempt to explain why those proposals were rejected out of hand, but it's nonsense. Had Arafat left Camp David with Clinton and Barak at Camp David, or later with Barak alone at Taba with a handshake, a Palestinian state would be preparing for its 20th anniversary.
Thus withers the dream of liberal Zionism on the vine of Palestinian rejectionism.
7
There might be a chance for peace if the Israelis would stop treating the Palestinians the way the Europeans treated the Native Americans.
4
Look what happened after the end of colonialism, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe to Guinea to Mozambique. Sadly, there are more advanced civilizations, and less advanced ones, and there is no point in pretending they are equal. Israel should stop taking Arab land for Jewish settlement, but being a majority in a combined Israel-Palestine shouldn't entitle the Arabs to control. Ethnic succession is a dangerous process and it is a peculiarly modern stupidity to accept it based on a 51% majority.
1
I am confused and fail to understand the brouhaha about Jerusalem as the Israeli Capital.
Is it because the 1947 UN partition determined Jerusalem to be 'Corpus Separatum' status?
But, haven't events of 1948-9 erased the UN partition altogether, changed demarcated Partition borders as a result of Israel winning the war against invading Arab armies, gaining more territory all the way to the 1949 Cease-Fire lines (which remained the Cease-Fire lines until 1967 - not 'borders', that is)?
So, if the UN 1947 Partition Plan has been dead, why is everyone 'clinging' to a shard of it - Jerusalem ?
7
I do not believe there is now or ever has been a "Liberal Zionist."
Zionism has always been an aggressive stance against the Palestinian people who lived there for a thousand years before being displaced by force by the Israelites.
3
If not dead, it is moribund. The nationalism and self-righteousness of today's Israeli politicians make a good match with Trump.
2
The cruel reality is that Israel has defiantly and effectively eliminated any concept of a two-state existence with Palestine. There is only Israel now that Palestine's land has been reduced to a small apartheid ghetto. Palestine has been vanquished, and Israel has emerged victorious in securing what they wanted. Along the way, Palestine missed many opportunities to negotiate, but at the same time, Israel ignored any possibility of having any form of concessions to meet Palestinian needs while absorbing mile after mile of Palestine's land and settling on it. Today, we have to accept the fact that Israel conquered Palestine, and also accept the fact that the Jewish community that suffered horrific oppression and genocide in WW2 and was given a humanitarian opportunity to have a safe place to live and thrive... Has turned around and cruelly oppressed an entire Nation of people, in similar, if lesser, ways in their quest for their own desires and needs. I respect Israel's strength and determination, but I have minimal respect for their claim to be a Religious State. They don't even begin to follow their own "Religious Commandments". Thou Shalt not Kill, Thou Shalt Not Envy was never part of the Israeli plan. In essence, the only principles at play in the world of governance there, and everywhere, are power and greed. Period.
3
Yes liberal Zionism is dead. Nothing lasts forever. As for the future, neither Ms Goldberg nor anyone else knows what it will bring, and making sweeping prophesies does not contribute to a journalist's credibility. I have lived in Israel for more than 40 years and seen developments that I could never have imagined - and I have a vivid imagination. I would suggest that Ms Goldberg stretch hers beyond doomsday scenarios. It feels good.
2
Framing this discussion in terms of "liberal Zionism" is a bit misleading. Zionism, as I understand, refers to the belief in the existence of a Jewish homeland. Despite the histrionics of those on Israeli far right, the issue is not the existence of Israel. This is not 1973 anymore. Nobody is trying to invade or destroy Israel. In fact, most of Israel's hostile Muslim neighbors are now too busy fighting other Muslims, beating each other into oblivion in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. What is at issue is basically a land dispute between Israel and a neighbor whose land Israel occupies. This may be an existential issue for a possible Palestinian state, but it is not an existential issue for Israel. So why must must United States continually interject itself into this land dispute on Israel's behalf?
1
So the assumption here is is that "Liberal Zionism" means a state that is Jewish and Democratic. It is an oxymoron, to be sure, but if the demographics are in your favor, who cares. And if the minority population resorts to violence, then the tortuous balancing act is easier to conceal.
In a similar sleight of hand, the US Constitution ducked the question of whether African-Americans were "people," and so they assigned each 3/5 personhood. Many insightful commentators knew that that oxymoronic construct could not last for long. It could be ducked, but after about 75 years of compromise and double talk, it ended, with a bang.
Same thing will happen in Israel, I predict: Israel will become a truly democratic state, gradually ceding rights to Arabs, gradually accommodating heterogeneous populations, letting the demographics go where they go. 75 years from 1948 is coming up pretty soon. Please be optimistic. "A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall," but then there will be progress......in my opinion.
3
Meh. Stock lines - too many quotes, not enough original thought here. If by Liberal Zionism you mean Palestinian sympathizer, then, yes, it's dead, as it should be. Even the Arabs know the schtick is up - 70 years of violence and propaganda and Israel is as strong as ever - time for the Palestinians to face some hard realities. I'm no fan of Trump. And I do think the timing and timbre of the announcement was terrible. But I am no friend of the Palestinians and I am no Liberal Zionist.
5
The worst and most unethical form of human tribalism is seen with religions. Any group of people who claim that they alone are the "chosen people" of some imagined supernatural deity allows self-righteous hatred of others in the name of religious arrogance. This whole dynamic of trying to claim land as fulfillment of some ancient religious prophesy reminds me of the sad lyrics from Joni Mitchell's One Tin Soldier:
Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing,
Come the judgment day,
On the bloody morning after
One tin soldier rides away.
3
Apparently Michelle Goldberg just does not understand what Zionism is, that it neither is or was ever meant to be either a conservative or liberal ideology. Rather, the impetus for and the original purpose of Zionism was to normalize the role of Jews in the world. To that end it has been extraordinarily successful. Now the Jews, just like Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, have a country run by self-serving, deceitful people.
4
There was a time in the late forties when there were liberal Zionists. They included such luminaries as Dr. Albert Einstein, Rabbi Judah L. Magnes, and Dr. Hannah Arendt. They favored a bi-national state with Jews and Arabs having equal rights. In the early 1950s, David Ben Gurion, the first premier and founding father of Israel, offered the presidency of Israel to Dr. Einstein to bolster Israel's international image, but Dr. Einstein was aware of Ben Gurion's policy of ethnic cleansing during 1947-48 and saw which way the wind was blowing. He politely rejected the offer.
The term "liberal Zionism" has since become an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence. Israel can be liberal or Zionist. It can't be both.
4
A solution is coming, slowly, but it is coming. BDS. Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. There will come a year when people of the world do not buy from Israel, do not visit Israel, and refuse to deal with entities that do. It's called BDS.
This end point has been forced on Israel by the zionists in Israel. They want the US to fight another couple of wars for them, viz., complete regime change in Syria and destroy Iran. My guess is that Europe now sees the game and will not go along. The Palestinians who have had their land and homes stolen from them at rifle point will get their homes back, I hope, every single one of them.
4
Liberal Zionism has been dead since Count Bernadotte, a UN diplomate who negotiated the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps during WW II was shot dead by opponents of a two state solution that he proposed proposed with no one charged with the killings.
That is no one.
s
Michelle in the words of the great Hebrew Rabbi Hillel " If I am not for myself then who will be for me?" Stop worrying about how democratic Israel is and rejoice in its existence. I will take an apartheid , non democratic Israel any day over a world without Israel. The Jews must have a State and that State is under no obligation to be any better or worse than any other State. The form of government is irrelevant. Stop worrying about every other group and worry about your own tribe. The Palestinian Arabs want to destroy Israel as do many anti-Semites around the globe but if you need to get out of the US for reasons of persecution only Israel will accept you -no questions asked. The Jews cannot return to a situation in which their fate is determined by somebody else. Israel must live for the sake of the Jewish people.
7
This article is intellectually dishonest in multiple ways. Probably the worst way is to even entertain the epithet of apartheid. Never mentioned is that the Israeli supreme court has an arab sitting on it. And 20% of the undergraduate students at the flagship Israeli university, the Technion, are Arab. Apartheid, indeed. This is merely a specious charge leveled by "liberals" to smear Israel for a variety of reasons.
8
Yes, it's dead.
Along with the concept of an ethno-religious state generally. Simply a bad idea and there's no reason to think Israel will be any better than Iran in this regard. Race, religion, ethnicity etc. are the shallowest and most meaningless of identities imaginable.
You do nothing to acquire them but get born.
So let's move on from these Iron Age archaisms, these stupid Skyfather religious, and recognize they are like an old operating system that has outgrown its utility.
Atheism and miscegeny are the only sane future.
2
"Liberal Zionism? Huh! Never was any such thing. Do you mean socialist zionism of the secular founders? That was a failed idea from the get-go. There can never be an Israel that is secular. It has no meaning. An empty, bankrupt idea. Dead, buried and good riddance. Does Goldberg think that the Palestinians want a state in a two-state framework? Hah hah hah. Palestinian leadership and their puppet masters in Syria, Lebanon, Iran. Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi have never had any interest in that concept.
5
I served a year in the IDF. I loved Israel, truly. But Israel is becoming a settler state and Israelis may as well be Mongols or Huns. Just as in Exodus there came a Pharaoh that knew not Joseph, there is a new Israel that knows not justice, and they may as well throw the Talmud and the Bible in the toilet. Needless to say Netanyahu has more in common with Pharaoh than with King David let alone the Prophets. I can't say Amen or pray for this new Israel whose heart is a tank and Uzi submachine gun and is radioactive.
The Arabs are not Canaanites and Philistines and Babylonians and Assyrians et al, they are people just like us and they are alive just like us and they have souls and families just like us. Prick them and they will bleed, wrong them and they will seek revenge
3
Jared brokered this deal to keep his friend Bibi happy. There is a reason to enforce nepotism laws, so family members, who don't have a real position in the White House, don't make foreign policy.
7
Any state founded on the basis of a religion is an abomination as it starts with a state-sanctioned preference that is personal, undeniable, and, in the eyes of anyone who is not of that religion, arbitrary (no less so than skin color). The end of Israel as a Jewish state cannot come soon enough, just as the end of Iran as an Islamic state also cannot come soon enough.
10
Israel is the state of the Jewish people, not the state of the Jewish religion.
4
Do you feel the same about the scores of countries that are officially Muslim, Catholic and Christian?
3
It's not impossible that Bannon's solution could happen, if the reward to the Egyptians and the Jordanians for picking up that cross were large enough.
1
It is absolutely shameful, for Ms. Goldberg and anyone else, to deny Israel's right to Jerusalem as its capital. There is no difference between that denial and denying Israel to exist as a Jewish State.
Jerusalem IS Israel's capital and has been so since 1948. Denying that fact is no different than denying Paris to be the capital of France.
The sordid logic of Ms. Goldberg is accepting this simple fact equates to denying any possibility for Arab Palestinians to consider part of Jerusalem as their capital. While Jerusalem is Israel's capital, if one day Arab Palestinians wish to come to reality and accept Israel fully and unconditionally, Israel could cede part of the city.
Do people remember that, from 1949 to 1967, Arabs had full control of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and that they did nothing to establish their Arab Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital ?
Trump just acknowledged a simple truth that Arab Palestinians use as one more excuse to continue their corruption and violence.
24
The Palestinians' repeated rejection of offers to negotiate means Arab intervention is necessary to persuade the Palestinians that a two-State solution is in their best interests, regardless of whether it comports with their political agenda of imperiling Israel's future existence.
Michelle Goldberg's criticism of Arab nations who want to nudge the Palestinians toward an agreement, suggests she is not genuinely interested in a two-State solution.
14
The author, like so many liberal American Jews, wants a state for the Palestinians more than the Palestinians want a state for themselves. THAT, I would contend, is, has been, and -- barring a change in Palestinian behavior and outlook -- will remain the crux of the problem.
Instead of spinning fantasies about an imaginary "one state solution," the author would be doing Arabs, Israeli, and all who care about peace in the region a real service if she explored why the Palestinians cling so diligently and desperately to a victimization narrative.
There was a war in 1967. The Arabs lost. Its time to recognize the claims of the victor, and for the vanquished to negotiate a settlement.
20
A the very least, Trump pulled the mask off the long-standing farce that the United States could be an "honest broker", in the middle east peace process. Any critically thinking person would realize that our national interests were always going to side with Israel. The Palestinians, without resources, were never construed as equal partners in this dog and pony show. The denouement was Trump's curtain closure to any possibility of a sovereign Palestinian state.
4
Who would be an honest broker?
2
Apartheid: "we don’t have another term for a political system in which one ethnic group rules over another, confining it to small islands of territory and denying it full political representation."
How about the "domestic dependent nations" which are Indian reservations in the U.S.?
6
Israel is not ruling over the West Bank Palestinians because the West Bank Palestinians are a different ethnic group. Israel rules over the West Bank because the West Bank Palestinians refuse to live in peace. If Israel ends the occupation of the West Bank, Palestinians will fire rockets from the West Bank just as they fired rockets from Gaza when Israel withdrew from Gaza.
9
The answer to your question was "Yes" 20 years ago.
3
Is there no end to the Trouble one man can cause? At home and abroad?
Troublesome Trump! Now he’s even meddling in a religious conflict, tipping it toward the conservatives.
Trump the Troublemaker needs to go!
2
For 120 years non Zionist Jews have argued that that a Jewish state cannot exist because there are more Arabs than Jews. That argument has never worked out but Michelle Goldberg restates it as if the argument were more compelling now. Having been born in 1975 the author does not appreciate just how old and silly the argument is. It would be more accurate that a Palestinian State that challenges the existence of a Jewish State will never come into existence. The logical conclusion is that the Palestinian Arabs will have a state only when they stop fantasizing that Israel will cease being a Jewish state and that its capital is not Jerusalem. Ms. Goldberg may wish that a Jewish State had been built without conflict on a cloud instead of in soil but the circumstance of Jewish sovereignty having been established on this piece of land rather than in the air is not going to change so that she can feel good about herself when speaking to her progressive friends at the Nation Magazine. She is just stuck with a Jewish state being in Israel not in the air.
19
Israel is on the brink of being accepted in the region as legitimate, yet those who claim to hear God' voice are doing everything they can to destroy the country. Its like in the days of the Prophets when the people would stray from their culture and traditions. It does not end well. Israel has the strength and security that it founding fathers spent decades working on. Now they have it and a small group is about to destroy it all with their arrogance and superiority. The Palestinians should have their own state on the West Bank and Gaza. Otherwise, we are looking at decades of trouble until that happens.
3
The Palestinians should not have their own state unless they're willing to live in peace.
5
There are two futures: one, a two state solution, in which Palestinians have sovereignty in one and Jews in Israel in another, or a one state, in which all Israelis, whether Jews, Palestinians, or anything else, have equal rights, including the right to vote. The second solution means the abolition of Jewish rule in Israel. So, what's the decision? If Zionists want to control a separate state, then there is no alternative to the two state solution. Unless the Jewish people decide that it is okay to systematically repress another people because of their race. And of course, history demands that they--we-- can't do that, right?
6
The one state could be Palestine and Jordan - same language, same culture, same religion.
3
I grew up thinking of Jews as the quintessential fighters for freedom and human rights. I admired their participation in the struggle for workers' rights and wept at their suffering. But while I have not lost my faith in those who are my American fellow-citizens, I do have a deep sense of disillusion in what the right wing is doing in Israel.
13
This piece of twisted logic blames Trump for Israel’s moral failings. Israel has not changed its goals or policies in several decades through a dozen US Presidents. But the blame where it belongs: on Israel.
8
The comments well reflect the range of thoughts on this matter, and I am grateful for them.
4
It should be since in general liberalism is a failed political experiment in the world today. Only in single culture countries does it somewhat work.
3
That would be single-culture countries like Switzerland, Canada, and the US?
4
Trump had no good reason to make his Jerusalem announcement. It fostered only problems for the region, not solutions. A one-state solution denies the possibility of a continuing Jewish homeland in the place where our forefathers lived. A two-state solution is now less likely.
But that does not mean that liberals like me are no longer Zionists. I still hope for a solution that is fair and equitable for both groups.
While I'd love to see Palestinians move to Jordan, which was set aside for them when the region was partitioned, I know that is not the solution. Neither can I accept an Israel that is not Jewish. Mr. Trump pushed any hope of peace farther away than it needed to be.
1
Excellent article, thank you! It's long since past time to stop indulging in the two-state fantasy and realize that the only two choices are the apartheid status quo or a state of equality for all its inhabitants. Not to fight for the latter is to support the former.
10
Not so, Sir !
Those with a time-horizon long enough, know that neither "two-states" or "one state" shall come to pass.
When Muslim radicalism ebbs, King Abdulla would be all but happy to get the West-Bank back, most of it anyway and, he is at peace with Israel.
3
The status quo is not apartheid.
"South African MP Rev. Dr. Kenneth Meshoe wrote in the San Francisco Examiner, “As a black South African who lived under apartheid, this system was implemented in South Africa to subjugate people of color and deny them a variety of their rights. In my view, Israel cannot be compared to apartheid in South Africa. Those who make the accusation expose their ignorance of what apartheid really is.” Meshoe made this statement upon visiting San Francisco, where he was shocked to learn of posters posted within the city comparing Israel to the apartheid regime in South Africa. He asserted, “As a black South African under apartheid, I, among other things, could not vote, nor could I freely travel the landscape of South Africa. No person of color could hold high government office. The races were strictly segregated at sports arenas, public restrooms, schools and on public transportation. People of color had inferior hospitals, medical care and education. If a white doctor was willing to take a black patient, he had to examine him or her in a back room or some other hidden place. In my numerous visits to Israel, I did not see any of the above."
Imagining a state of equality for all its inhabitants in a majority-Arab state is the fantasy. Remember when Arabs ruled East Jerusalem. They expelled all Jews and forced Christian schools to teach the Koran.
4
"Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s central council, told me that before Trump’s decision, “there was a frozen peace process,” but many people believed it could be restarted. “Mr. Trump killed the potential,” he said."
Sorry but that is a lie. The Palestinians dont want a peace deal and are not even capable themselves of agreeing to one. There are no present Palestinian leaders capable of reaching peace. Someday maybe a Palestinian Sadat or Hussein will emerge. There is none now. Just the same tired old leaders who have lined their own pockets at their peoples' expense and continue the same old rheoric of hate that will never acheive peace.
22
The word "liberal" has always meant someone open to a range of ideas, which are generally progressive, but which include other, moderate, sometimes even conservative ideas when they produce a good result.
The traditional notion of liberal as keeping an open mind seems to have morphed today into following the party line to the exclusion of other, even equally progressive, ideas.
Michelle Goldberg's interpretation of liberal Zionist takes the latter approach, following the party line of many in the anti-Zionist left community who believe that Israel should be greatful that the world allows it to exist because, in spite of its recognition by the UN back in 1947, it is really illegitimate.
Such is the rationale for demands by the left that Israel withdraw from all territory it captured in a defensive war, and retreat to the indefensible pre-67 borders. Such is the rationale for demands that Israel abandon its claim to East Jerusalem, which had been ethnically cleansed of all Jews by the Arabs when it was captured in 1948, the Jewish holy sites destroyed. A city in which Jews were the majority since at least 1880, if not before. Even putting aside the deeper historic connection of the Jewish people to that land.
Perhaps the term liberal Zionism, as Michelle Goldberg uses it, is a misnomer. What she really means, if not anti-Zionism, is barely tolerable Zionism, of which even liberal-minded Zionists should be ashamed of because it contravenes the party line.
15
I don't see any mention of the bi-national approach, which is a one-state plan with citizenship and human rights secured for all, but with formal recognition for the distinct communities. It is *possible* to devise an Israel-Palestine which is democratic overall, and still maintains (in a sub-state canton, not necessarily physically bounded) a special relationship with Jewish people everywhere.
2
It disturbs me terribly when critics demand that Israel be Jewish and Democratic but never demand even the most minute level of civility of a future Palestinian state. Would you be comfortable if your landlord rented the next-door apartment to a pyromaniac? Of course not. But all those who profess to "love" Israel are perfectly content to ignore the real dangers of the creation of a hostile entity within its bosom.
Here's a question that I wish someone could answer sincerely. What can the Palestinians do as a sovereign, independent state that they can't do now? And how might these newly acquired capabilities improve the lives of its citizens? If their lives would not improve, then the creation of such a state is unlikely to yield peace or security for Israel.
25
Just a few examples out of a plethora:
If the palestinians had their own sovereign state they could:
1) fish as far out in the sea as they wish, without being arrested by Jews.
2) establish an international airport with the power to choose who gets into Palestine.
3. Establish their own military to protect Palestinians from illegal search and seizure by Jews.
4. Run their own TV and radio stations with the freedom to broadcast what they want.
5. Extend citizenship and voting rights to Palestinians who have been denied both by Jews.
4
Among other things, Palestinians do not have the freedom to trade normally with other countries.
2
Two thoughts:
1. Click bait
2. The reference to Buckley is both supercilious and self-serving.
7
"That state can be Jewish or it can be democratic, but it cannot be both. Trump’s embassy decision was thus another nail in the coffin of liberal Zionism."
It can be both; "liberal Zionism" is an oxymoron.
9
I'm confused. I thought the "occupied territories" was the same thing as The West Bank. The statement, "“Let Jordan take the West Bank, let Egypt take Gaza” doesn't compute in my mind. Yes, I'm aware of the settlements, but I never thought that the term "occupied territories" referred to that alone. Maybe Goldberg and Bannon are so advanced in their thinking these minor points of fact are inconsequential. Perhaps, for the sake of ignorant people like me you should clarify.
1
And this is why Israel is held up as a prime example of the type of ethnostate that alt-right figures like Richard Spencer aspire to build. A land where only one group of people is entitled to enjoy the full rights of citizenship while the rest remain in a vulnerable state of suspension, stateless. That's how nation's self-destruct.
17
Israel is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-confessional democracy.
Khaled Abu Toameh, the journalist who reports for the Jerusalem Post, U.S. News & World Report and NBC News, put it: "Israel is a wonderful place to live ... a free and open country.
Arab women in Israel live longer than Arab women in any Arab country.
Arab babies in Israel have lower infant mortality than Arab babies in any Arab country.
Hadassah University Medical Center in Israel established a registry for Arab donors of bone marrow and stem cells to facilitate life-saving transplants. The registry at Hadassah Hospital is the only one in the world for Arabs and will no doubt save the lives not only of Arab Israelis but also of some citizens of Arab countries, not a single one of which has a registry of its own.
5
The alternative to a negotiated, two state solution is not a one-state Israel including the West Bank Palestinians, it is the continuation of the status quo. Eventually, it might become a current State of Israel, and a self administered territory of the West Bank, with Israeli security oversight.
9
what is astounding about this conversation is that a people who have lost 3 wars feel entitled to dictate their future. Maxim 1, you lose a war, you lose land, otherwise there isn't an incentive to not keep fighting the same war over and over if their are no downsides. the arabs need to be told to face reality and accept their fate like other peoples who have lost wars. the best outcome would be to remove all arabs from the west bank and relocate them to host nations in the region. the middle-east and europe have many examples of this that has produced stability for all involved- i.e. the turkish/greek population exchanges of 1923, Sudetenland 1945, Poland's post WW2 shift...
28
And the Israelis didn't start any of those wars.
13
Adding to Peter Paulus:
" I think that this is the first war in history that on the morrow, the victors sued for peace and the vanquished called for unconditional surrender." (Abba Eban)
9
Allow some advice if you want to be taken seriously by Israelis and those who support Israel.
It is altogether proper that the Palestinians should control large enough contiguous blocs of territory to form a viable polity. Doing so will require Israel to withdraw from settlements like Elon Moreh, a couple miles east of Nablus, which is surrounded by the Arab villages of Izmut, Balata, Beit Furik, Bayt Dajan, and Tamun. However, that would not require Israel to withdraw from Maale Efraim, in the Jordan Valley, which has straight shots north and south to internationally recognized Israel without passing significant Arab habitation. If you want Israelis to withdraw from Elon Moreh, stop insisting that Maale Efraim be treated the same way.
All that's needed is to ask one simple question for every locale that the Palestinians demand: Is Israeli withdrawal from that locale necessary to build a substantial contiguous Palestinian polity? If the answer is negative, do not claim doing so as a reason to demand Israeli withdrawal.
Jerusalem spectacularly fails that test. This raises the question as to why it is so important to the Palestinians. The one thing I would suggest is to look further back in history than 1967 to determine if how the Arabs relate to Jerusalem is consistent with the Palestinians' claimed reason.
12
trying again, maybe it bothers you but i think'liberal zionism ' is an oxymoron and I think ethnic national states are bannonism .
5
Which of the 22 member states of the Arab League should first withdraw from that organization? Who should withdraw first from the Community of Latin American and Carribean nations?
Or is it only the Jewish ethnic group that is suspect?
3
Israel is a sovereign state and it has declared that its capital is Jerusalem. Foreign countries should honor its declaration and that includes the US. Israel is under no British or US or UN mandate. It is a sovereign state. If there are consequences to dealing with that decision, Israel will face those consequences. If Israel becomes an apartheid-like state Israel will face those consequences. One thing for certain: Israel couldn't care less what Jews in the US think. Those days are gone forever.
16
So, can we stop sending you 4 billion dollars a year?
3
Liberal Zionism is an oxymoron. Dead as a doornail. Let's hope President Trump's and Premier Netanyahu's one state policy (unstated) is dead in the Israeli/Palestinian agony today. May a two-state solution in Israel be brought to fruition during our next President's tenure. Sooner than we can imagine today.
3
The 2 state solution option was going nowhere. If the Palestinians want a state with most of East Jerusalem as it's capital they can still have it. They would need to recognize the Jewish State with West Jerusalem as its capital. Trump would exert the needed pressure on Netanyahu Little chance of that happening but at least Trump had the courage to try and move it along. I didn't vote for him but this was a bold move where there was nothing to lose. Liberal Zionists were delusional that the Arabs would give up a right of return and accept the Zionist entity within any borders Israel could agree to live with. Now their is some hope however slim of a breakthrough where none existed.
8
It's a bit rich to condemn the possibility of an apartheid government in Israel when we're unable to deconstruct Jim Crow in our own backyard, when in fact we are busy working on new ways to disenfranchise whole swaths of America's voting population. Liberal Zionism was never more than a theoretical ideal that would never be possible in actual practice.
2
It seems that a casualty of the rising "Nationalist" movement around the world is Liberal Zionism. I have long loved the state of Israel and the Israeli people. I am sickened by the present leadership and the encouragement they are getting from DC. As in the United States there is a disconnect between the population and it's leaders.
7
What is interesting is how the Arab nations in the Middle East are backing away from the Palestinians. Publicly supporting the Palestinians while privately supporting Israel has been the name of the game among Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other nations. Support for the Palestinians is a useful opiate for the Arab masses in order to get them to focus on something other than their own government's shortcomings, but not a strategic priority for the Arab nations. Look at the protests in Iran, where the government conveniently blames Israel and the United States rather than acknowledging the Iranian government's shortcomings.
20
I do not have a dog in the fight as an agnostic American, but it looks like the Likudniks are in deep denial. From banning the admission of people who support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions to entry in Israel to Republicans who want to make supporting it illegal here, it appears as if the Right Wingers have their heads buried in the sand and fingers in their ears. Geography, demography and a changing climate will speak louder than any politician.
I want to see both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people living in Israel and the occupied territories have peace in a democratic government with full civil liberties and equality before the law and feel that should be the official policy of the United States. More than anything, I would like to see the internal affairs of Israel take a less overarching place in the policy of the US. Not for anyone, not against anyone, do not advocate anything but peace, democracy and justice for all.
The path Israel is on does not do that or make it more likely.
13
No matter what Israel does, there won't be peace.
In 1947, the scholars at Al-Azhar University (The highest authority in Sunni Islam.) declared holy war to return Palestine to Islamic rule. Therefore, as long as most Palestinians are devout Muslims (89% of Palestinian Muslims want sharia law.) and as long as the Jewish State controls even one square inch of land, peace is impossible.
10
Beautiful comment David. Thank you.
It seems horrifically ironic for Ms. Goldberg to quote Mustafa Barghouti in regards to the vitality of the peace process. In articles Mr. Garghouti tends to gloss over the repeated offers made by Israeli governments, and more specifically over the history of Palestinian Authority rejections of those offers, even of plans that were co-authored by current P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas.
Barghouti has also publicly denied the promotion of violence in children's television programs such as Tomorrow's Pioneers, which had characters based on Disney and Warner Bros. cartoons calling for violence against Jews. While he later admitted that such programs exist, he claimed that the programs were taken off the air. They were not.
In the current progressive movement, those who are not willing to condemn Israel are denigrated, and Linda Sarsour, current progressive media darling, insists that one cannot be progressive and a Zionist at all. The demonization of the Israeli state, without regards for actual facts, is becoming routine in Democratic party functions, and open calls for Israel's destruction are deemed acceptable.
Even the NYTimes is willing to rely on spurious sources, such as a claim that an Egyptian intelligence officer influenced talk show hosts, so long as it fits the narrative that Israel is to blame for any failure in the peace process.
It is time to acknowledge the Arab role in causing the stalemate, and in creating their own suffering as a result of it.
34
Like so much of liberal analysis of the Israeli issue it dismisses out of hand the Palestinians. There is almost no acknowledgement of the incompetence, and dishonesty of the Palestinian leadership. There is even less recognition that the rest of the Arab world may use Israel as scapegoat but don't care about the Palestinians. Netanyahu is an awful prime minister but the Palestinians are in the fix they are largely because of the Palestinians.
22
The nominal Palestinian leadership has mostly been terrible--true. But so what? They have very little actual power. The masses of ordinary Palestinians are still human beings, b'tzelem Elohim, and the Israeli government has, among all actors, far and away, the most determination over the circumstances of their lives. As long as that remains the case, the moral responsibility lies with Israel.
7
You mean Palestinians are little children rather than adults who can't be expected to pick up after themselves and clean up their messes? And unlike an adult, never be expected to take any responsibility for any of their actions? And the more they cry and whine, the more you have to mollify them in the hope they'll quiet down? The more they preach hate, steal from their own people, or beat, jail or kill any of their own critics among their own people, the more you have to look away because they can't be expected to conduct themselves rationally as adults? Is that what you're saying, Erik?
2
typical naive or subversive commentary. the Arabs have demonstrated many times their intentions to destroy the Jewish state. from the first attack and war when the nation was founded to the rejection by Arafat of ANY offer (everything they claimed they wanted was rejected). Gaza was given to them with high tech agriculture and is now a wreck living off the U.S. tax money...
25
If the Two State Solution is killed & the result is a One State Solution where Palestinians are denied full citizenship it will not only be a sad & dangerous day for Palestinians & Israelis alike; it will be a very destructive day for all Jews everywhere.
This is something I personally cannot abide by.
The threat to Israel as a Jewish State in a two state solution is real but it is less a threat than a One State Solution where Palestinians are delegated to second class citizens or worse, non-citizen Residents of the Autonomy. Such a "solution" is doomed from the start & the State of Israel will cease to exist as an independent nation & homeland for the Jewish People.
The reason for the establishment of the Jewish homeland at the time of Israel's creation in 1948 was to give both the Jews & Palestinians living in the British Mandate of Palestine separate national homelands, with the land split between the two.
The Israeli Right need to begin to process this as reality & the only way to maintain a Jewish homeland. If they succeed in "killing" this through continued occupation & land seizure, they will sow the seeds of Israel's eventual destruction. Modern Israel will never be the Ancient Kingdom of Israel. The sooner the Religious & Political Right accept this as reality, the sooner a true lasting peace can take root for both the Israelis & Palestinians.
8
Milk and honey has become guns and money.
2
You may be correct in
much of your analysis
but it concerns me greatly
that you do not deal with
the fact that Israel has
come forth with offers
to have a Palestinian state.
A novice reading your articles
would not know the historical
record of Arab rejections for peace.
To identify only a FEW major ones:
~in 1947 the UN voted
to create two states resulting in
Arab rejection and attack to destroy
Israel
~in 1967 Arab armies
attempted to destroy Israel in
the Six Day War
~Israeli efforts for peace talks
to give up the conquered land
met with Arab rejection
(Khartoum Resolution: no peace
with Israel, no recognition...,
no negotiations....)
~in 2000 Clinton, Barak and Arafat
met to conclude a two-state plan with
Arafat rejections leading to suicide
bombings in Israel
~in 2008 Olmert and Abbas met
leading to Israeli offers to
return the vast majority of occupied
land, an offer rejected by the Palestinians
~Israel left Gaza resulting in Arabs turning
Gaza into a terrorist base against Israel
thus resulting in more terrorism and wars
under the rule of Hamas.
Consistently the Arabs have refused to
recognize Israel's right to exist.
It is truly lamentably that these
two peoples are at war with
extremism fueled on both sides.
Perhaps this is my tribalism but
it upsets me terribly that this has
become a right/left issue with
Israel being perceived as not
desiring peace with her Palestinian
neighbors.
15
Israel used to be beacon of a secular liberal democracy. But now, with a Trumpesque type leader in Netanyahu--Israel has become just another theocracy. And with its continued expropriation of the Occupied Territories, it seeks to become "Greater Israel". Only then what? What happens to the 4.5 million Palestinians? Do they come full Israeli citizens--with full voting rights? Or are there to be either mass ethnic "cleansing"? How does Israel remain both a Jewish state and a democracy with the non-Jewish population of a "Greater Israel" projected to exceed the Jewish population in roughly 20. years?
6
The conflict has provided great wealth for Palestinian leaders. Arafat’s net worth was $1 billion. Abbas’ met worth is $100 million. Hamas’ Khaled Mashaal, head of Hamas’s political wing, net worth $2.6 billion. Ending the conflict means ending the money.
12
Yep. For the survival of Judaism, I am guessing it is better to let Liberal Zionism die. After all, Liberal Jews (including Reform Jews) outnumber their equivalents in Islam, which is the dominant religion of "Palestine". Palestinians do appreciate the idea of "apartheid", if it produces desired results for them; hence, no Jews in East Jerusalem or a future Palestinian state. Furthermore, Liberal Jews are not as religious as those who I would call "true Jews". As I see it, Reform Jews have more in common with so-called "Jesus Jews" than the "true Jews", who might be able to manage somehow balance religious life with non-religious life.
3
If I’m understanding Michelle Goldberg correctly, she thinks that liberal Zionism depends on the Palestinians being given some sort of state in the West Bank.
With such a Palestinian state, Zionists could continue to argue legitimately that Israel is both Jewish and democratic. The majority of Palestinians would live in the new state, whereas Jews would be a majority in an Israel which remains Jewish consistently with democratic principles.
Without such a state, Zionists will have to admit that Israel is in fact not a democracy. For it is inconceivable that Palestinians would ever be allowed equal rights or the opportunity to remake Israel into no longer an ethnic nationalist state but truly a state of all its people.
Wait, wait. Exactly *why* is it inconceivable that Palestinians would be allowed equal rights in the “one state” of Israel? Is denial of equal rights consistent with “liberal” Zionism? No definition of “liberal” can possibly be reconciled with denial of equal rights. Clearly the very principle of Zionism itself is at stake here, which is that Jews are entitled to their own state within which they are privileged over any others. Liberal Zionists always told themselves that a Palestinian state would rescue them. There will be no Palestinian state but rather a single state from the river to the sea.
What frightens Michelle Goldberg is not the death of liberal Zionism but rather the stripping bare of the internal contradictions within Zionism itself.
6
The definition of Zionism according to Merriam-Webster:
"an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel"
Notice that there's nothing in the definition about Jews being "privileged over any others."
2
Plenty of fault all around.
Until 1918, Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman Turks for centuries.
In 1914, the Ottoman Turks cast their lot with the Kaiser's Germany.
When the fight with Germany dragged on and on and was bleeding the Brits white, the Brits, in typical British ad hoc diplomacy, in the notorious Balfour Declaration, made a thinly disguised trade-off:
In exchange for Zionist support in the fight against Germany,
the Brits promised the Zionists a "homeland" in Palestine.
In the end, the scales were tipped against the Kaiser --
not by Zionist support -- which, however wholehearted, could never be substantial -- but rather by yet another smooth British diplomatic effort -- the appeal by the Brits to the USA to join in the fight against Germany -- which brought far more weight into the fight against Germany -- and which, in the end made the USA the world's dominant power from then right up until now.
Meanwhile, the Brits remained stuck with the ill-conceived Balfour Declaration.
So, when Germany was finally defeated,
the Ottoman Turks also were defeated,
and the lands of the Ottoman Turks in the Middle East, including Palestine,
were carved up between Britain and France.
The USA was never enthusiastic about that.
But, after all, a deal's a deal.
The Zionists clung to the deal until the time was ripe for them to cash in on it.
That time came 25 years later, after the defeat, once again, of Germany,
after Germany foolishly tried to re-fight the earlier fight.
Israel at one time was seen as a the only democratic enclave in the Middle East, where most countries have either a tyrant imposing order or/and some religious group rules over all others. It is rapidly becoming another typical Middle Eastern country. It is a democracy only for one particular religious group while imposing non-democratic rules on the others. The excuse that the Palestinians do not recognize its existence and thus must be oppressed is just that, an excuse for refusing civil rights to millions non-Jewish inhabitants in the area under Israel's control. Most Palestinians have accepted the fact that Israel is there to stay and understand that they are going to have to live with it. But they cannot and will never accept to be treated as second class citizens. The status quo cannot last and the longer Israel refuses to face that fact the more likely that it will become a pariah state . In any future conflict most of the world's sympathy will be with the Palestinians.
8
The Palestinian are not second class citizens of Israel.
The Palestinians are not citizens of Israel at all.
Palestine is a separate country.
That the U.S. controlled Japan from 1945 until 1952 did not mean that the U.S, was no longer a democracy. That we controlled Japan did not make the people of Japan into American citizens. That we occupied Japan didn't give the people of Japan the right to vote in American elections.
8
And the Japanese may have gone to war to become the dominant power in the Pacific, but at no time did Japan ever try to annihilate the United States nor did it ever question the right of the United States to exist. More than I can say for the Arabs, especially the Palestinians.
2
Michelle Goldberg is right that Israel's long time swing to the religious-nationalist right makes liberal Zionism an endangered species. What is also becoming increasingly endangered is the historical favoritism of American liberals to Israel. Liberals have unhappily observed the love affair between the American rightwing and the Netanyahu government. We were dismayed by Netanyahu's obvious wish that President Obama not win reelection and his current bromance with Trump.
As the Democratic party becomes more dependent upon millennial and minority votes, an Israel that is becoming a manifestly apartheid type state will be a barrier too far for both them and older liberals to stomach. Hopefully it will not come to that; however, I increasingly fear it will.
113
Benjamin Pogrund
“…during 26 years as a journalist in South Africa I investigated and reported the evil that was apartheid. I saw Nelson Mandela secretly when he was underground, then popularly known as the Black Pimpernel, and I was the first non-family member to visit him in prison.
I have now lived in Israel for 17 years, doing what I can to promote dialogue across lines of division. To an extent that I believe is rare, I straddle both societies. I know Israel today – and I knew apartheid up close. And put simply, there is no comparison between Israel and apartheid…”
21
No, "Liberal Zionism" is not dead. Having served its purpose, it has just been put out to pasture.
2
The idea that supposedly intelligent people still write articles like this is beyond comprehension The Palestinians do not desire peace with Israel .They deny any Jewish connection to the area. What is most astonishing is that they openly say this mostly in Arabic and the looney left either does not hear it or more likely does not care They have been offered a state on at least three occasions and have not accepted it The Israeli presence in the West Bank and the security barrier are the only things stopping daily terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Conflict management in order to maintain the safety of their citizens is the best Israel can accomplish and the majority of the population is aware of this and accepts it The staus quo will continue indefinitely in spite of leftist fantasy
18
Not only Zionist liberalism is dead, but American sense
of justice is also dead. Here the political culture has
become so corrupt and vulnerable to influence by
the big donors that policies are not made on principle
but to secure the donations for election. This is one
factor, an important one, that influenced the decision to
move embassy to Jerusalem under the pressure from
Sheldon Adelson, a big supporter of right wing govt.
of Israel. Both Netanyahu and Trump are not men of
principles and currently under investigation. As history tells
us south African apartheid govt had support of both
USA and Britain but it proved inadequate to sustain it
over a long period of time. American policy has no
support in international community as evidenced by
128 votes against it at UN general assembly. A decision
so welcomed by Israel and right wing Americans may
not be sustained with world against it and US in
decline.
9
There is prejudice against Israel.
For example, the UN criticized only one country for its treatment of women. It was not Saudi Arabia where women were not allowed to drive. It was not Egypt or Iraq or Yemen where girls suffer from female genital mutilation. It was not Palestine or Jordan or Iran where women are subjected to honor killings. It was Israel – a country that has had a female prime minister & female fighter pilots.
The 10 worst countries for human rights are: Syria, Sudan, DR Congo, Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Myanmar, Yemen & Nigeria. So why are there more UN Resolutions against Israel than against the 10 worst countries combined?
There is no boycott of China even though China invaded Tibet & transferred millions of Chinese settlers into Tibet.
There is no boycott of Turkey even though Turkey occupies part of Cyprus and Turkish settlers have moved into occupied Cyprus.
There is no boycott of Morocco which occupies part of Western Sahara.
Unlike China, Turkey and Morocco, the Israel's occupation began because Israel was attacked. Also, unlike China, Turkey and Morocco, Israel offered to end the occupation if Palestinians would sign a peace treaty.
2
A very good summary. Apartheid South Africa was well (if furtively) cheered in Israel as early as the 1960s. There is no other word for permanent annexation than apartheid. In fact, let's be honest: Trump went to Israel first, partly because many of his core supporters want the same apartheid in America.
8
Whenever Israel has annexed land in the past, it always gave the people equal rights with Israelis.
2
Liberal Zionism is not dead. The fantasy of some that there can be negotiated peace with the "Palestinians" may finally be, though.
You don't keep asking someone out who keeps rejecting you. At some point, you move on. Israel, the (rejected suitor in this scenario) has had enough of its peace proposals being rejected outright. It has decided to move on. Rightly so.
10
Zionism is really imperialism or colonialism under another name - it can never be 'liberal'. The way we are going, the two-state solution is dead. The only way both Israelis and Palestinians will live together is a single democratic state, is if both converted to Christianity (or some other faith). This may actually happen when the Christ returns and persuades both sides that all humanity is one. Until then there will just be more suffering for Palestinians and more bad karma earned by the Israelis - while Trump and his administration keep making things worse for everyone.
3
"imperialism or colonialism?"
If you dig in Palestine, you will find ancient Jewish synagogues, ancient Jewish ritual baths & ancient Jewish coins.
If you dig in America, you will NOT find ancient Christian churches and ancient coins.
Jews have lived in Palestine for thousands of years.
Caucasians have not lived in America for thousands of years.
The European colonists had a mother country which protected them.
The European Jews did not have a mother country to protect them.
When Zionists moved to Palestine, the native population increased.
When European colonists came to America, the Native population decreased.
2
I foresee a turbulent future for a one state solution in which so many residents live in a limbo in which they do not have equal rights with the majority. The only practical solution is the two state solution. Shame on the Israeli right for abandoning this.
3
Reading this Opinion piece I thought back to the recent NYT article about the 4 Israeli couples who were forced to marry in New York because their concept of what it meant to be a religious Jew was markedly different than the extreme viewpoints of the religious authorities who control Israel. Imagine Lutherans being forced to marry in Canada because the US government did not recognize a Lutheran marriage as valid.
In the US few citizens are educated sufficiently to understand the causes of the Civil War or the reason that people who live in Puerto Rico are American citizens who when they move to Florida to escape Trump's failed Disaster Aid will be able to vote in all US elections. Even fewer US voters understand "liberal Zionism" or the political implications of Trump's moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Christian Evangelicals have their own concept of Israel which is based on myth, not reality. Most voters don't care about where Trump puts Israel's embassy; they assume there will never be between Israel and the Palestinians.
The state of Israel has given up so many freedoms which affect the daily lives of citizens and residents. Ms. Goldberg's comparison to the Jim Crow South is not as off the wall as it seems at first glance. Israel's Likud party is-- like the Republicans -- the party of the old and those with old ideas. US supporters of those old ideas are also old. If there is a future "one" state of Israel and it is democratic, it will not be a Jewish state.
8
If Israel won't be Jewish, then it won't be democratic.
Just look at the neighboring majority-Arab states.
2
It's been clear to this American of Jewish background and a member of a Holocaust family that the Oslo "two-state solution" was on life support. The right-wing Likud government of Benjamin Netanyahu has never really supported it, and the Palestinians have been split between militant Hamas and a very weak Palestinian Authority leadership. At this point, it does seem that Israel will become the new South Africa and confront the world with a stark moral choice. But for the time being, there is a much darker shadow over recent affairs and that is the silence in the Arab Muslim world. It seems a tacit deal has been made between Israel, Sunni Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. to join together to oppose Shiite Iran. With the U.S. already, under the Obama administration, allied with the Saudis in a war in Yemen against Iranian supported Houthis, and President Trump on the verge of ending the Iran nuclear deal and imposing more sanctions on Iran, we are on the precipice of a regional Muslin civil war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The eerie silence in the region, especially concerning what normally would be a major trigger for unrest with the U.S. declaring Jerusalem the capitol of Israel, may portend the terrible storm to come.
7
My grandfather was involved with Po’alei Zion, a Zionist workers’ party, as a youth in Belarus, along with Zalman Shazar, the 3rd President of Israel. As a young adult, he worked alongside David Ben-Gurion in establishing the State of Israel. My entire family, both male and female, served in the Israeli army and my grandfather’s great-grandchildren are still serving. I lived half of my life in Israel as a child, from 1957 to 1970. My grandfather passed away decades ago and I can say, with almost certainty, that he would oppose moving the capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In his lifetime, and including after the Six Day War, my grandfather championed citizenship for the Israeli Arabs, with full equal rights, as was the case from 1948 to 1967. Even after the Six Day War, the Arabs in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were granted citizenship if they wanted it. Many refused. So, all I ever knew growing up in Israel was a country where my Arab friends had the same civil rights I had, the same citizenship. My grandfather would be heartbroken today. This was never the Israel he wanted and dreamed of. My family still lives in Israel and they are torn too. It has become necessary to have a two state solution. And, so unfortunately, Trump has made that all the more impossible, as well, as Netanyahu and the Likud Party.
10
According to Dictionary.com
“Capital - the city or town that is the official seat of government in a country,state, etc.”
Therefore, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because that’s where Israel’s seat of government is. If the Palestinians move their seat of government to Jerusalem, then Jerusalem will be the capital of Palestine, too.
We could have a 2-state solution today if the Palestinians decide to live in peace.
7
I grew up in metro New York reading Leon Uris and Herman Wouk. I am torn over the conflict in Israel-Palestine, but I am glad that the US supports and ensures Israel’s right to exist with all of the military and intelligence assistance that entails. I am also forlorn and hopeless over the conditions under which Palestinians live in the occupied territories. And further, I am uncomfortable calling this situation apartheid, but the is the accurate word, and the only logical conclusion to the Greater Israel project.
4
Irshad Manji asks:
“In a state practicing apartheid, would Arab Muslim legislators wield veto power over anything? At only 20 percent of the population, would Arabs even be eligible for election if they squirmed under the thumb of apartheid? Would an apartheid state extend voting rights to women and the poor in local elections, which Israel did for the first time in the history of Palestinian Arabs? Would the vast majority of Arab Israeli citizens turn out to vote in national elections, as they've usually done? Would an apartheid state have several Arab political parties, as Israel does? Would the judiciary be free of political interference? In the 2003 Israeli elections, two Arab parties found themselves disqualified for expressly supporting terrorism against the Jewish state. Israel's Supreme Court overturned both disqualifications.”
2
The illogic of "liberal Zionism" was foreseen by Jabotinsky, political father of the current Likud leadership, as far back as 1923 in his declaration of "An Iron Wall" to enforce the Zionist ideal. Jabotinsky understood better than any that the existing population could not be bought or compromised into accepting settler-imposed Jewish nationalism in Palestine. It's no secret that early on, Jabotinsky's "revisionist" Zionist movement had a warm, even admiring relationship with Mussolini. (A Zionist "naval academy" was established in Italy with Il Duce's blessing in 1934.) Liberal or socialist Zionism was an attractive dream, but history has shown Jabotinsky to be more realistic about the imperatives of Jewish nationalism (indeed all nationalisms founded first and foremost on ethnicity and/or religious affiliation.) At this point when Zionism gets put in the same box as apartheid or even fascism, it's confirms the ideology of Jabotinsky and his adherents were nothing less than an inevitable outcome. There is an old story of a European rabbi sent to Palestine to investigate establishing a Jewish state and returning with the judgement, "The bride is beautiful, but she is already married to another man." Golda Meir's reaction when told this: "And I thank God every night that the bridegroom was so weak, and the bride could be taken away from him." Despite decades of an idealistic counter-narrative of "liberal Zionism," there's nothing new here.
3
When I saw the headline, I expected to find a definition of "Liberal Zionism." I still have no idea what you mean.
The Labor Zionism of Ben Gurion and most other founders of Israel gave way to the Religious-Nationalist Zionism of Begin when Likud came to power 40 years ago.
Labor Zionism gave us the Declaration of Independence, which guaranteed equal rights for Arabs. Labor Zionism accepted the 1947 UN resolution to partition the land.
The Religious-Nationalist Zionism of Begin rejected partition. He advocated seizing the West Bank long before Jordan entered the Six-Day War. In his view, the Biblical promise of land to the 12 Tribes of Israel literally trumped all other Jewish moral precepts.
For some of us, the essence of Judaism is as expressed by Rabbi Hillel: "That which is hateful unto you do not do to your neighbor ... The rest is commentary." Enclosing West Bank Arabs in ghettos, which was hateful to us in Europe, is a sad commentary.
Liberal Zionism, best represented today by the Zionist Camp Party, is weak because Netanyahu has successfully conflated critics of his policies with haters of Israel. The never-ending anti-Israel resolutions at the UN unwittingly play into his hand.
To support an Israel that is both Jewish and democratic, we must make it very clear that we resist BOTH its current governments AND its haters.
5
Funny. I seem to remember the Arabs trying repeatedly to destroy Israel despite these supposed golden years of progressive Zionism. As far as the golden years of progressive Zionism, perhaps you'd like to go back to the 1948 borders which the Arabs never recognized as legitimate, perhaps back to a splendid time when Israel was a sclerotic hyper-inflationary Third World country whose main export was oranges -- that is when Histadrut wasn't calling a general strike over one thing or another every other month -- the Syrians controlled the Golan Heights from which they regularly shelled the Israeli farming communities in the Galilee below, and the Jordanians who ruled East Jerusalem refused to allow Jews -- any Jews of any citizenship -- from visiting the holiest sites in Judaism including the remains of the Temple which Palestinian propaganda now claims never existed. And for some strange reason this part of Jerusalem, which the Palestinian Arabs now claim has always been their sacred capital of their ancient nation going all the way back to Pleistocene days never had a problem when the Jordanians ruled it. Come to think of it, they didn't have a problem being ruled by Jordan either. Some ancient nation, huh?
2
Last month, Pres. Donald J. Trump announced that the USA would be moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to WESTERN Jerusalem, an area internationally recognized as being within Israeli sovereignty. This is not merely his decision, but was established by Pres. Bill Clinton, and voted on by Congress. What had prevented it earlier was an order delaying the implementation of the move. Pres. Trump, in his announcement, clearly stated that this move was not meant to change the negotiations regarding the eastern half of the city. That the Arab world has risen in anger against it should make us question if they actually recognize the 1967 lines as they claim to do.
Over the 50 year period of what is described as Israeli "land-grabbing", all the settlements combined utilize less than 5% of the West Bank landmass. In negotiations the P.A. has agreed to cede some of the land to Israel, and Israel has agreed to remove settlements. However, in the end it is the P.A. that has always balked at signing any treaty.
Despite recognizing Israel's right to exist, P.A. schools have been teaching that the entire land is an Arab state. The word "Israel" does not even appear at all. Schoolbooks, children's television and political/religious speeches all glorify violence against Israel/Jews, and Abbas has spent $350 million in rewards to those who have killed Jews. But none of that is a obstacle to creating two states.
Instead of claiming what Trump means, why not focus on what Abbas does?
12
I finally figured out what to do about all the problems with Zionism hammered about almost daily. I just quit identifying as a liberal, progressive, leftist, NY Democrat.
Too much already, it pierced the cognitive dissonance that was holding me to believe in that political ideology. And wow, once those blinders were off, one notices quite a lot of other problems with the whole leftist thing.
4
I think that the underlying tenet of Israel's policy has for sometime been to treat non-jewish palestinians much the way that "americans" treated the natives in this country. Now with the incertion of white nationalist government in the WH we see the rebirth of the belief in ethnic and cultural superiority. That sense of superiority has been the sole motivation of the Likud party since bibi took over. It will be a significantly long time before the "bend" of history towards real justice is corrected. I am afraid these corruptions do away with solving problems with solutions and leave people with insincerity and selfish ends.
2
The population of Native Americans drastically decreased after the arrival of the Europeans.
The population of the Palestinians dramatically increased after the arrival of the Zionists.
2
Zionism was never liberal. Its founding premise was that, as subjects of the British Empire, the Palestinians had no land rights.
2
Correction 1. Theodore Herzl, the founder of the Political Zionism movement which led to the establishment of Israel, was a subject of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Correction 2. During his lifetime, today's Palestine was within the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire did not have any territory called Palestine.
Please continue to study the origins of Zionism.
9
I doubt many of the world people see inspiration in this modern Jewish State. Perhaps this is good the romanticism is dead now we face to reality of a powerful group completely dominating over a dispossessed people. A state that developed nuclear weapons with no penalties. A nation that calls us friend but spies and steals American Technology. A country that is not and never was an American Allie, just a friendly country of convenience. Like the rest in the region,
3
Like many liberals, Ms. Goldberg seems to want to blame all of the problems of the world on the Trump administration. While the Trump administration probably has made some mistakes, I do not think that recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is one of them. Jerusalem (or at least the western half of Jerusalem) is the capital of Israel and has been the capital of Israel as long as modern Israel has existed. That does not mean that the eastern past of Jerusalem cannot become the future capital of a Palestinian state, though that eastern part of Jerusalem may well by then be known as Al-Quds rather than Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the real problems are in the middle east and probably outside the control of the United States. For a two-state solution to be viable, it has to be contiguous. Right now, the will of the Israeli Knesset seems to be that Palestinian lands be discontiguous. The result is that Israel is heading in a very dangerous direction. The inevitable result of the current policy is a single state. In the short term, Palestinians may become second class citizens of that single state but the rest of the world and the Palestinians themselves will never allow such second class citizenship to last for more than a few years. Inevitably, Palestinians would become full citizens of a new secular state and the Jewish state would be reduced to a footnote in the history books. That would be a tragedy but it would have been brought on by Israel itself.
3
Israel accepted the Clinton Parameters which would have meant a contiguous Palestine. Arafat turned it down.
2
There seems to be some confusion by commentators about the religious/ethnic character of the State of Israel and the citizenship status of Palestinians in the state. Here are a few points of clarification for those who may need them:
1. Israel is established as a Jewish state within the borders of the former British Mandate of Palestine, in accordance with the binding United Nations General Assembly vote in 1948 that ended the Mandate. Israel's governing documents enshrine it as a Jewish, democratic state with equal rights for non-Jewish ethnic and religious groups. It is not a "theocratic" state where religious authorities have vetoes over democratic policy, as is the case in Iran (for example). Nor is it a state whose citizenship is limited to those who are ethnically or religiously Jewish - almost 25% of Israel's current population is neither.
2. Palestinian Arabs who were residents of pre-1967 Israel and of the municipality of Jerusalem are full-fledged Israeli citizens with full voting and democratic participation rights. Arabs in East Jerusalem generally do not exercise those rights in protest of the city's annexation by Israel in 1981 and mostly retain Jordanian citizenship, but this is their choice.
3. Israel is hardly the only country that grants automatic citizenship to foreign members of the dominant ethnic group. Germany is another example; so is Hungary; so are several other countries, which are all democracies.
12
"Israel is hardly the only country that grants automatic citizenship to foreign members of the dominant ethnic group. Germany is another example...."
For Germany membership of ethnic group is not relevant in general. "German citizenship" is decisive.
Article 116 Grundgesetz (German constitution)
[Definition of “German” – Restoration of citizenship]
(1) Unless otherwise provided by a law, a German within the meaning of this Basic Law is a person who possesses German citizenship or who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of 31 December 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person.
(2) Former German citizens who between 30 January 1933 and 8 May 1945 were deprived of their citizenship on political, racial or religious grounds, and their descendants, shall on application have their citizenship restored. They shall be deemed never to have been deprived of their citizenship if they have established their domicile in Germany after 8 May 1945 and have not expressed a contrary intention.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0729
(translation approved)
Further informations on nationality law and naturalization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law
(one click away)
Ethnic aspects are only relevant for ADDITIONAL right of return of Germans who lived in former Warsaw Pact states ("Spätaussiedler, Russlanddeutsche") It´s not automatical.
With complete empathy and respect for the tragedy that occurred during WWII to the Jewish people, I cannot see how the State of Israel can stand up to the Palestinians and the world and claim the land for Jews only. The demographics and history of the region when the state was formed is known, and it is quite clear that Palestinian Arabs and some Christians had histories with the land. To try and right a great wrong by perpetrating another great wrong is not a proper solution.
Given that this has been a problem that stemmed from a supposed solution, it seems to me that a present-day solution must go back to the root causes of the grievances and address them fairly. I believe that the Palestinians have not acknowledged or sought compromises that can work, so they have considerable blame for failure to reach a solution. However, the Israeli's as receivers of and occupiers of the land, bear the most responsibility to bring the Palestinians into talks to arrive at a livable solution.
Such a solution will undoubtedly conflict with many conservatives in Israel, but that must be ignored to reach a fair solution. I think a two-state solution, while it may satisfy some, does not have the best potential for enduring stability. All of these peoples lived together once in the region and have historical, geographical, and religious claims.
To achieve an enduring stability, the children of all must grow up together in the same state. A stronger country and region will result.
6
"for Jews only?"
In 1929, Palestinians ethnically cleansed Hebron & Gaza of their Jews.
In 1948, Arabs ethnically cleansed the West Bank & East Jerusalem of their Jews. ZERO Jews were left in Gaza, the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Israel could have ethnically cleansed all the Arabs from Israel, but Israel didn’t. There are now 1.6 million Arabs living in Israel.
3
Actually, Arabs have more rights in Israel than they do in Arab countries. As far as far as "Jews only" are you referring to the law passed under the Palestinian Authority that states any person found guilty of selling land to a Jew is subject to the death penalty. Is that what you're referring to? Death to anyone selling land to Jews only?
3
It is difficult for sectarian states to be truly democratic. How can they be when members of the preferred religious group are given a privileged position over people who are not members. This is not a liberal idea or a conservative idea. It is a logical one. Just ask the founding fathers of the United States.
86
Sectarian? Yes, let's talk about that. Even within Israel, Jewish sects and branches fight with each other for recognition and power.
The politics are, frankly, run and controlled by the fundamentalists. It looks and acts as a theocracy with a democratic veneer.
And many of us American Jews now actually doubt that we would be welcome if Israel ever did turn out to be the last and only place of refuge for Jews, as has long been "promised."
The U.S. has Affirmative Action. Does that mean that we are not a democracy?
4
Should womens shelters be abolished because they discriminate against men?
Israel is a shelter for Jews. Unfortunately, Jews still need shelter.
4
I would argue that the two state solution died with the collapse of the 2000 Camp David Summit. The Palestinians were given a chance and did not really even offer a counter proposal. If it couldn't work then, why it would now or ever? Why should Israel waste it's time on a two state solution?
37
How could the 2-state solution die when it was never born?
The Palestinians were never interested in a state. Their only interest was destroying Israel. They said "The Jews are our dogs!"
Dogs can't be expected to rule themselves.
3
You seems to forget the 2002 Arab Peace Proposal to which the Israeli government did not respond to to this day
The answer to your question is "to save itself from the one state solution"
Finally someone who speaks the truth. Using a religious book to justify one's "ownership" is a dangerous game to play. Just imagine if the Native Americans came up with such a plan? It truly surprises me that religions which are built around getting access to the "other" world but are obsessed with the real world we live in.
12
I see people make this argument and it kind of makes me laugh a little bit. Sure, you could say a holy text should have no impact on who "owns" territory. But that just makes it look like you haven't been paying much attention to the past few thousand years of human history.... So if not the holy scriptures, how about war and power? They won the wars, the land is theirs. I hope that's an acceptable explanation for you.
2
When you buy land, you do a title search because the law goes by the oldest document.
The oldest relevant document is the Bible.
The Bible has 2 elements of a legal deed:
The boundaries of the land.
The names of the owners – the 12 sons of Israel (Jacob.)
3
That state can be Jewish or it can be democratic, but it cannot be both.”
That’s almost verbatim what President Obama said when asked about UN Security Council vote that considered Israeli settlements illegal. Obama came under strong criticism for that vote, but his answer to the question was thoughtful and analytical, as he almost always was.
Obama said, “I am -- I continue to be significantly worried about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. ...I think the status quo is unsustainable, that it is dangerous for Israel, that it is bad for Palestinians, it is bad for the region and it is bad for America's national security.”
He said, “And I've said this directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I've said it inside of Israel, I've said it to Palestinians as well. I don't see how this issue gets resolved in a way that maintains Israel as both Jewish and a democracy. Because if you do not have two states, then in some form or fashion you are extending an occupation, functionally you end up having one state in which millions of people are disenfranchised and operate as second class occupants, residents.... And so - so the goal of the resolution was to simply say that the settlements, the growth of the settlements are creating a reality on the ground that increasingly will make a two-state solution impossible...."
Trump sent a signal alright, that only Netanyahu and his supporters are right. Wrong signal, wrong policy and wrong for Israel and the US in the long run.
41
People use to see inspiration on Israel that seems to have turned to despair.
1
Israel is actually an enormous success.
It has maintained a democracy even when under threat.
(We didn't. Remember what we did to Japanese-Americans and to Joe Dimaggio's father during world war 2?)
Israel maintained a democracy even though it took in millions of immigrants and most of those immigrants came to Israel from undemocratic countries.
Israelis are the 11th happiest people on earth.
Israel is the only country that has more trees now than it had a century ago.
There are 65.3 million refugees. None are Jews because Israel takes in all Jewish refugees.
Israel is ranked 31 out of 179 in per capita income
Israel has won more Nobel prizes than all the Arab countries combined.
3
After all these years, all the peace offers, the efforts made by every president up to Trump, nothing has changed with regard to the Palestinians. And I say it's what the Palestinians have done to themselves. Because of their intense hatred, they will never agree that Israel has the right to exist; consequently, they will never accept any kind of an offer. They could have been prospering in their own country for decades now if they'd been reasonable.
27
After decades of Hatred, Arafat in his last days, become wise and started to accept there is no way but recognize Israel, Alas it was too late.
If we look deep into this conflict, we can see only one element, Palestinian cause was exploited by Arab nationalism and cold war tit for tat, decades wasted.
At the end, Palestinian struggle only fed Arab nationalists ego and Cold war rhetorics.
From that point to create a one state or two state solution is making gold out of lead like in medieval times.
3
They have accepted the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, the Israeli government didn't even bother to respond to.
1
Anyone who thought the Palestinian peace process was something other than moribund has been out of touch with reality. US politics implicitly favor Israel in this regard; therefore, the idea that the US could act as a neutral mediator was less realism than it was political posturing.
However, since the oil crisis of the mid-1970s, the US has been at pains to appear neutral in order to persuade the Gulf oil producers not to use their influence over global oil prices to punish the West in respect of the Palestinian situation.
Today, however, Gulf oil producers have lost their influence over global oil prices because of the entry of substantial amounts of North American oil shale into the global oil market. This is a major geopolitical development that should not be underestimated. Almost all of power behind the anti-Israel blocs in international politics were ultimately fueled by profits from a global oil market that had been cartelized by OPEC. Those excessive, cartelized profits no longer exist because OPEC does not account for enough of the world's oil supply to control prices. At the same time, the fact that US politics naturally favor Israel is unchanged, and that is why the US's Mideast policy is returning to where it was before the oil crisis of the mid-1970s.
2
I applaud Ms. Golberg's assessment. I also appreciate the Bannon revelation regarding the West Bank and Gaza. As a "Liberal Zionist" who regards a vibrant democracy mankind's salvation, I've been scratching my head for the past 15 years about how all of this will turn out. I've been dumbfounded at every turn because I naively believed most Jews saw it like I did and above all else would maintain the integrity of reason. Instead, we've seen Saudi Arabia exalted to a position of regional supremacy against the backdrop of funding homicide bombings during the Intifada and enabling the elixir of 9/11. Our invasion of Iraq and the Civil War in Syria ushered in an era of Sheldon Adelson and settlers while I believed the once in a millennium moment during the Arab Spring where the democracy seeking Arab youth were rebelling against the theocratic-petro-dictatorships was the opportunity to create a new era of peace if fostered. Instead, oil interests, financiers, Christian fundamentalists, and extremists have bedazzled thousands of years of history to accommodate the absolute worst duplicity imaginable. Please, will someone tell me what lessons we learned from our history? That power over consolodated terrritory is all that matters? At what price? The soul of Judaism? As the author profoundly notes, the same ingredients are at work on the soul of American democracy.
7
Yowza! That Buckley article from 1957 is quite the read. Here is a link:
https://adamgomez.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/whythesouthmustprevail-195...
1
Odd he talks of Blacks voting as a block but forgets the solid south of white voters. Even to this day there is plenty of block voting in ole dixie. A perfect example of white exceptionalism. Use here against Black but in decades earlier was against Chinese, Southern less white Europeans and culturally less equal Irish Catholics.
1
Everyone who thinks there was a "Golden Age of American Conservatism" before it was centrally motivated by racism needs to read that editorial. Then, they should read about Barry Goldwater telling his party in 1961 to "go hunting where the ducks are": among southern white racist voters.
There was no such Golden Age.
1
The answer to your question is a resounding no. As Rabbi Angela Buchdahl told our congregation a few years back :" our relationship to Israel is too contingent on the actions of whatever government happens to be in power. There is no depth to the relationship or connection to everything that Israel stands for. But just as our relationship to America would never be based solely on our feelings about Guantanamo Bay and drone strikes, our relationship with Israel can’t be based solely on our feelings about the Gaza Strip and settlements. I have strong feelings about them, and they shouldn’t be taken out of the equation. But neither should they be all of it." http://www.centralsynagogue.org/worship/sermons/detail/the-hope-israel-y...
2
"And the alternative to a two-state solution is one state, a greater Israel that includes the occupied territories. That state can be Jewish or it can be democratic, but it cannot be both. "
Repeated ad nauseam, this international mantra only helps perpetuating the conflict. Israelis and Palestinians should aim at the building of a bi-national federation with Jerusalem as its capital, military matters exclusively under the responsibility of the Israeli side, and Palestinian refugees returning to the Palestinian side of the territory and/or being compensated by Israel and the international community. This solution would evacuate the conflict and allow full sovereignty and security for both sides, together with a dynamic economic integration.
There is no other peaceful solution, but so far nobody seems willing to even consider it, because clarity of vision is sorely lacking on both sides, which are persistently immersed in political expediency and plain demagoguery, with the help of their multiple international sponsors.
1
For you your logic is good but after reading it looks spider net thin and strong.
Think again.
3
At one time I had great sympathy for the Israelis. However, that sympathy has faded and vanished, as it has become increasingly apparent that Israel does not want a solution to the Palestinian problem. There is no good reason on this earth why the Palestinians shouldn't have either their own state on equal footing with Israel, ncluding political and military power, or that the Palestinians are incorporated into the greater Israeli state, with full rights of citizenship. Any other solution is an anathema to the basic human rights of the Palestinian people.
10
Palestine on equal footing with Israel? You need to go and see for yourself that the Arabs have demonstrated many times that they are incapable of building a prosperous country and can never hope to have Israeli standards. They have no economy and only live off U.N. (U.S. taxpayer).
6
The Palestinians want to exterminate the Jews.
The Palestinian Authority takes foreign aid (Palestinians, per capita, are among the top recipients.) & pays people who murder Jews. The more Jews they kill, the more money they get.
Allowing Palestinians equal military power will result in the deaths of millions of people.
3
Intifadas have not worked nor has negotiating achieved any success. I am intrigued by the idea that the Palestinians should switch to a campaign for equal rights. That would put Israel on the defensive because refusing to offer full citizenship would label them as an apartheid regime. I would expect US public opinion would never accept refusing civie rights. It would also take away the defense that Israel is under attack and its right to exist questioned. I have my doubts whether enough Palestinians are capable of thinking that profoundly but one can hope.
2
It seems so sad that Israelis can't agree that Palestinians, too, are human and have rights. The Buckley quote is horribly appropriate.
Is there something in the air of the Middle East that makes you crazy? Or have the Western countries done most of the harm?
10
Stuff and nonsense. It is the Palestinians who have consistently denied the humanity of Israelis and Jews, calling them the descendants of pigs and apes, and refused to recognize Israel in any form as a sovereign nation. Where in this piece, or anywhere else for that matter did you come up with the idea that any mainstream Israeli has ever denied that Palestinians are human, or that they have rights? For all the craziness going on around on this issue, Palestinians have more rights within Israeli society than they do in most of the Arab world.
7
As a passionate supporter of Israel, I suffered through eight years of the most anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian American administration, highlighted by Barack Obama's barely concealed contempt for the democratically elected Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. Now, has so often happens, we have elected a president with diametrically opposite views on the situation, and the policy pendulum has begun to swing the other way.
Deal with it Ms. Goldberg. That's the problem with democracy: sometimes the other side wins.
8
I think the modern movement of liberal Zionism died with the Gaza pullout in '05. I don't think the politics in Israeli or Palestinian leadership has been the same since. In '07 there was a civil war with Palestinians killing each other in the streets. And Israelis felt like they received no increased security or benefit from turning over the land, so why would they be inclined to do it again? And worth noting further, the Jordanians and Egyptian, the fellow Arab brethren of the Palestinian people, are all rhetoric and no action when it comes to helping the cause of independence.
8
When a Rabbinical High Court has the power to treat women and men in Israel differently and decides who can pray where and who is able to marry whom, etc., etc., Israel can hardly be called a 'democratic' state anymore.
The origins of European 'liberal' Zionism of the 19th century resulted from a political and not religious movement. With the help of arch-right government coalitions Israel has unfortunately become a state where religious orthodoxy controls daily life.
2
As someone who has strongly opposed the occupation from the start I am
continually appalled at the one sided nature, especially here, of criticism directed at Israel, which
has tried over and over again to realize a viable resolution with the Palestinians.
This goes all the way back to the latter's refusal to accept a tiny Jewish state
from day one. In recent times this was especially true in the aftermath of
the failure of Camp David 2 followed by Arafat's abettment of the deadly
Second Intifada, the Palestinians' failure to take advantage of the Israeli
pullout from Gaza, and the subsequent refusal to work toward peace
in genuine offers made by several Israeli prime ministers until the advent of
Netanyahu's governments. Significantly, since 2000 the Jewish population
of the territories has almost doubled as a result. But as in days of yore
the terrorism continues and some of the worst murderers have been granted
near sainthood and their families amply compensated for their crimes.
Moreover, despite the two treaties with Arab nations, neither of which have
popular support, rejection of Israel throughout the Muslim World. I can't
think of a better term than apartheid or "separation" to describe the Muslim World's ongoing prejudice and hatred that's in all these years persists. More than anything else this has given the green light to those who, contrary to the will of the majority of Israelis, seek to expand the settlements.
13
Awesome op-ed, a secular democratic state for all its people, it will happen sooner or later, bloodier or less so. As a Jewish American I've always seen my breathern's knee jerk response as irrational, "the Palestinians will kill us all" but understandable given history, hopefully the tide is turning and we'll get to a just societies (both in the Israel and America ) soon.
3
Why does America continue to give blood and treasure to such an unscrupulous, racist "Ally"? I grew up with support for Israel in my bones, but the Israel of the last 10-15 years bears no resemblance to the steady, stable, ethical country it once was.
Racist oppression of Arabs at the point of our guns is not an acceptable option. Let Israel return to the world-recognized boundaries before Occupation and return to the negotiating table, or do without unquestioning American diplomatic, financial and military support.
5
The 1967 borders are the 1949 cease fire lines. Both Arabs & Israelis said that these were not to be considered permanent borders.
People used the results of World War 2 to reset the borders of Europe. No one said let's ignore World War 2 & let's ignore World War 1 & let's go by the results of the Franco-Prussian War. However, when it comes to the Jewish State, people say we should ignore the Yom Kippur War, we should ignore the Six-Day War & we should ignore the 1956 War.
2
I have to admit, Netanyahu's recent interference in our politics has left me feeling less positive toward Israel. Zionism might benefit from less heavy-handedness from the Right, both in Israel and here at home.
3
Everyone seems to think what Israel does is for everybody to decide. Israel is a sovereign nation and it's their decisions that matter for their country. You want to be told what your capital should be? You want to be told to be friendly and giving to a group that denies your existence? To people who gave rise to terrorism as a resistance tool? Read about the various good Israel does all over the world, especially in medical & rescue operations. Talk a bit more about being surrounded all your life by enemies. Tell me the US would be fine in being amenable to Mexico and Canada if they were hostile nations at the ready with rockets to shoot at us.
12
There is still time for the Palestinians to achieve a state of their own.
But first they must come to grips with the obvious fact that Israel decisively won a long time ago and they decisively lost.
After this happens, many good things will become available to them.
But first they must fully own the catastrophe they created for themselves by rejecting the re-establishment of the Jewish State in 1948.
Failing this, the only alternative left to them will be to continue wandering in the desert and building tunnels.
15
As someone who has strongly opposed the occupation from the start I am
continually appalled at the one sided nature, especially here, of criticism directed at Israel, which has tried over and over again to realize a viable resolution with the Palestinians.
This goes all the way back to the latter's refusal to accept a tiny Jewish state
from day one. In recent times this was especially true in the aftermath of
the failure of Camp David 2 followed by Arafat's abettment of the deadly
Second Intifada, the Palestinians' failure to take advantage of the Israeli
pullout from Gaza, and the subsequent refusal to work toward peace
in genuine offers made by several Israeli prime ministers until the advent of
Netanyahu's governments. Significantly, since 2000 the Jewish population
of the territories has almost doubled as a result. But as in days of yore
the terrorism continues and some of the worst murderers have been granted
near sainthood and their families amply compensated for their crimes.
Moreover, despite the two treaties with Arab nations, neither of which have
popular support, I can't think of a better term than apartheid or "separation" to describe the Muslim World's ongoing prejudice and hatred that's in all these years persists. More than anything else this has given the green light to those who, contrary to the will of the majority of Israelis, seek to expand the settlements
7
As it should be. Israel's existence is likely here for the next century or longer, but what is has become is not palatable to liberals. You can't have a state that denies basic rights to it's non Jewish citizens, allows the zealots to repress women and live off the state, that uses conflict with it's former inhabitants, neighbors, etc. in order to maintain support of the citizenry and is generally becoming more authoritarian. As quickly as the Palestinians lost Palestine, the Jews could lose Israel. I would much rather see a normal state that is not dominated by one religion, or any religion, a secular state.
5
Israel does not deny basic rights to it's non Jewish citizens,
Its non-Jewish citizens have the freedom to decide if they want to join the military. Jewish citizens don't have that freedom.
3
Somehow, this entire article doesn't mention any obligations or historical culpability of the Palestinians. This must be....Tuesday in the NYTimes. The Palestinians have had numerous opportunities for a state, a more astute observer might have noticed that they just don't seem to be interested. The Palestinians turned down a state in 1937, 1948, 2000, 2008 and recently declined to endorse the "Kerry Parameters" in 2014 (never mentioned in the NYTimes). Perhaps an enterprising journalist would take the Palestinians to task for intransigently rejecting peace, but not Ms. Goldberg.
The two state solution is a great idea, but it's only adherents are in the west and in Israel. The Palestinians aren't interested if it requires them to give up their dream of destroying Israel, something they uniformly reject. They only want a state if it is built on the ashes of Israel. Perhaps the solution is to reattach the west bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt. The Palestinian idea, born after the failed Arab genocidal wars of 1948 and 67, isn't working. It's only defenders are apologists for Palestinian rejectionism, like the author of this piece and the many others over-represented on these pages.
17
Eventually, the single state that will result from these developments will indeed be a democratic state where every individual will have equal rights, a state which is not defined by any ethnicity or religion. This will be a good thing.
(Not that the world is waiting to hear from me, but I oppose any state which in any way is defined by a religion or an ethnicity--such a state by definition will never give equal rights to those outside of the privileged group.)
Thank you, Michelle Goldberg, for articulating these thoughts.
10
Liberal Zionism may have died with the death of Rabin.
35
Liberal Zionism died with the victory of the 6-Day War. It was heady stuff, this
victory against most of the Arab world. It led to arrogance, it gave power to
the previously unsure, and it gave a lie to the concept of the Jews going meekly to their death.
Power is a a strong aphrodisiac, hard to resist, especially if one owns the power. And, always the rationalizations for what we do. Could it be...human nature? Maybe defeat gives us those moments of contemplation and empathy for others. It sad to see this nation with its blatant disregard of others, after itself, knowing blatant disregard, further its plans of denigration for the other. Then, again, is it much different than other countries, our own included?
1
How do you explain Jenin?
Israel could have bombed Jenin from the safety of the sky to kill the terrorists, but Palestinian civilians would have been killed. So Israel sent in ground troops.
"Israeli, Palestinian, and even UN officials would ultimately confirm that fifty-two Palestinians had died in Jenin, almost all of them combatants. Twenty-three Israeli soldiers were also killed. The unusually low civilian death toll for a battle in a densely populated urban area was the result of Israeli ground forces engaging in highly perilous house-to-house combat, exposing soldiers to ambush and booby traps, while the use of air power or artillery was avoided."
2
Rabin died years ago, but
According to Freedom House, Israel's Freedom Status is "Free." Israel is rated "1" (on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 is most free.) in "political rights" and Israel is rated "2" in Civil Liberties."
Israel is the only state in the Middle East that is rated "Free."
2
Typical far left anti-Israel claptrap. Not surprised that the Times is running it. Ms. Goldberg, please name one single country in the world to whom it is dictated what its capital must be. Apparently you preferred the pre-1967 days when Jews were prevented from going to pray at their holiest places and they were literally turned into places to urinate and defecate by the occupying Jordanians. If you have ever been to Jerusalem, you know how special it is to all 3 major religions and that only Israel can guarantee that all have access. A 2-state solution can keep Jerusalem as Israel's capital while still making the portion East of the Western Wall part of a Palestinian state, if the Palestinian "leadership" would only accept the existence of Israel and negotiate in good faith. I am liberal on most issues and also a Zionist. Apparently, people like me don't matter to people like you.
54
The Palestinian Authority has recognized the existence of Israel for years; the Palestinians have negotiated for years.
The Palestinians have long offered a peace plan where Israel gets 78% of Palestine and the Palestinians get 22%. Two sovereign states living peacefully with normal relations. Israel rejects that.
Israeli leaders say they must have more than 78%, the Palestinians must take less than 22%; only Israel will have sovereignty, the Palestinians take limited self-rule in enclaves. No normal relations, Israeli troops and controls must remain in Palestinian areas and Palestinians must endorse Israeli ideological claims.
Israel is the obstacle to a compromise peace.
4
Perhaps instead of provoking the palestinians by pronouncing Jerusalem the capitol with embassies you can have the same access you describe but leave the embassies in Tel A Viv. This is the kind of thought that makes one wonder what the real aim of this "Jerusalem as capitol of Israel" is really all about. Provocation for provocation's sake, perhaps? To live in yesterday's world instead of today's is called tribalism which has never worked for a pluralistic society..
2
Sure, you matter. We even have a name for you and your group: "Progressives except for Palestine." More accurately, you don't practice what you preach, when it comes to your "own" country.
4
If liberal Zionism is not dead it surely is ailing, after fifty years of constant battering from both the religious and the secular Right, who have a weird, uneasy alliance, which goal is to make the two state solution impossible. Both those sides gave up much to keep this partnership alive. At the same time, most Israelis are busy pretending that they live in a suburb of Los Angeles.
US Jews, who could have a major impact in Israel, are no longer vastly Democratic. Their conscience is not too fussy. They vote here with their pockets. They donate money to Israel and don't bother too much looking into the recipient of those donations.
22
Data point for context: 70% of Jews voted for Clinton 70% (Trump 25%, Johnson 3%, Stein 2%). https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.752212
1
"And the alternative to a two-state solution is one state, a greater Israel that includes the occupied territories. That state can be Jewish or it can be democratic, but it cannot be both."
Because the New York Times says so.
12
No, because of the arguments stated in the article. If you disagree with the arguments, say why. Don't pretend they don't exist.
1
The liberal bias -- low expectations for Palestinian Arabs -- they are too politically backward to either govern themselves effectively; or, effectively participate in a parliamentary government.
2
A "Jewish state" entailing official recognition of one religion and denial of full citizenship to non-Jewish residents cannot be truly democratic. The idea of an official state religion and separate territory and laws for non-members is antithetical to the idea of democracy. This is not because the New York Times (or its columnist Ms. Goldberg) say so, but because any state that so limits full rights and privileges to a subset of the population is form of oligarchy. Was the U.S. truly a democracy (or a republic if you swing that way) when only landowners could vote? Was the deep south a democracy before Amendments XIII, XIV, and V, when ruled by Jim Crow and the KKK, or before the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Also, might I suggest an old Italian name for the separate areas left to the Palestinians under Yoav Kish's plan: "ghetto."
Many of the left have grown ever more uncomfortable with the idea that shared ethnicity and culture are a legitimate basis for nationhood and kinship. But if you are going to excoriate France and Germany and Italy for wanting to remain (at least in part) ethnically French, German and Italian, it becomes increasingly hard to carve out an exception solely for Israel.
16
Just prior to the last election in Israel for Prime Minister, Netanyahu, possibly in trouble poll-wise, finally told the truth. "There will be no two-state solution as long as I'm in power." That statement tilted the election in his favor. Since then, he has done nothing but stonewall any progress on the peace process. Now, with a like-minded right-winger in the White House, Bibi can once again tell everyone what he really believes. Forget about peace for the time being.
All the Israeli settlements and annexations have had one objective: to solidify the grip on the territories occupied after the 1967 war, with an eventual eye toward keeping them permanently. These actions have been condemned in the UN for decades, to no avail. With the current drift of the Netanyahu administration, supported by the Israeli far-right and the US administration, the hopes of the Palestinians have been dashed. One has to wonder how long it will take for this to set in and trigger more violence. When it does, Trump and Netanyahu will blame it on Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran instead of looking inward.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
34
The Palestinians have never been interested in having their own state.
The Palestinians could have declared independence in 1948, but instead the West Bank Palestinians asked for union with Jordan.
5
I don't think this story needs to be viewed as having a tragic ending. Although a two-state solution would have been more sensible, the rightist parties in Israel are determined to prevent it, and this is not new. This embassy move by Trump is just a small assist.
So now it is the responsibility of all people in the world who believe in democracy and human equality to persuade Israel to end discrimination and allow all the Palestinians living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean full citizenship and voting rights, whatever the effect of this on the balance of power in the Knesset. Once Palestinians have full citizenship, they will be able to use politics, not violence, to secure fairer treatment, and the Knesset can become the venue for the complex struggle over how to govern what is already, de facto, a binational state.
It may take a generation or two but I am confident that the young people even in Israel itself, and certainly the young American Jews and others in the world who care about this place, will not tolerate a South-African-apartheid-like system forever.
38
@JR
and why is the answer for "all people in the world who believe in democracy and human equality to persuade Israel to end discrimination " rather than for those same people to persuade the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith, rather than resorting to murder and terror when they don't get all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean ?
7
The occupation was the result of the Jordanian/Palestinian attack against Israel in 1967. Why should Israel allow the aggressors to vote in Israeli elections? Should France have allowed Germans to vote in French elections after world war 2 when France occupied Germany?
6
The claim that Israel can be Jewish or democratic but not both at the same time has often been repeated, but I don't think right-wing Israelis really believe it. After all, the term "democratic" is elastic, with different shades of meaning. Today's Israelis insist that they are living in a democracy, even as millions of Palestinians are not allowed equal access to the country's wealth or power-structure. Despite this situation, many Israelis insist that they live in the only democracy in the Middle East. Many Americans accept the fallacious idea that contemporary Israel is a democracy. It's clear that the Israelis and many Americans experience no cognitive dissonance when Israel is called a democracy. Thus it seems that Likudniks could run their country just like North Korea and other police states are run, just so long as they call it a democracy.
68
A nation can be called a democracy even if democracy is limited to a select group of individuals; e.g.; ancient Greece and the US. Women couldn't vote until 1920, and African Americans could not freely vote until 1965. Yet these nations were called democratic.
2
Israel was ranked 29 out of 167 on The Economist's Democracy Index.
That's better than Belgium, Greece, Cyprus & at least a dozen other European countries.
5
That's exactly my point. The term "democracy," as Israel uses it if nothing like the kind of polity many people have in mind. If contemporary Israel is a "democracy," the term has lost its meaning. Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, and Israel: which country does not belong in this grouping?
"Liberal Zionism" has been dead for a long time. Israel's supporters, particularly in the US and Canada, have refused to accept this reality. When I first became interested in this topic in the late 1970s, Likud govts of the day were openly talking about Jewish settlements in the OT as "facts on the ground" with the clear intention of creating immovable objects that would kill the idea of a two state solution. The permanent subjugation of the Palestinians has been clear goal of large parts of the Israeli political establishment for a very long time. It is disingenuous to now pretend otherwise. At this point, it is logically impossible to be "liberal" in one's political and moral values and still support Israel. Israel is a theocratic, illiberal state that is openly planning to maintain a permanent mastery of a subject population. And yes, as Ms. Goldberg indicates, much of this is justified - implicitly and explicitly - by the belief that the Palestinians are simply "inferior." This is what the talk of "making the desert bloom" and supporting Israel because it is an "outpost of Western civilization" have been about. The fact that these are the kind of arguments that colonialists have always used was never hard to miss. The US govt, evangelical Christians, and the Jewish establishment in the US and Canada have provided political and economic cover for Israel for decades. They own everything that Israel becomes and everything it does to the Palestinians as a result.
102
Israel is not a theocracy.
In a theocracy, the clergy rules.
Netanyahu is no rabbi.
In 30 countries, heads of state must belong to a certain religion.
Israel is NOT one of those countries.
4
Please remember that the Jewish Establishment does not represent or speak for most American Jews, even though they may claim they do. The Jewish Establishment, especially AIPAC, represents wealthy, right-wing Jews, not the rest of us.
1
Bantustans might work for ten to thirty years. In the Middle East that's an eternity. But the long-term prospects are not good IMO.
12
Breaking News: The "one-state solution" has already been put into effect. It involves full citizenship for Israelis and a second-class status for the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank. They - the Palestinians - may be further corralled into bantustans and encouraged to leave through ill-treatment and hopelessness; forced out of areas that Israeli Jews want for themselves; driven out in some future war; or subjected to various processes that delay ad infinitum assimilation into full citizenship: but that's fine with the Israeli regime. The choice between "democratic" and "Jewish" has already been made. It was never a close call: land has always taken precedence over "peace", and the "process" has always meant what is happening now.
71
It is the Palestinians who want a one-state solution. Not Israel. That was former Prime Minister Ehud Barak's impression, from his failed negotiations in 2000.
In a 2002 interview in the Guardian, Barak was reported to have said that the Palestinians didn't recognize Israel's right to exist and that "their game plan is to establish a Palestinian state while always leaving an opening for further 'legitimate' demands down the road." He believed that the end product of their game plan was "a binational state" not a two-state solution.
2
Yet another great piece from Michelle Goldberg. And, yes, liberal Zionism is dead or at least gasping out its last breath as Israel gradually accepts a one state solution in which all the power and rights reside with one group at the expense of another. All the heated protestations from the Israeli government and its apologists cannot conceal the obvious. Israel is well along the path to becoming (and, indeed, some would argue already is) an apartheid state.
And for those of us who can remember the 6-Day War and how supportive we were when Israel seemed beleaguered on all sides and was fighting bravely to survive, it is a sad sight to see it transform over time into a right-wing Middle East monolith so willing to trample on the rights of another beleaguered minority.
52
If there is to be one democratic (non-apartheid) state, it cannot be called either "Israel" or "Palestine." I propose "The State of Jerusalem" (Al-Quds in Arabic) as one that everyone can at least identify with a a second-best solution.
Furthermore, neither Hebrew nor Arabic can be the primary official language. There are two alternative: The first is to have two co-equal languages. This works in Switzerland, but is unlikely to work in any future SOJ. The second is to adopt a major third language as an official language that everyone who wants to participate in national politics can be expected to learn. Thanks to the luck of the draw in World Wars I and II, English is the obvious choice. This solution works in polyglot India, even though English there originally represented the the hated colonial rule.
I find it strange that there are only 2 comments to date on this obviously contentious issue!
4
Israel already has 2 official languages: Hebrew and Arabic.
9
But are they really co-equal?
1
How can a people who were persecuted for centuries end up persecuting another people who have historical roots in the holy land? I have long supported the right of the Jewish people to have a safe homeland, but the more settlements they build on the west bank, the more they constrain the rights of Palestinians the less my ardor for Israel. Yes they are inching closer and closer to an apartheid state and that is unacceptable to most westerners. They are making it possible for the Jews to be a hated people yet again. Unfortunately just as my country remains in the thrall of the right-wing so too are many Israelis. It won't end well for either country.
15
The question Mr. Goldberg asks will have to be answered by each person and each country. As he notes, there is no interest in Palestinian suffering now but that might change if the system they are forced to live under is clearly an apartheid one and labeled for what ti is.
The "winners" now are Likud, right wing evangelicals in the US, Sheldon Adelson and his fellow mega donors. But can we really believe that the world and the US will permanently support an apartheid regime in Israel? I don't think so and I certainly hope not.
20
Apartheid???
Where are the separate bath rooms & water fountains?
Why are there Arabs in the Israeli Parliament & on the Israeli Supreme Court?
5
“If all of them were given the right to vote, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state.”
As an atheist, I find it particularly infuriating that the apartheid continues (and the Palestinians are made to live without equal rights & representation) solely to preserve the Jewishness of Israel, which is only important to Israel because of Israel’s belief in a God I’m sure doesn’t exist. Without religion, there would be no such conflict. Without religion, there is no “valid” argument to deprive any one people from the rights owed them by natural ethics.
The same goes for any other religiously motivated conflict on Earth.
19
This atrocity is subsidized by the US taxpayer , you forgot to mention.
83
Neither Jerusalem, nor Israel were Britain's or the UN's to give the the Palestinians. This is a classic case of someone making promises to someone else that they could not possibly keep. The reality is, the Brits and the UN did not put much thought into this, and the Palestinian people were caught in the middle. If you are angry with anyone, be angry with the British, because they cheated you; not Israeli's or Jews.
17
Bravo! Thank you, Ms. Goldberg. Israel has been an apartheid state since its inception and it's high time the world took notice. Even my brown skinned Arab Jewish friends suffer in that country. African immigrants (whom Netanyahu calls "infiltrators), are being rounded up and imprisoned or deported. The current unjust and inhumane situation cannot stand.
16
It is sad but true: the Zionism of my grandparents is gone. The dreams of the shtetl dwellers of Eastern Europe don't resemble anything like today's Israel.
It is brave of you to say that Israel cannot be both a Jewish state and a democracy. That should be indisputable but it is considered offensive by many, even the most liberal Jews. How can access to full citizenship be based on religion or ethnicity? Let's not forget that the Nuremberg laws in Nazi Germany declared that only those of "German or related blood" were eligible to be citizens. The laws regarding intermarriage in Israel are frighteningly similar to those of Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. It is unacceptable that an American Jew would automatically be granted citizenship but a Palestinian whose family has lived in Israel for decades would find it nearly impossible to become a citizen in Israel today.
Thank you for this clear-eyed column.
137
Liberal Zionism is dead because the vast majority of American Jews who do not support the reactionary forces in Israel remain silent as the ultra-rich like Sheldon Adelson fill the void and control the narrative. Until we all stand up and say enough nothing will change and the Palestinians will continue to suffer.
18
The only options to the author are Pal-Arabs having Jerusalem or being in an apartheid state. There are no other options in her mind. Also, according to the author, you cannot be a Jewish and Democratic State either. Israel has Arab judges on their supreme court, equal rights for all minorities, LGBT, and other citizens of Israel, while using Judaism as a guideline. I think they are doing a good job considering who their neighbors are and what their systems of government are. Maybe instead of being hysterical, try to do some research on the other peace deals that are possible. Pals get Sinai and a beautifully built (by Israel) port in Gaza to make it a hub of prosperity instead of terror haven. Maybe Land swaps where Israel controls areas of Judea and Samaria, where the majority of Jews live and Pals get areas in Israel where they live. This article hasn't done anything constructive with the powerful platform the author has. It only serves to make Israel look bad, as the NYT usually attempts to do.
9
I'm glad the author has no say in Middle East peace. The only options to her are Pal-Arabs having Jerusalem or being in an apartheid state. There are no other options in her mind. Also, according to the author, you cannot be a Jewish and Democratic State either. Israel has Arab judges on their supreme court, equal rights for all minorities, LGBT, and other citizens of Israel, while using Judaism as a guideline. I think they are doing a good job considering who their neighbors are and what their systems of government are. Maybe instead of being hysterical, try to do some research on the other peace deals that are possible. Pals get Sinai and a beautifully built (by Israel) port in Gaza to make it a hub of prosperity instead of terror haven. Maybe Land swaps where Israel controls areas of Judea and Samaria, where the majority of Jews live and Pals get areas in Israel where they live. You haven't done anything constructive with the power you have as a writer and only wield your pen to make Israel look bad. Shame on you.
14
You are proposing a two state solution. That would be very nice, but not appropriate for a piece about the death of a two state solution.
1
liberal zionism is an oxymoron .. as is 'progressive' zionism. National states with ethnic/religious priorities are bannonism, however one glosses over it.
13
Why should Israel be punished for the errors and stupidity of the Palestinians and the rest of the world? Move the west bakers to Jordan, where they belong. Have Egypt annex Gaza. End of crisis. Israel has repeatedly shown tolerance and respect for sacred sites of other religions. They would do do again. Result? Expanded Egypt and Jordan, and a secure Israel. Everyone wins.
10
Actually, Israel desecrated numerous Palestinian cemeteries after 1948. See Meron Benvenisti’s book Sacred Landscapes for details.
3
“Israel has repeatedly shown respect for sacred sites of other religions” ? Really? When I was in Nablus in October I saw the work of Israeli settlers who some years ago hacked to death the priest at the Christian Church of Jacob’s Well and the bullet holes leftover from an IDF attack on the Church during the last Intifada. ...also, I recall how Ariel Sharon disrespected the Al Aqsa mosque back in the day.
2
A distinction needs to be made. Liberal Zionism is dead, or nearly so, in Israel. But Liberal Zionism is the Zionism of the majority of American Jews today. Tomorrow, the majority of American Jews may no longer be Zionists as the result of Israel's illiberal turn. It is hard to imagine a greater long-term threat to the security of Israel.
4
The real threats, here are Israel and the United States, both anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian, and anti-peace. I hope liberal Jews around the world will speak up.
3
If Israel were anti-peace, it would not have made any peace proposals.
2
Israel is a dead state walking. One of two things will happen. Either the US will continue it's drift toward fascism and the resulting anti Semitism or a newly energized progressive movement will withdraw in horror from apartheid suppression. Either way American support for Israel will wither and Israel cannot survive without American weapons, money and political cover. The right wing in Israel and the US have almost assured the destruction of the modern state of Israel. Only a near miracle will preserve anything that resembles the brave attempt by the world to do right by the Jewish people.
4
1. The main reason for not recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital is not that it endangers a two-state solution, but that it is wrong.
2. Using your parameters, "Liberal Zionism" has been dead for a long time.
Respectfully,
Ex-Liberal Zionist
5
My Jewish friends, all liberal, still believe an inclusive Israel is the proper way to proceed, with justice and freedom for itself and its neighbors. A 2 state solution.
5
Israel remains at least as socialist as major West European nations, but Israelis never were particularly inclusive – their country was supposed to be a JEWISH nation, not a polyglot mecca (forgive) of Kumbaya.
They’ve also clearly recognized, given the violent and bloody intransigence of an Arab Palestine that was closest to an independent state under Yasser Arafat who probably was assassinated by Hamas for his trouble, that it’s time to move on. History may well have passed the Palestinians by, given the tacit acceptance by major Arab states of the Jerusalem decision. Certainly, over-the-top efforts by numerous Israeli administrations as well as MANY initiatives by U.S. presidents over the decades have resulted in bupkis.
This all began with Jordan abandoning these tribes to their fates. Perhaps it’s time for them to reconsider, except that for many years now the Jordanian monarchy has pointed to itself and asked “Who … me?”
Two irreconcilable peoples want the same land. It’s just that simple. One will win and one will lose – it’s the only possible outcome. Unless Jordan now steps in and embraces them in some Bantustan arrangement, they will be stateless tribes without voting rights in Israel.
Maybe Hamas should have thought twice before poisoning Yasser Arafat.
15
Mr. Luettgen: The problem with your formulation is its premise (or admission) that Might Makes Right, and need pay no heed to Justice or Prudence. This sets up the legitimacy of any future power or force that wants the land just because it can (and a built-in fifth column when that time comes). Israel has the power now. But perhaps not in the future. You may say "It was ever thus". But that would condemn the region to the bloodshed of one Crusade after another.
One possible path forward could be One State where, over much time and difficult struggle, Palestinians become truly integrated, including full political rights, into Israeli society. Yes, this would take a long time, to, among other things, new generations to reconsider their deepest beliefs (like the nature and purpose of the Palestinian people and of the nation of Israel). It would be longer and harder than a two state solution. And yes, it is justice delayed. But if Israel has really chosen one state, then this path, not Bantustans, is not only the morally right, but also the long term prudent path to take.
1
gnowzstxela:
I've been wracking my brain to come up with an example in human history when a nation with interests has every done the "right thing" by some idealized form of Kumbaya -- including us.
I'm afraid I came up empty. I see no reason to burden Israel with being the first.
3
This is the problem I've always had with religiously based governments, whether Israeli or Saudi or Iranian or past examples from European history. You're never going to get everyone to believe the same thing, so religion will be used as a club to beat some people down. And that discredits religion, nullifying it's inspirational aspects which can be used to clean up government.
5
Israel is a secular state.
5
You ignore the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel regardless of US policy. I believe the Trump administration's action was political with no diplomatic basis. But, recognizing the capital that Israel has chosen as her capital did not hurt the peace process because there is no peace process. A status quo of no progression is nothing to maintain.
15
"let Jordan take the West Bank and let Egypt take Gaza" is a creative solution. Its also very reminiscent of european generals drawing lines on maps of the mid east a century ago. Its none of our business and the half of america that is obsessed with Israel needs to start thinking about it as a real place filled with live humans and not a bible story.
17
The two state solution was never a real possibility, but always just cover for the colonization project. Even Netanyahu's eIection promise (in Hebrew, of course) that he would never allow a Palestinian state was either ignored or covered up by the media in order to keep the myth alive. I guess Trump should be commended for exposing the myth and forcing everyone to recognize the truth. The only remaining question is whether the world will accept permanent Apartheid in Israel. As far as the Saudi, Jordanian, and Egyptian - and US - governments ( but not their people )are concerned, the answer is clearly yes.
13
I've got a surprise for you. Netanyahu spoke in Hebrew because that is the language of Israel. As for it being an 'apartheid' state, I'm sure the true sufferers of apartheid would be surprised to find Arab citizens serving in the government, voting in elections and living where they please. Doesn't sound like any apartheid I've ever heard of.
5
Like many columns on the conflict between Israel and Palestine, this one neglects to mention the Palestinian role in destroying the two-state option. The Palestinians could have been celebrating the 70th anniversary of their state if they had accepted, as the Jews did, the 1948 UN partition plan. They could have pushed for a state during the 19-year period, from 1948 to 1967, when Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled Gaza. And they could have accepted plans for statehood in both 2000 at Camp David and again in 2008 (the Olmert plan). But in all these instances - in fact, throughout modern Palestinian history - they have rejected compromise, often violently, and have been more intent on destroying the Jewish state than in creating and building their own. If liberal Zionism is dead, it's in no small part because Palestinian rejectionism repeatedly undercut the appeal of a compromising, liberal Zionism to the Israeli polity. For Palestinian leaders to now blame Israel is just one more indicator of the dark abyss they have led their own people into.
62
It doesn't matter who sabotaged the two state solution, the bottom line is that Israel will be another Yugoslavia or Lebanon on steroids which eventually will put an end to the idea of a Jewish state and that will mean total disaster for Israel and total win for the Arabs.
Even if the Palestinians are most responsible for killing the two states option than they still won and Israelis lost.
1
Actually, if the Palestinians and other Arab states had just accepted the 1948 partition, and not waged a single war with Israel, they'd almost certainly be a demographic majority IN ISRAEL TODAY. This is an instance where literally doing nothing would've been a long-term win for them.
Congrads should be in order for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. At least it assuaged their pride at the time to try and kill dose nasty juuus.
"Trump’s decision wasn’t disastrous because it risked causing riots but because, long-term, it endangers whatever thin chance remains of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
There will be a two state solution when both parties want one. There is nothing the US can do to change that. Carter kind of got the ball rolling. Arafat didn't want a solution, he just wanted to suckle at the teat with the most milk. Even the smartest man of the world, Obama, could not fix this Humpty Dumpty.
And, there is no reason to get too worked up about this. Thanks to Israel's constitution, Israeli born Arabs will become a majority in 50+ years.
There is another way. The Arabs, or more likely the Iranians, will act on their "Death To Israel" pledge. That has been chanted way before DJT came on the scene.
5
According to a recent article in the left-leaning Haaretz, Israeli liberal-left politicians are unanimous and support Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The article also stated that they believed the language in Trump's announcement was nuanced and consistent with their understanding of a two-state solution.
In his final speech before the Knesset on October 5, 1995, Yitzchak Rabin,the father of the peace process, presented the essential elements he envisioned for a peace agreement with the Palestinians: "First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev — as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty ..."
Michelle Goldberg's understanding of "liberal Zionism" is neither Zionism nor is it is particularly liberal. Only those nations that grudgingly accept Israel's right to exist oppose United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. And it is the hard left, not the liberal left, that holds that view.
10
Israel is no more tenable as a nation state than it was in 1948. Nothing significant has changed.
Pushing the Jewish community into one country was a terrible mistake. Peace would prevail if the Jewish community were spread around the world in a diaspora, but not crowed together with an avowed enemy.
The frustrated Palestinian community confined in Israel is a bomb waiting to go off. This mutual hostility between the two cultures will never resolve their differences after 70 years of trying!
7
Yes, the diaspora worked so well in the past. There are no frustrated palestinians confined in Israel. They are in their own countries confined by their hatred and violence. Any time in the last 70 years they could have worked for a successful state, even when Egypt and Jordan controlled them. Their only answer is violence. They are so bad Egypt closed the border with them. I find it very amusing that a French person would advocate for a diaspora as a solution when Jews in his country are under attack every day. Unbelievable.
10
Moira...I'm an American expatriate not french....the Palestinians are hostile because uninvited guests took over their country in 1948....they will never accept a Zionist presence....this is why the UN made a mistake in 1948...Palestine could have transitioned from British mandate to independence with no Israel. .the creation of Israel is one of the biggest diplomatic mistakes by Truman and the UN...Sec. of State Marshall pleaded with Truman to veto the UN resolution but Truman wanted the Jewish vote in the 1948 election..and the rest is history.
4
OMG! You have got to be kidding! "Peace would prevail if the Jewish community were spread around the world in a diaspora..."!?! What do you think occurred after the Spanish expulsion? And how did that end? With the Holocaust! Assimilation has NEVER worked for the Jews. One answer was to create a Jewish state where Jews could go and be safe. But please don't mistake the fact that a Jewish state exists with the fact that Jews ARE spread around the world, and Antisemitism continues to exist.
7
When--not if--the Dems take over, will their revolt against Trumpism include his embrace of Israel? Polls already show that Dems are significantly less enamored of Israel than Republicans, especially the Evangelicals with their "End Times" fantasies. See https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/opinion/israels-problem-with-the-demo....
One can easily imagine Dems including Israel in any "if Trump wants it, we don't" reaction. When--not if--that happens, may we expect to see a change in Israel's policies? If not, then what next? It could be especially tough for Israel should Netanyahu remain Prime Minister when the Dems take over.
1
Oh pshaw. When have the Palestinians ever shown a real interest in a two-state solution . it's easy to complain but, just once, I'd like to see all those who don't approve of Israel's actions DETAIL the parameters of a real two-state solution.
23
Liberal Zionism and its supporters are probably just laying dormant, sitting on the sidelines until the next election cycle that puts Democrats in control so their voices can be heard.
If not, and a one-state solution is inevitable, perhaps Puerto Rico can serve as an imperfect model that generally works but sometimes doesn't as shown by our ineffective response to Hurricane Maria and our second class "citizens" unable to vote in US elections.
4
The end of the left's support for the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State has everything to do with the left's move towards abandoning moral superiority on issues of foreign policy, and nothing do with Trump.
The American left no longer supports the little guy. Today the left is concerned with power and power alone, not ideals.
6
You are misstating the facts. I support a Jewish state of Israel, but I cannot support a "one-state solution" if the Palestinians are to become second-class citizens without the right to vote. This is apartheid, no matter what you call it and how you try to justify it, and the imposition of such a policy would feed the world's anti-semitism. Moving the embassy only inflames the situation, making it more difficult for any Palestinian leader to emerge and find support for a resolution that gives the Palestinians their own land and independence. Sure, the Palestinians have always rejected such proposals, but that doesn't guarantee that with the right leaders at the right time, such an agreement can never happen. It must and it will, but not with Netanyahu and these Palestinian leaders.
2
The Palestinians want a one-state solution. They have made that perfectly clear. But Israel doesn't and Netanyahu doesn't. He understands the need to separate from the Palestinians. Not for their benefit. For Israel's benefit.
But Israel will never retreat to the indefensible pre-67 borders, so unless the Arab nations nudge the Palestinians towards a two-State solution, it will never happen.
3
This op-ed is a tired re-hash of Carter's prognosis and is at best a tangential allusion to 'liberal Zionism.' an embrace of the idea of Jewish homeland and progressive values. The problem with Goldberg's analysis is its devotion to established tropes: there are only two possible outcomes (peace/democracy or apartheid); the Israelis/Palestinians are zero sum and provoke/react; with nothing "progressing" even though there is flagrant evidence the attitudes across the Middle East are evolving into something new. To my understanding this is central to "liberalism", the space to allow for new, and hopefully better, ideas.
46
Hope away, we all hope but most of us see the reality. Short of embracing Palestinians as equals there can be no liberalism you imagine reinventing the region,
2
Could you please describe one plausible alternative outcome?
3
"Space" for new "ideas?" I don't see any, and apparently, neither does Stuart. If anything, history shows that those who have argued for "space" and "time" are often those aligned with the powers that oppose those solutions. Stuart appears to belong to that segment: calling for no disruption to the existing (if unequal) distribution of wealth and power. That way lies continued conflict and misery.
1
Excellent column. Thank you. Having recently visited Israel and Palestine, I was convinced that the two state solution was now impossible and, frankly, that it was the Zionists who had killed it by supporting the ongoing colonization and theft of West Bank Arab land. Furthermore, I just cannot understand how American Jews who were among the most admirable leaders of the civil rights movement in the US can support the Jim Crow/Apartheid idea of an ethnocentric colonial state in the Middle East.
110
Please tell me, on your trip to Israel, how many Arabs did you see riding in the back of the bus? Everyone votes, everyone lives and works where they like. 'Apartheid' is a lie.
If you've only been paying attention for the last few years, you may have missed that the Palestinian leadership has rejected several offers of peace, including at one point, half of Jerusalem on the table. Israel is a democracy--the only one in the ME. Every time it looks like peace may break out, Arafat or Hamas lets loose the suicide bombers, thereby wiping out the Israeli left. They're sick of it; if they can't have peace, at least they want security.
THe I/P conflict is not simple, it's complex. You have to actually KNOW stuff: names, dates, places, events, context, going back over a hundred years to have any real understanding of the conflict. Hamas has killed way more Palestinians than the Israelis have.
11
Because it's not the same group of American Jews. Those American Jews (such as me) who supported the civil rights movement are a distinct group from the politically conservative Jews who support Israel, right or wrong. We Jews, American and otherwise, are not a monolith.
3
Of the limited options facing Israel in dealing with the West Bank, the one we can confidently predict they won't adopt is that of granting citizenship and political rights to the Palestinians. In that case, something resembling the apartheid system described by Goldberg seems the only viable alternative.
Such a choice would mean that Israel had decided to sacrifice its soul, its democratic character, for territory whose security costs would almost certainly outweigh any economic benefits that could accrue to the Jewish republic. More importantly, the loss of individual freedom would affect more than just the Palestinian residents of Greater Israel.
In the American South, both under slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow regime, African Americans suffered the most from they tyranny of white rule. But any whites who challenged the status quo faced the risk of vigilante 'justice.' Would Israel accept the danger of permitting its own citizens to exercise freedom of speech and protest against its apartheid policies? Ultimately, only force can preserve such a system, and no one who challenges it can remain exempt from retribution by the state or by the people, themselves.
The government might limit its restrictions on freedom of speech and protest to the apartheid issue. Or, just maybe, it might conclude that any form of challenge, regardless of the reason, could endanger security by setting a bad example for the Palestinians.
A tragedy for both Jews and Arabs.
5
The population claim cited is based on the present and projected future population of Israel, the West Bank, PLUS GAZA. But a single state of Israel that does not include Gaza currently has a substantial Jewish majority. And demographic estimates, including high Jewish population growth and declining Arab birth rates, are that this majority will be sustained in the future.
For much more about this, see Caroline Glick’s book, “The Jewish Solution.”
This book also documents the fraudulent nature of the “two-state solution,” as invented by the PLO to provide cover for its agenda of destroying Israel. The PLO is not serious about sharing the land, and Hamas doesn’t give even rhetorical support to the two-state solution.
A Jewish state, without Gaza, and with a substantial non-Jewish minority, is possible. Members of the minority that accept citizenship in this state will enjoy full democratic rights.
8
"Liberal" and "Zionism" are contradiction in terms. There is nothing liberal about a movement that creates a homeland for one people in the homeland of another.
88
While there were and still are many illiberal religious Zionists, Theodor Herzl's 1896 Der Judenstaat rejected the notion that Jews had a racial claim to Palestine that justified their ejection of the existing occupants. To make his point, he used Patagonia as a straw-man hypothetical alternative to Palestine as a location for his Jewish State.
It's interesting that he rejected both Hebrew and Yiddish as candidates for the national language, and saw German or English as the only viable options.
There were Jews in Israel before Mohammed. They have as much right to live there as you do in Washington state, unless you are a Native American.
7
But your perspective is one-sided as well. Like many Western liberals, you bemoan "stalling of peace process" as well as "disappearance of two state solution." You neglect to mention that when Gaza was ceded to Palestinian control, (light yes, but success would have yielded a stronger argument for transition to independence, no?), the rockets came in the thousands. Throwing stones=Building up? You neglect to mention that a majority of Palestinians themselves don't want a 2-state solution b/c they refuse to recognize Israel as a state. I have seen the interviews: Palestinians spewing vile hate & denouncing Jews & Israelis as less than human. Could this be a reason for decades of "stalled peace process" & international weariness? Israel grabbed land when attacked, unprovoked, in several wars; a "buffer" was created. But 1968 "borders" do not lie at the heart of the issue; Israel as a modern state does. Why can't we be honest about this in the USA? Have you looked at a map recently? Does it boggle the mind that the pencil thin sliver of land known as Israel evokes such animosity & hate from enormous landscapes that dominate and surround? (Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia). Oil-rich Arab States, rather than aid Palestinians w/education, & life-saving humanitarian aid (most of which comes from Israel & USA) stoke fires as they push Palestinians into a proxy battle which they can hardly afford. Are we helping or hurting Palestinians when we shine light on only one half of the story?
23
Michelle Goldberg is a wonderful addition to the Times op-ed pages. And this is a great, concise piece on why the Jerusalem decision is a bad one. Without a two state solution Israel cannot remain both a Jewish state and a democracy. It is that simple.
For those of us who have always cherished the idea of Israel as both, it is also very sad.
203
Sure it can, have three states. One that deals with external things, military, etc. and that only current citizens of Israel vote for. The other two Palestinian states with a lot of internal freedom as long as peace results.
3
Lester Maddox and all the segregationists in the sixties thought it was sad that the United States couldn't be both white and a democracy. It was one or the other and democracy won.
We have had black mayors in Atlanta for over forty years now. Maybe the Israeli leadership could come to visit Atlanta and see how great we are doing down here..
1
Every time Israel offers to end the occupation, the Palestinians say “No!”
Even Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia (certainly not a Zionist) said that Arafat’s refusal to accept the January 2001 offer was a crime. Thousands of people would die because of Arafat’s decision & not one of those deaths could be justified.
As Clinton later wrote in his memoir:
It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97 percent of the West Bank, counting the [land] swap, and all of Gaza, where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court.
But Arafat would not, or could not, bring an end to the conflict. “I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake,” Clinton wrote. “The deal was so good I couldn’t believe anyone would be foolish enough to let it go.” But the moment slipped away. “Arafat never said no; he just couldn’t bring himself to say yes.”
3
Yet another anti-Israeli article in the Times that completely misses the point. If the Palestinians wanted a state they would have to 1) make peace with Israel and 2) negotiate a settlement. They could do it today before lunch if they wanted. They have no intention of doing either and that has not changed for 70 years. Therefore there will be no Palestinian state no matter what Israel does. I am afraid that Bannon is right about this one; it may not happen for 100 years, but Egypt will take Gaza and Jordan the West Bank. Jordan with a Palestinian population over 70% can then be the Palestinian state. Wait until the oil runs out in the Middle East and see how fast politics and priorities change....
134
You are right but the Israeli government is also not interested in negotiating. There is no trust between the two factions and making one acquiesce to the other only continues the problem. Solution: Both sides need to face reality that until they stop provoking each other there will never be enough trust to negotiate anything. There are no leaders in this issue only grievances and the US only adds to the grievances by moving the embassy. How long has this been going on..? We need real leadership. Perhaps from a neighboring country...
2
The world isn't going to wait 100 years - if Palestinians don't have either sovereignty or representation in the Israeli government soon, Israel is going to be treated like South Africa was.
Part of the meaning of "sovereignty" is the right to decide who you are at peace with and who you aren't - Palestine can't be required to "make peace" with Israel any more than we can be required to make peace with Iran.
2
Remember......Gaza is perilously close running out of water and the only viable solution is desalinization which would depend on Israel for its implementation. Desalinization-Wikipedia is interesting in that it mentions current contributions of the process in the State of California (considerable).
3
As the song goes "Whatever will be, will be." so shall it be. We are of the animal kingdom wether we like it or not. Robert Burns had it right concerning our weavings. I am 86 and have been watching this enigma since 1948. It will continue for long after I am gone. There will eventually be an outcome. My guess is that outcome may last as long as this present quandary . Then it will create another quandary and so on.
2
Actually the idea of Egypt “taking” Gaza and Jordan annexing part of the West Bank might work out. While it would be difficult to carve a border through the West Bank some land exchanges and sacrifices by both sides could make this solution workable.
7
They don't want either. It's an old idea that's been turned down many times.
You can't seriously believe the "two-state-solution" was ever a possibility, can you? Those with power will not give it up. That is what we teach our children. Until the lesson book is changed we will continue along this path.
1
I agree with Nancy, this is a brave article. I was struck be this sentence, "This argument misses the main reason to oppose the Jerusalem announcement, apart from the continued suffering of the Palestinians, which few in American politics particularly care about."
It's true that few in American politics or citizenry care about the terrible treatment of Palestinians. But the few who do care are charged with anti-Semitism for attending to the Palestinian suffering as opposed to all the millions oppressed elsewhere. "This double standard implies anti-Semitism" is the argument. But to what other oppressing regime are $38 billion sent from US taxpayers to support its actions? And what other regime has the influence within US national politics to insist upon this payment. Yes there is a double standard in the treatment of Israel, but it is not the one that is claimed.
133
I am sure you are then equally concerned with the treatment of Christians, homosexuals and women in Palestine. I am sure you speak out against homosexuals being killed, people who speak out against Abbas being tortured and - did you see any women in the picture that accompanied this article? I think you and those who recommended this comment need to re-examine what is meant by an oppressive regime.
10
"It's true that few in American politics or citizenry care about the terrible treatment of Palestinians."
American citizenry will care a lot if the media didn't hide Israel's dirty laundry. Western media domination isn't accidental. Sheldon Adelson even tried to buy NYT.
2
If you think the U.S. is divided (and it is) imagine what a one state solution of roughly equal numbers of Jews and Palestinians would look like. It's simply not feasible.
The only real solution is to create two separate states. This goal, admittedly, is no where near happening, but it is the only way forward.
10
"long-term, it endangers whatever thin chance remains of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"
That view is wrong, but it showcases the left's view that Israel is the obstacle to a peace deal.
The Israelis have pulled out of the Sinai to make peace with Egypt, and they have unilaterally pulled out of Gush Katif near Gaza, dismantling settlements there.
Until now, every U.S. (and European) Administration working towards peace in the Middle East decided that the easiest route to a Nobel Peace Prize was to pressure the Israelis.
But that's wrong. The real obstacle to peace is getting a Palestinian leader who is willing to take half a loaf.
Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert both offered deals. But given the pressure coming from the US and Europe on the Israelis, the Palestinians have always believed that time is on their side. Their hope is that eventually, calls like Ms. Goldebrg's will force the Israelis to give the Palestinians what they want.
What Mr. Trump did was to say to the Palestinians that time is not on their side. Israel is busy building a high-tech economy and an ever-better standard of living for its citizens.If the Palestinians want the same thing for their citizens, they need to ditch leaders like President for 9-years-of-a-4 year-term Mahmoud Abbas and get someone who will accept something less than perfection.
Israel is not going back to the 1967 lines. Even left-wing Israeli leaders agree to that. The Palestinians need to stop dreaming.
20
The seeds are sown; education? healthcare? oppurtunity? separate but equal, what about water fountains/ Genetic, moral & cultural superiority? Do they reproduce like rabbits?
Where have we heard these narratives before? Political change can be extreme in the US, will we be there when and if "the chickens come home to roost?"
2
Bob, I am confused about whom you are talking about. It can't be about the Israeli-Palestinian divide. You must be talking about the ultra-orthodox - non-ultra-orthodox divide.
5
Great point Jerry, thank you. But one group asserting it has dominance over another by birthright or religous belief usually causes short and long term problems.
1
A democratic state with equal rights for all is hard to argue against.
56
Which "democratic" Muslim-majority state do you suggest as the model? Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran (and on & on)?
11
Netanyahu giving no serious consideration to a two state solution is a big part of my disaffection from Israel, but listening to right wing Israelis endorse Trump definitely did not help. I am sick of people who only think in terms of "WHAT is good for" Israel. These are the same people who thought the invading Iraq would be good for Israel. It is clear that they have no idea of what is good for Israel and no regard for what is good for the United States.
265
The "continued suffering of the Palestinians"? But over 90% of the Palestinians have been governed by their elected leaders for over 20 years on their own land, Area A of the West Bank, that Israelis are not even allow to enter, as the result of the Oslo Accords, for which Arafat received the Nobel Prize. Oslo also made him one of the world's wealthiest leaders, even though he refused generous offers of Palestinian State under talks facilitated by Bill Clinton.
Barghouti? Isn't he a founder of the BDS Movement that is working on the ground to eliminate Israel? So why trust such a radical?
Fact check: there is no evidence that the Arabs will be the majority in a one state solution. Their current birth rate is below that of the Israelis. And according to Yoram Ettinger's demographic studies (7/22/16), the PA's population figures are as accurate as Abbas' repeated claims that there was never a Jewish presence in Palestine; their figures are significantly inflated.
Finally, Liberal Zionism is alive and well among the Israelis, but their liberalism doesn't include being stabbed or run over or bombed by Palestinians. Whose does?
4
Chief of staff of former secretary of state reveals that large number of senior Israeli officials warned Bush administration that invasion of Iraq would be destabilizing to region.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3444393,00.html
4
Or what is good for humanity in general, I would add to Susan's wonderful response to Michelle Goldberg's piece. Is liberal Zionism dead? Yes. It has been dead for years. I was raised as a liberal Zionist. I saved my coins and slid them into the slots of those cardboard trees so the desert would bloom, as my mother, an ardent member of Hadassah, would remind me. But she lost her faith, not in Judaism, but in Israel. We're supposed to be better than this, she said. Like Susan, I am "sick of people who only think in terms of 'what is good for Israel.'"
1
And the alternative to a two-state solution is one state, a greater Israel that includes the occupied territories. That state can be Jewish or it can be democratic, but it cannot be both....
[ A brave sad essay, but the argument seems completely sound. ]
169
The only sane solution to continuous Jewish- Moslem warfare cannot be another Gaza in the West Bank. Jordan and Egypt must step up to the plate and incorporate the West Bank Arabs for peace full relations for all.Stop the fantasy of 5 million great grandchildren of previous residents re-incorporated into Israel. Stop the nonsense of a long dead "peace process" promising different things to different people but never ending in its own fantasies. We need more than voting "rights" for Arabs in a Jewish state when they have the "voting rights" given to Arabs by other Arab states.
2
It would make more sense for the one state to be Palestine & Jordan - same language, same culture, same religion.
5
To which we might add the later sentence, because of a higher birth rate: "Palestinians are likely to soon become a majority of the population in Israel and the occupied territories. If all of them were given the right to vote, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state."
And so would come the end of Zionism for all practical purposes.
1
COMMENT
4