The rot has been identified, but its removal appears unlikely, and Netanyahu is certainly not one to lead any attempt at it.
4
Once again a piece in the NYT that manages to review the West Bank situation without a single reference to the « occupation » and the violations of international law. There IS NO « West Bank Model ». The only legal and moral strategy is to end the occuption.
6
"It says that “development of Jewish settlement” is a “national value” — settlement including in the West Bank."
Jewish Settlement including the Galilee, Negev, Aravah, Judean Mountains, Coastal Plain, Sharon, Shephelah et al.
Do you have a problem with this Mr. Peretz?
Yes, including the West Bank. That is a national value just as the Palestinians see the "right of return" to 1948 for millions as a national value.
Value is one thing and implementation is another.
2
Jewish and democratic may sound like a nice concept, but it is nothing if not mere rhetoric. Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both. Because democracy is a universal human value, qualifying it with a specific value, in this case Jewishness only diminishes its universality. This does not make the case for Israel as "a modern, progressive state" as Peretz asserts, but as a democracy-minus state or a Jew-specific democracy. To give two examples:
Israel's "gates are always open to any Jew seeking refuge" says Peretz. However, those gates are bolted shut to non-Jews, even to those Palestinians, Muslim and Christian who rightfully claim it as their homeland and wish to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors.
To say Israel turned its Arab minority "into full citizens with a material and political quality of life arguably unmatched by Israel's Arab-majority neighbors" is a gross distortion unworthy of an educator, though not surprising coming from a Zionist ideologue. Peretz compares apples and oranges. A correct comparison in quality of life would be between Palestinian Israelis and Jewish Israelis where the results are telling on the wide gap that separates them. According to the European Journal of Public Health, the Arab minority in Israel suffers higher mortality and lower life expectancy than Jews. In the labor market, Arabs have higher unemployment rates and take lower wages than Jews. Examples abound.
So much for Jewish and democratic.
5
I'm curious as to how democratic the proposed Judenrein Palestinian state, under the two state solution, will be. Will Mr. Peretz write an editorial opposing a non-democratic Judenrein Palestinian state? Meanwhile Israel is both a Jewish state and democratic.
5
Well written. Americans should not enable this nonsense. The BDS movement should be encouraged as a means for peaceful resistance to this injustice. American taxes pay for Israeli defense. American consumers have a right to use their buying power to stop settlement expansion. Nothing left wing about it.
5
@James Swiderski
The BDS movement has as its goal the destruction of Israel, a sovereign country. BDS peaceful? There’s nothing peaceful about it.
And no, US taxpayers are not exactly footing the bill for Israeli defense. We give them free military hardware manufactured in the United States by American workers...and they give us a secure military base in the Middle East, along with advanced technology. That’s what allies do for one another.
5
@James Swiderski
Jews have lived in Palestine for thousands of years. Palestinians ethnically cleansed Gaza of its Jews in 1929 and the West Bank & East Jerusalem of their Jews in 1948. Why is it wrong for Jews to rebuild their homes in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem?
7
This is the second Op-ed that the NY Times has published in the last week from prominent Jewish Americans criticizing the policy of the democratically elected government of Israel.
.
Where are the Op-eds by articulate supporters of different views and by those who support the current policy? The editors have their editorial space to voice their opinions; this Op-ed space should be more than just a second place to support editors views. Too often pieces by those who disagree appear to selected because they not well written or by people that are not artful in expressing an opposing position.
4
Kudos to this article for actually putting agency toward "Palestine" and its leaders' failure to create a worthwhile civil society with elections and civil rights, and breathing acknowledge that Palestine's corruption and rejectionism towards an Israel with any borders is the paramount obstacle to peace.
Alas, the article fails to take this idea further and ask the question, why can't Israeli democracy be brought to a "Palestine" carved out of Judea and Samaria? Why can't "Palestine" be Palestinian and Democratic? In any two state solution most of the "settlements" -- most of which existed before 1948, including in the old city of Jerusalem, before Jews were ethnically cleansed from these territories by Jordan -- like Gush Etzion will be part of Israel proper. That leaves about 70K Jews in the new "Palestine". Why can't these Jews the right to vote and be represented in the government of "Palestine"? Why is it assumed that "Palestine" must have zero Jews in it, and that this Juhdenrein is okay?
Instead of speculating on what is implied by encouraging Jewish settlement in a Jewish state, the author should question why there must be zero Jews in "Palestine".
4
@TMDJS
I can only hope that Mr. Peretz and all the other detractors of Israel will try to answer your questions and concerns honestly. Then and only then will real progress be made.
1
While Israel behind the Green Line can be considered more or less democratic, it is undeniable that the Jews are the favored citizens. In the Occupied West Bank the only operative word is apartheid.
The system in the West Bank fits the definition of apartheid. There are two different people on the land, one, in this case the Jews, with all of the power and the rights of a free people and the other, in this case the Palestinians who have no power and no rights at all.
In the occupied West Bank the Jews are the minority population. They live in their settlements, all illegal under international law, where they are protected by a large military who makes life miserable for the Palestinians. For the most part Jews are permitted to build homes in the occupied land while Palestinians are for the most part denied permits to build. When out of necessity they build or add on to their homes, those homes are demolished.
When a Jewish settler is brought to court, he or she is tried in a civilian court where there is justice. When a Palestinian is brought to court he or she is tried in a military court where the conviction rate is 99.7%
South Africans who lived under the heinous apartheid system and who visited the West Bank have described what they saw as worse than the system under which they had lived.
9
@JMBN
No occupier has ever treated the occupied the same way it treats its own citizens, but no one has ever called that apartheid unless Israel is the occupier. Why?
3
What is the Palestinian model?
3
The international community, along with commenters on this board, persist in referring to the so-called ‘1967 borders’, as if they were a real thing.
To be clear, there is no such thing as ‘1967 borders’. Armistice lines are NOT borders and were never intended as such. So Israel will not be ‘going back’ to borders that never existed.
You’re welcome.
8
Contrast the West Bank situation to what the US did for Germany and Japan after WW II. The comparison shows what a country can do with noble purpose versus the "to the winner go the spoils".
2
@D Marcot
Germany lost the war they started and had the good sense to surrender. Meanwhile, the Arabs are still trying to win the war they started...and lost...70 years ago.
So please let us know when they will finally relinquish their stated goal ‘to annihilate the Jewish State’, and surrender.
After that, much is possible.
4
@D Marcot
Germany & Japan were willing to sign peace treaties. The Palestinians are not.
5
I know of no other war in which the victor, especially when it was not the aggressor, was or is expected to return land won through fighting for it.
Israel has tried for more than 50 years to make peace with its "Palestinian" neighbors (there were no Palestinians before those wars), but the Palestinians were having none of it, instead vowing to destroy Israel and drive Jews into the sea.
It gave Gaza to Palestinians and has been attacked ever since. It fared better when it gave back Sinai.
Why then do we now find Israel vilified for putting its own interests first? How long must we wait for the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to make peace, a true lasting peace?
6
@Barbara
How about World War Two, when the United States not only "gave back" Western Europe, but helped rebuild it?
4
@McGloin Bad analogy! The Europeans were not actively fighting against America during the reconstruction. Also, the continued presence of Americans in Europe was not crucial to America's future safety. Finally, the Europeans welcomed the assistance of the Americans in stabilizing their continent. None of this applies to the Palestinians.
3
@McGloin
Apples and oranges.
3
Mr. Peretz's opinion piece illustrates the poor strategic vision of the early post-1967 Israeli governments who initiated construction of settlements, such as Ariel Ma'ale Adunim, that make it impossible to imagine creation of a viable nation for Palestinians. President De Gaulle had the power to uproot a million French citizens which was essential for Algerian independence. No past or likely future Israeli government will have the power, even if it had the will, to do what would be necessary to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank. Perhaps this is best illustrated by the repeated refusals of Israeli governments to consider the Arab Peace offer made more than a decade ago that proposed trading comprehensive peace for the 1967 borders. As a result, the Israelis seem irreversibly committed to a situation similar to that in pre-1994 South Africa, with Area A and B regions increasingly like Bantustans. For a country of such promise, this is most unfortunate.
5
@Louis
There's no need for any settlers to be uprooted. Once borders are drawn, those settlers on the Palestinian side of the border will be Palestinians. Because settlers are generally wealthier than Palestinians, their presence will help the economy of the new state.
3
@Louis. Palestinians rejected peace, and a state, in 1948, 2000, 2001, 2008 and 2014.
4
This article references but then sidesteps the economic and social aspects that are equally relevant to the political situation. The standard of living enjoyed by people within Israel and Jews in the West Bank isn't higher than those of neighboring Arab states by accident. The Arab state have had the same effective opportunities, but corrupt governments and incompetent leaders build their identities around destroying Israel rather than facing their own economic needs. Until these discrepancies in leadership and approach are overcome, and economic and social development takes place, discussions about political inequities are doomed to be marginalized.
7
A theocratic democracy is a contradiction in terms.
7
@Rocky
A theocracy is rule by clergy. Israel is not a theocracy. Netanyahu is not a rabbi. Israel is a democracy. A democracy is rule by the people, not rule by the clergy.
3
@m1945 Okay, a business theocracy then.
It may be that the holocaust DOES give Israel the right to say to the world, this is ours - after all, the rest of the world has said the reverse and across Europe, Jews were chased away, even killed. But if that is so, then let's admit it, and not pretend any longer. I respect Israel's resort to might making right. But let's also remember that Palestine was not the Europe that killed its Jews. I am not Jewish, nor Arab, but I know both and wish they could make it work.
3
@Terry McKenna
Palestinians have been oppressing Jews for centuries.
In 1839, the British consul, William Young, said that the poor Jew in Jerusalem...lives from day to day in terror of his life....Young attributed the plight of the Jew in Jerusalem to “the blind hatred and ignorant prejudice of a fanatical populace,”
JEWS IN JERUSALEM.
New York Times December 29, 1878
Crowded together in the worst lodgings, or in the dark cellars under a synagogue building, without food, fuel, or water –even water at Jerusalem being a commodity of price – numbers died of starvation and various diseases, while others went raving mad. Those who could labor were denied employment by the bigotry of the Mussulmans and of the Oriental Christians.
Notice the date. This was before the first Zionists arrived in Palestine. Notice the word bigotry.
Jews had lived for centuries in Hebron & Gaza until they were ethnically cleansed from those areas in 1929.
During the week of riots from 23 to 29 August, 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured,
and now Palestinians oppress Israelis
Running over Israelis is oppression.
Stabbing Israelis is oppression.
Shooting Israelis is oppression.
Firing rockets at Israelis is oppression.
Blowing up Israelis is oppression.
Throwing rocks at Israelis is oppression.
Setting Israeli crops & forests on fire is oppression.
3
So everyone is fine with a bunch of Muslim dictatorships in the Middle East... but when Israel tries to codify its status as a Jewish state there is an uproar? Why do leftists love anti-Semitism?
8
@Fred
Because Israel holds itself to a different standard. First, it holds itself out as a western democracy and, as such, should pursue rules and laws consistent with this end. Israel has always sought to distinguish itself from the repressive dictatorships, monarchies and theocracies of the Arab world. Second, the history of the Jewish people, characterized by oppression, discrimination and, in the case of the Holocaust, extermination, should make it more sympathetic to those who have had similar experiences. At a minimum, Israel should not be an oppressor of others. Of course, how you balance all of this with the very real security concerns that Israel faces is tricky.
7
@Fred Oy.
@Fred
I am not fine with Muslim Dictatorships in the Middle East. For example, I constantly criticize both parties for calling Saudi Arabia our "second most important ally in the Middle East" while they oppress their people, export terrorist propaganda, and terrorize Yemen with weaponry and intelligence from the U.S.
I am also against bipartisan U.S. support for the military government in Egypt, and few other countries.
So no, I am not giving a pass to Israel either, for using oppression to deal with a people they have occupied for half a century. Israel has most of the power in this situation. Israel has a responsibility to treat the people within its borders with dignity (despite Trump's rantings). They are not doing that.
Its been too long to keep getting away with this.
2
I used to respect and like Israel until they started a complete suppression of the Palestine People and their Right wing turn. I understand their desire for a Israel state they have that but they don’t need to create second class citizens in their country to have their Israel state. But that’s what they’ve done, they’ve gone from being the oppressed to being the ones who oppress others. I am shocked and saddened at this turn they know the damage it can do when your turned into a second class citizen when you’re no longer seen as a true citizen of a Country. That is what they have now done. It is time to for others to see what hey are doing to the Palestine people who trapped in Gaza with no future, no jobs and no hope and pushed there because of Israel and kept there because of Israel. They want them to be second class citizens or worse just to die and not be a problem at all and that’s what will happen if no one helps them.
6
@Beth Welsh
Arab Israelis have more freedom than Jewish Israelis because Arab Israelis have the choice to join or no join the military. Jewish Israelis have no choice.
Palestinians in Gaza could have a good future if they are willing to live in peace with Israel. So far, they are not willing.
son's death was "best day of my life," says Palestinian mother
How can a mother who loves her son say that his death was the "best day of my life?" The explanation is that she believes that her son's becoming a martyr by dying while attacking Jews gives him instant access to Paradise & eternal happiness. People who believe as she does don't want peace. They want conflict because conflict provides an opportunity for martyrdom.
4
Mythology is common to all settler states. In our own, we are taught "land of the free..." our manifest destiny and many, many others.
Other settler states had similar myths. Whether the Boars of South Africa, Cecil Rhodes white civilizers or Australia's little Brittain in the Pacific. They were all cloaked in noble mythology.
I won't go into Mr. Peretz's Isreali mythology. For those who know the issues, it's self-evident. But it serves the same purpose as all national mythologies. It creates a thumbnail version of history that can be served up in small doses and easily repeated as a national mantra.
But it also turns eyes away from another facet of settler nations and that's their treatment of the native people. There's nothing noble or democratic about the genocide and slavery in the American case or the savage brutality of South Africa or Rhodesia.
In that sense, Israel's origins, with its quite purposeful ethnic cleansing envisioned the equivalent of the "West Bank solution" long before it actually happened and is neither noble or democratic. The new law simply lays that bare.
It's no different than the treaties we've had with native peoples for 200 years, gestures of sovereignty and equal legal status followed by naked aggression, land seizure and expulsion.
Whether this will end the same for the Palestinians remains to be seen. But the new law pulls away one more layer of Israeli mythology and questions whether this ever can reflect the values of the Jewish faith?
33
drspock
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.
13
@drspock, leaving aside the question of which people was actually "native" to Israel (never mind the dozens of generations of Jews living in Palestine before Israel's founding), your comment that Israel's origins contained a "quite purposeful ethnic cleansing" is clearly ignorant of the facts. The United Nations partitioned Palestine in 1947 into a Jewish state and an Arab state, the Jews accepted this plan and the Arabs did not, and the Arabs resorted to violent means to register their rejection and declared their goal was to push the Jews into the sea. I would submit that the Arabs, not the Zionists, are the ones who resorted to ethnic cleansing, and the Jews defended themselves successfully against Arab aggression and won. When will the Palestinians stop fighting this fact and start building a nation worthy of existing side by side with Israel?
15
@m1945There are Roman and Greek ruins all over the place. Are the people living in these areas supposed to give up their lives so that the current Italian and Greek governments can take over their land and lives?
1
What difference does it make if Israel has not brought the “Israeli model” to the West Bank, but will instead “import the West Bank model into Israel? Israel claims to be a “Jewish and democratic” state, while Netanyahu’s right-wing government is annexing and occupying large swathes of the West Bank, letting the settlers there – a “small minority” – to impose their will on the entire country.
The settlement expansion is strangling any prospect of a viable state in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. The settlers want their cake and eat it too – a Jewish, democratic state, and no Palestinian state. What do they intend to do with the Palestinians? They aren’t going anywhere.
Settlers' leader Dani Dayan said the Jewish presence in the West Bank was "an irreversible fact". Writing in the New York Times in July 2012, he said: "Trying to stop settlement expansion is futile ... Western governments must reassess their approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They should acknowledge that no final status solution is imminent." He insisted, the international community should relinquish its "vain attempts to attain the unattainable two-state solution,” and make “intense efforts to improve and maintain the current reality on the ground". Indeed, as long as they have the US on their side, they feel safe and emboldened.
30
@J. von Hettlingen
The settlements are not an impediment to peace. On the contrary, they make a viable Palestinian state possible. Once a border is agreed to, the settlements on the Palestinian side of the border become part of Palestine and the settlers become Palestinians. Because the settlers are wealthier than the Palestinians, their presence helps the Palestinian economy.
3
It is time to start using the "f" word. Israel has effectively declared that the state is the embodiment of the Jewish people a ho are expected to therefore support it with all their might and all their soul. It's universe of obligation extends to all Jews wherever they live -- unless they actively oppose or protest state policies or actions -- and excludes non-Jews living in the state. A powerful military enforces this vision through raw coercion and systematic discrimination. Israel is not the oxymoronic Jewis democracy says it is. It is a fascist state asserting itself to be the embodiment of the Jewish people.
8
@Benjamin ben-baruch
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."
3
Imposing Jewish traditions onto non Jews? "These were ... territories with deep historical and religious significance for the Jewish people."
Yes, generations of foreign born Jewish people not native to Palestinian lands, where generations of natives also have deep historical and religious significance too. Why should Jews be entitled over those already living there? The uncompromising nature of Israelis reveals the kind of culture they have, causing a dwindling number of friends they have globally.
"It was this model that absorbed penniless Jewish refugees from around Europe and Asia" to purge native non-Jews from their home, land and country, and to subjugate them in ghettos like Gaza.
Israel is the nation actively wiping another nation off the map for over 70 years - West Bank settlements are proof of this obvious intention. Is this the lesson learned from the Nazis - the taking of foreign lands they historically claimed and cleansing them of "lesser" peoples? Indeed, no mixing allowed!
Palestinians are experiencing a slow motion genocide. How's fighting back not justified?
It's time the UN revoked the charter establishing Israel if Palestine cannot exist too, perhaps returning the territory to the Romans - they have historical claims too. Better yet, UN forces kicking the Israelis out of the West Bank and enforcing the original charter of TWO states. Are there no Jews willing to negotiate "reasonable terms"? The PA is useful to the Israelis in keeping the status quo.
12
@PAN
Self-defense is not genocide, slow motion or otherwise.
If gentiles can live in Israel, why can't Jews live in the West Bank?
Jews accepted the UN Partition Resolution. The gentiles said no.
Jews accepted the Clinton Parameters. The gentiles said no.
4
@PAN
In 1970 the combined population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was 1.03 million, by 2017 this has increased to 4.54 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Palestinian_territories
How is this genocide in anyway?
4
@PAN. LOL, it's a shame that greater Arabia, including the "Palestinians" kept losing all of their genocidal wars against Israel, now isn't it.
3
There is no inherent conflict in Israel's identity as a Jewish state and a democratic one. Israel's declaration of independence envisions an elected representative government that "will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations." This is the essence of democracy.
Understanding that the term "Jewish" refers to an ethnic identity, not a religious one, Israel takes its place among the nation states built on the principle of ethnic self-determination that has guided world politics since the end of World War I. Implicit in this model is the absolute protection and equality of minority groups within the state. In this respect, Israel - within its borders - is no different from most of the countries of Europe.
This is a valid and admirable model. The nation-state law casts a shadow over it, as it implies a reduced respect for minorities. It is a mistake.
Still, those who ask whether a Jewish state can ever be fair to others might ask whether our white Christian USA is perfectly fair to non-whites and non-Christians.
12
@Elliot,
I think that your statement that no conflict exists between the notion of a Jewish state - a state that defines itself in ethnic or ethno-religious terms - and current Western democratic norms (which includes pluralism and racial and ethnic neutrality) is, at best, wishful thinking and rationalization. Things have also changed since the end of Word War I. (Racial equality. for example, is much widely accepted now, and population transfers and ethnic cleansing, accepted after WWI, and indeed WWII, are no longer acceptable). As for your last sentence, I would point out that the U.S. is not, constitutionally, a "white Christian" country, and that Equal Protection, separation between church and state, fair housing laws, and Civil Rights laws give non-whites and non-Christians in the U.S. rights and a degree of protection that Arab Israelis and West Bank Palestinians under military rule simply do not have.
4
@AJNY
Remember that the West Bank Palestinians are under military rule because they attacked Israel & lost. They continue under military rule because they refuse to sign a peace treaty. We didn't give the Germans & Japanese the same rights we gave to American citizens when we occupied Germany & Japan, so why should we expect that Israel should give equal rights to people who attacked Israel, refuse to live in peace with Israel, & have been trying to exterminate the Jews?
2
Wow. Israel steals Arab land, plants Jewish settlers, then wants to negotiate with true owners about how to rule the occupied land.
Does anyone blame Palestinian leaders for refusal to 'negotiate'?
11
Have you ever offered your land to the native Seminoles who had it stolen from them?
4
@FJG
Palestine was not ‘Arab Land’. It was a derelict province of the Ottoman Empire for 500 years. Land ownership under the Turkish system was complicated by the fact that property owners were subject to conscription...hence the prevalence of ‘absentee landowners’ who were more than happy to sell their properties to Jews...which they did in droves, at inflated prices.
Meanwhile, tenant farmers were not ‘landowners’ regardless of how long they may have been there. They had no legitimate claim to the land.
6
@FJG
The land was not stolen. Israel was formally ceded that land by a majority vote of the United Nations in 1947 (along of course with a companion Palestinian state). The land captured in the 1967 war is trickier and more ambiguous.
3
I think I comprehend why Martin Peretz wishes Israel to have the freedom to define and practice democracy as an "independent" state, meaning, I take it, that nobody from outside the Jewish community should ever have the power to veto its Jewish character, whatever that means. And I don't say this cynically: it seems to at least some non-Jews such as myself that Israel is having a very nasty time of it coming to some consensus on this point. Even so, I do object to the idea that Israel's independence is absolute or absolutely dispositive for her future. U.S. military and diplomatic support is indispensible for her existence and well-being, and that in turn depends on many intangible cultural and spiritual resources available only from Americans whose population is vastly non-Jewish. Israel simply cannot continue indefinitely to enjoy that support as long as she insists on what Mr. Peretz calls "supremacy" over large non-Jewish populations in the reach of her power and authority. That's true no matter what emerges from Israel's internal debate with herself about the meaning of her life, history and future.
7
@David A. Lee
After World War 2 Germany had a choice. It could sign a peace treaty giving 25% of its territory to Poland or it could resist the occupation. Germany chose to sign the peace treaty & has now had more than 70 years of peace & prosperity. The Palestinians had a similar choice. They could have accepted the Clinton Parameters giving up 3% of their territory or they could resist the occupation. Palestinians chose to resist & have had many years of war & poverty. Who made the better choice?
3
Thanks for putting this woefully misleading comparison on the record. I'll leave it to historians who know better to confute it in detail, but I will say this: Poland wasn't established at Germany's expense. Israel was, at the expense of indigenous peoples who woke up to their fate only after it was cooked up by diplomatic schemers during World War I and by diplomats and statesmen exhausted in the aftermath of World War II. Moreover, to blame the Palestinian people for refusing complicity in their violent humiliation is a grotesque falsehood. I wish there were a more polite way of replying to you, but I just don't think there is. And, in any case, I tried to say that at some point the vast majority of Americans who aren't Jews are simply not forever going to support Israel's domination and exploitation of the Palestinian people. Much more could be said in this vein. It will be said, when the historical verdict is rendered and Israel is forced to recognize that she is not alone in the world and that accordingly she can't have history solely on her terms. No nation can or ever has, and, yes, that includes the American people, too,who are already beginning to pay a price for our own illusions about ourselves and the world. That includes our belief that we have some holy Zionist mission to maintain Israel forever.
@David A. Lee
For starters, Arabs are not “indigenous” to the Levant. They are ‘indigenous’ to the Arabian Peninsula no matter how long they may occupy territory their warlord forbears conquered...and lost...centuries ago. As a matter of fact, they lost it the same way they ‘gained’ it....via war and conquest.
This is a highly intelligent piece and it’s hard to disagree with anything here.
The truth is that peace in the form of a two-state solution will come (and it WILL come) when there is a Rabin type leader on both sides at the same time. Right now there is no Rabin on either side.
When will it happen?
Not soon enough - but sooner than you think.
2
@Steven Roth A Rabin-type leader will likely meet the same fate. Rabin was not enough of a Zionist chauvinist for the power structure.
1
@Rocky
Both Barak & Olmert were willing to make greater concession than Rabin, but it doesn't matter because Palestinians are not interested in living in peace. They just want to destroy Israel.
After they destroy Israel, they want to destroy the West.
When the rocket attacks first began against Israel, a senior Hamas leader, Dr. Yunis Al-Astal, published an article in the Hamas journal, Al-Risala, where he compared Hamas’ al-Qassam rockets to the Manjaniq catapult which the Prophet Muhammad used against the Jews of Khaybar. The fall of Khaybar, he explained, opened the gates of the Byzantine Empire to Muslim conquest and was the first step towards the fall of Constantinople. Now, the fall of Israel, he said, would open the gates of Europe to Islam and lead to the fall of Rome.
Hamas MP and cleric Al-Astal proclaimed in 2008, “We will conquer Rome, and from there continue to conquer the two Americas and even Eastern Europe” (Al-Aqsa TV, April 11, 2008,
It has been far too many decades to call the West Bank Occupied Territories. They have been effectively annexed.
Israeli offers of a Palestinian State in the West Bank always leave control of the borders, trade, water, highways, and hilltops under Israeli control. That would not be a two state solution. That would be Apartheid.
It is time that Israel choose democracy.
All residents of the West Bank should be made Israeli citizens. All three branches of Judaism have important historical and religious ties to Jerusalem and the lands around it, including Christianity and Islam. They must be embraced and protected.
To protect any one religion from being dominated by another, a Tri-Presidency could be created with veto power over domestic policy, and a majority vote required for foreign policy. If that is not enough protection for religious minorities, each religion could be guaranteed a minimum number of seats in the Knesset. This would create gridlock for a while, but eventually they would figure out how to make it work.
You cannot build a democracy from religious persecution. That is why in America we have separation of church and state. You cannot have security while you keep a People dominated in your borders.
Attempting to create a nation by dehumanizing others dehumanizes you.
8
@McGloin
If you want one state, it makes more sense for that one state to be Palestine & Jordan - same language, same religion, same culture, same-people.
4
As long as there are "Islamic Republics," opposed to the Jewish character of Israel, and even its very existence, it's clear that there needs to be one Jewish Nation State. When will Saudia Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and others welcome Jews (and Christians) to live in their democratic states?
11
No. 1. The Palestinians living within the undefined "borders" of Israel are not "Arabs." They are Semites and they are Palestinians.
No. 2. It has been obvious to those of us who read the Israeli press that the Israeli government was never going to allow a Palestinian state to exist no matter how neutered. This goes for governments from Labor to Likud.
No. 3. The pre-state Jewish immigrants and the post-state Israelis had a plan and made a deliberate and fatal mistake: they insisted that this land will be theirs totally, free of Palestinians.
No. 4. An alternate plan would have been in line with the Balfour declaration and the UN Resolution that created Israel, namely, a bi-national or multi-national state that would have been completely dominated (economically and politically) by the European-supported Israelis.
No. 5. Instead, Israelis will be faced with natural hatred and animosities that will not evaporate for 1000 years, or until Israel "passes from the pages of time," whichever comes sooner. As an American who grew up supporting Israel, I find this outcome highly unfortunate.
11
@John
You’ve adequately outlined the ‘Palestinian’ narrative, which is ahistorical and mendacious. Bravo.
6
@Shenoa
Whats "ahistorical and mendacious" is Zionism. Ben Gurion had a homeland. It was called Poland.
1
@Joe I'm confused. There were offers for a Palestinian state in 1948, 2000, 2001, 2008 and 2014 and the PLO rejected them all.
1
"The West Bank Model Is a Failure"
The "West Bank Model" is apartheid.
7
@KNVB:Raiders
No occupier has ever treated the occupied the same way that it treats its own citizens, but no one has ever called that apartheid unless Israel is involved.
3
@KNVB:Raiders. Very true! There are huge red signs all around Judea and Samaria stating that ALL Israelis are forbidden to enter territory under the control of the PA!
2
There was a time when peace could have been achieved, probably before Rabin was assassinated.
That time is now past and there is no hope to retrieve it.
The Israelis have grown too comfortable with the current status quo and the people who control the situation on the ground: the settlers, religious extremists and Netanyahu's party are more interested in growing Israeli presence in the West Bank than in peace.
The Palestinians in Gaza are controlled by Hamas, more interested in throwing the Jews into the sea than achieving a compromise.
The Palestinians in the West Bank don't believe that a compromise that preserves any dignity for them could be achieved, given the growing settlement presence and their own unrealistic expectations of return.
5
Whatever ‘model’ currently exists in the ‘West Bank’ (so-called by the illegal Jordanian occupation, circa 1948-1967) is the result of Arab intransigence, warmongering, and terrorism over the past 70 years...and counting...since Israel’s independence.
Israel should compromise, appease, and capitulate? Been there, done that. Every attempt to negotiate with the Arabs have failed to bring Israelis even one day of peace. So while Israel’s enemies (within and without) ratchet up their 70+ year campaign to annihilate the Jewish State, Israelis stand their ground.
History is a teacher. Israeli Jews have learned their lesson well.
10
@Shenoa
"Israel should compromise, appease, and capitulate? Been there, done that."
When?
When a fanatical, expansionist, right-wing Israeli Jew assassinated the great Yitzhak Rabin for negotiating the possibility of a Palestinian state in the Israel's West Bank/Judea & Samaria bantustan?
5
@KNVB:Raiders. And then the PLO rejected a state in 2008 and 2014.
1
@KNVB:Raiders
Barak & Olmert came after Rabin and were willing to make greater compromises than Rabin.
If the Palestinians were interested in having their own state, they would have declared independence in 1948. Instead, they asked for union with Jordan.
2
Who will interpret Israel’s new law: Orthodox Rabbis? If so, then what will be the role of Reform and Conservatives Rabbis?
3
@Ighani
Theocracy, whether Jewish, Christian, or Islamic (in order of religious appearance on the historical scene), will always be anti-democratic. It has to be by nature, for it elevates one group above everybody else. Thus, as the Orthodox gain power and influence, within their own house of Judaism the Conservative and Reform will be marginalized for not being "true" believers. Once you get outside of their overall tradition and are something else, like Palestinian, perhaps, as they say in Brooklyn, "fugghedaboudit."
2
So, according to Mr. Peretz, the Palestinians have refused to negotiate with Israel because they are obstructionist, not because the constant expansion of Jewish settlements and roadblocks in the West Bank is a clear signal of Israel's intention to absorb the West Bank completely, effectively, during the coming years, leaving the Palestinians in isolated, cut-off corners with no way to connect their lands and do business. The Palestinians deserve no rights (and almost no water) because they are smeared by their critics and leftist extremists into a Cuban/Venezuelan-type Communist identity whether they choose it or not.
But wait, we're not finished yet. To Mr. Peretz, the rights of the Palestinians are hardly worth even mentioning in passing, because what's really important is that this new law will harm the democratic identity of the oppressor nation, the perpetrator of a human rights crime on the scale of the South African apartheid.
And hold on please, I am a Jew.
6
@Charles Zigmund
It’s Hamas that denies Gazans freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion & the vote. If Gazans want freedom, they need to overthrow Hamas.
1
Israel was never a democratic state except in the sense that the old South Africa was, i.e. by ethnically cleansing the land of its ancient Palestinian villages, it achieved a Jewish majority. The Israeli Arab minority was never planned nor were the ultra-orthodox that now together make up almost half the population. But the new law was deeply imbedded in spirit in the zionist project from the very beginning. Some such as this op-ed writer see Israel as they want it to be, but Americans, who are responsible for so much of it, should see it as it always has been and is today.
11
@rkthomas13
No one would have been killed, displaced or lost any land if Palestinians had not tried to exterminate the Jews.
The day after the UN Partition Resolution in November 1947, racist, xenophobic Palestinians started a genocidal war to exterminate the Jews. Haj Amin el-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem – “I declare a holy war, my Muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!”
Wars create refugees!
2
With what’s been going on in the West Bank under the direction of Netanyahu over the past decade, as well as Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea and portions of the Ukraine, not to mention China’s aggression in the South China Sea, cries out for “real” international authority. Without such authority it begs the question: “what does sovereignty and the rule of law “really” mean?”
2
If the Palestinian leadership was even remotely competent, the U.S. and others could put pressure on Israel to accept the 2 state solution which they have de facto already agreed to on multiple occasions when they made various peace proposals.
But the incompetence, corruption and utter hatred from the PA and Hamas allows Israel to dig in and gives greater sway to far right elements in Israel. The status quo is in no one's interest, but it's impossible to see how it changes.
6
Some things can't be fixed.
My personal guess as to the future of Israel, and its Arab citizens and neighbors, is that they will hate each other for many, many generations. Given the politics (worldwide as well as the Middle East) and the demographics, no decent solution is anywhere in sight. A shock of who-knows-what may well be what changes it; certainly more negotiations, speeches, OpEd articles, or comments by me won't.
In this awful situation, governments will follow the interests of the governors: the US will most likely continue to support the state of Israel; Netanyahu and his heirs will continue to annex land and disenfranchise and mistreat Arabs, with the apparent strategy of gradually making the whole of Palestine so uncomfortable for Arabs that they will move out.
And private individuals will follow their own consciences, wherever that leads them. Judaism has been primarily a tribal thing for thousands of years; globalization and Netanyahu are eating away at that, and more and more American Jews find their sentiments divided and confused.
What a mess.
10
Let's take a look at the premises in this article:
1. The creation of a "Jewish and Democratic" Israel was justified because of historical Jewish suffering elsewhere.
2. The occupation of the West Bank was justified because Israel won a war. Moreover, it is the heart of 'historical' Israel and Israel needs Lebensraum for Jewish people and for military protection.
3. Democracy within Israel for Palestinians living in the West Bank is a preposterous proposition.
4. Geographically, there isn't anywhere left for the second state in a two state solution.
5. Democracy within Israel proper is eroding due to right wing ethno-religious chauvinism.
These are controversial points, but if one accepts every one as valid, where does that leave Israel? Where does it leave Palestinians?
17
NormBC--Wish I could recommend this comment 100 times. Well, I just did!
4
@ChesBay. Alas, you left out the part where Jews were ethnically cleansed from "the west bank" by Jordan in 1948. And where the PLO rejected a two state solution in 2000, 2008 and 2014.
Here's a better question for you: Why can't Palestine be Palestinian and democratic? Obvious land swaps would leave about 70K Jews in Palestine. Why can't these Jews have the right to vote and participate in Palestinian civil society? Why must "Palestine" be purged of its Jews?
1
@NormBC
1. The creation of a "Jewish and Democratic" Israel was not justified because of historical Jewish suffering elsewhere, but because of the right of self-determination. Every people, even the Jewish people, have the right of self-determination.
2. The occupation of the West Bank was justified not because Israel won a war, but because Israel was attacked. Just as our occupation of Japan was justified because we were attacked.
3. Democracy within Israel for Palestinians living in the West Bank is not a preposterous proposition, but also including Gazans in Israel would be preposterous because then Arabs would soon become a majority & the probability that a majority Arab state would be as democratic as Israel is virtually ZERO.
4. Geographically, there isn't anywhere left for the second state in a two state solution is FALSE. There's the West Bank & Gaza.
5. Israel is so democratic that even if it took a few steps backwards, it would still be one of the most democratic countries.
2
Israel as only Jewish majority because it expelled 750,000 Palestinians at its founding and continues to expel an disenfranchise them. Israel has done everything in its power to keep civic society from growing in the Palestinian community. Leaders were and are routinely killed or put in jail for attempting to gain rights for the Palestinian people. In the West Bank you will see an apartheid system in place, with separate roads and different access to services and resources based on ethnicity or religion. In 1948 Israel there are more than 35 laws which discriminate against Palestinians. Israel cannot be anything resembling a democracy until there is justice and equality for all the people living there.
34
@penney albany
Israel did NOT “expel” 750,000 Arabs at its founding.
Tens of thousands fled at the behest of their own Arab leaders with the promise of Israel’s destruction. Many became enemies of the state, actively fighting in support of the Arab armies that attacked Israel in 1948.
Tens of thousands of Arabs claiming to be ‘Palestinian refugees’ weren’t even legitimate residents of what was then Mandatory Palestine, having entered that territory illegally from neighboring regions....as economic migrants.
Meanwhile, I notice that you neglect to mention the 900,000+ Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries...dispossessed of their considerable wealth and property after centuries of residency...no compensation nor reparations offered. They were resettled in Israel to start anew.
What have you got to say about that?
9
@Shenoa
So none of the Arabs of Palestine were expelled but all the Jews in the middle east were expelled? How about some Arabs were expelled and some chose to leave just like some Jews were expelled and some chose to leave.
By the way, Israeli historians and the IDF itself have already discerned that Jewish forces were responsible for the Palestinian exodus. Educate yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus#Open...
1
@penney albany
No occupier treats the occupied the same way it treats its own citizens, but no one ever claims that that disqualifies the occupier from being a democracy. When we occupied Japan, German & Iraq, we didn't treat the Japanese, Germans & Iraqis the same way that we treated American citizens, but no one ever said that that meant we were not a democracy.
1
Martin Peretz's opinion is too short--as it has to be--to provide an adequate context--for the history of the state. The 1967 war, when Israel acquired the West Bank, was certainly a turning point. Before that, the Labor Party was in power, and most Israelis were not demanding a greater Israel. Although Israel was becoming more of a capitalist economy with a stock exchange, David Ben-Gurion's moderate socialist Zionism was still esteemed by the majority of Israelis. But a few years later, after the 1973 war, the Israelis became disillusioned with the Labor government, and voted in Ben-Gurion's arch-enemy, Menachem Begin. a revisionist Zionist who was a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky. Although the Labor government started encouraging settlers to populate the West Bank, the movement picked up force under Begin and his right-wing successors, including the current government of Israel. The Nation-State Law is just one more example of its efforts to establish a greater Israel, and to rid it of Palestinians.
8
@Diogenes. Begin did manage that whole peace with Egypt thing though.
2
@Diogenes
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.
4
Israel’s war of 1967 was meant to reverse the ethnic cleansing of 1949. To call it genocidal is to
start the clock where it conveniences the writer and betrays how desperately one sided his views are. The Arabs were also fighting for their lives which they lost as continue to lose at alarmingly disproportionate rates.
7
@Diego Leclery
“Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse any aggression, but to initiate it ourselves, and to destroy the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland of Palestine. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united. I believe the time has come to begin a battle of annihilation.”
– Hafez Assad, then Syrian defense minister, later president, May 20, 1967.
“We will not accept any... coexistence with Israel. The existence of Israel is in itself an aggression...against the Palestinian people.” – Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of Egypt, to the international media, May 28, 1967.
“The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map.”
– Abdul Rahman Arif, President of Iraq, May 31, 1967.
” Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser laid out the Arabs’ bloodcurdling objective: “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.”
Yasser Arafat’s predecessor as PLO chairman, Ahmad Shukeiri, “The Arabs... will not flinch from the war of liberation...This is a fight for the homeland – it is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road... We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors – if there are any – the boats are ready to deport them.”
3
Netanyahu has explicitly stated, in Hebrew only during the election campaign, that he would never allow a Palestinian State. This was the basis on which he was elected. It apparently reflects the views of the majority of Jews in Israel. He will say or do anything to placate the US and keep the money, guns, and diplomatic cover coming, but he has made it clear that there will be no Palestinian State and, with his settler program, has taken positive action to make that an impossibility.
That, of course leaves only two choices. One, a Democratic, secular, single state with equal rights for all, and two, a Jewish, nondemocratic, apartheid state with democratic rights for Jews only. This law shows clearly which choice Netanyahu and company have chosen .
21
@Jack Robinson
Netanyahu got only 25% of the vote.
Settlers make an independent Palestine more doable because settlers on average have higher income than Palestinians so settlers make a Palestinian state economically viable.
1
Just another feel good pro-Israel piece. After so much banter over the years about those awful Palestinians with their penchant for violence, their unwillingness to accept such wonderful peace offerings and their economic backwardness compared to Jewish settlers with vineyards and orchards in abundance, can't we just cut to the chase. Israel wants all the land. After horrible repression, especially by European Christians down through the ages, the true vision for Israel is the geographical remake of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Save for world condemnation and economic repercussions, forcibly moving the Palestinians from Greater Israel would already be a fait accompli.
18
Mr Peretz is less than honest in his description of the "Israeli experiment" and how it came to be a "Jewish" state. Disenfranchisement and ethnic cleansing of non-Jewish Palestinians and their ongoing replacement with Jews was and remains at the rotten heart of the zionist project. Terrrorist groups like Haganah, Irgun and the Stern gang were already at work attacking and driving out Palestinian Arabs from their towns and villages, a period that Palestinians call the Nakba, when Arab governments intervened in an (unfortunately) unsuccessful attempt to protect them. Israel is only a so-called "Jewish" state because it expelled and disenfranchised 2/3rds of the non-Jewish Palestinians. Hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed and erased from maps by Jewish nationalists. The land and property Palestinian refugees left behind was confiscated by Israel and reserved for exclusively Jewish use and projects.
22
@Patrick
Jewish terrorism arose as self-defense against Palestinian terrorism which had begun in 1920. The Jewish government captured some of the Jewish terrorists & handed them over to the British for punishment.
1
Jabotinsky had it right and Arab appeasers have it wrong. The Arabs are never going to love Jews and their goal will always be to throw the Jews of Israel into the sea.
For Israel always to be a Jewish state, and a place for persecuted Jews from around to world to seek refuge if need be, the Nationstate law is welcome by most of the populations, and is needed. American and other foreign Jews can have a view, but they are not lving the existential life in Israel and do not have a vote.
A wise man was once asked: "who owns the land?" And he was answered: "those who can hold i."
May the Jewish people always own the land!
6
Ronald Ginson--Only from 1948, on, since they never actually "owned" any of it prior to the mistake that followed the war, thanks to the well-founded guilt of the Christian powers that were, at that time.
3
@Ronald Ginson
My goodness, that's quite a comforting statement for every despotic government in history "those who can hold it". Possibly you only meant governments you agree with.
1
All the Nation-State Bill does is codify what has been obvious all along: Israel is not a genuine democracy but an ethnocracy designed to ensure the permanent domination of one ethno-religious group over another. There's a name for that: apartheid.
11
@Owen Gavin
Israel was ranked #26 by Global Democracy Rating
http://democracyranking.org/wordpress/rank/democracy-ranking-2016/
1
Thank you for making me understand what I find so distasteful in the Nation-State law. It is hard to put one's finger on why Israeli Arabs have become so exercised by the law. Peretz explains what maybe even they cannot put into words. Till now, Israeli Arabs have had a good reason to believe they can move up and be equals. The Arab population of universities is growing rapidly, as is an Arab middle class with doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, and others like them. At the beach in Haifa two days ago, I rubbed elbows with Christians, Muslims, including women in traditional Muslim dress. Nobody--and this is the real point--paid the mixing much attention. It was just fine, normal. The same goes for sitting in restaurants with clientele of all stripes. The mixing is also social, more and more. In my gym, Arabs and Jews work out side by side, and regulars great each other warmly. That is the real Israeli reality, in Israel. That is the real normal. And that is, indeed, the normal that the Nation-State law threatens, exactly as Peretz says.
33
@Kenneth Stow While you describe the normal in Haifa, your description in no way depends on the Nation-State Law and you don't show how the law threatens that situation. I seriously doubt that you "rubbed elbows" with women in traditional Muslim dress, but that's just an example of hyperbole. I am curious as to why you are not opposed to a Judenrein non-democratic Palestinian state, as part of a proposed two state solution
2
I believe that the policies and philosophy that Netanyahu represents are destructive to the peace and future of Israel.
That said, I struggle to see how Israel can ever be at peace with its Palestinian neighbors, while Palestinians are at war with themselves. Hamas and Fatah have been engaged in their own murderous power struggle for decades. Both groups have proven themselves to be corrupt and self-serving. The Palestinian people lack a leadership that has their best interests at heart.
5
Israel cannot be both a Jewish state and democratic. It is democratic for Jews only, discriminates against Arabs and is thus undemocratic.
14
@Christy
Israel also discriminated in favor of Arabs e.g. Arab-Israelis are not subject to the draft.
1
"...a section to allow the formation of Jewish-only communities that would have effectively denied the mixing of peoples and individuals..."
We already have approved of this in the US. Take a look at the growing hard right Hasidic communities of NY.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/nyregion/hasidic-kiryas-joel-upstate....
1
I'm afraid the West Bank model is being imported into America via AIPAC with their stranglehold on our Congress and now the Executive branch. The country with the highest approval of Trump's presidency is not the United States but Israel, and it seems we only have 2 friends left in the world , one ethno-nationalist and the other autocratic. Look at Trump's top advisor behind his anti-Muslim rhetoric, Steven Miller, the speech writer and architect of his anti-immigration policy with its stupid wall. We don't want to live behind walls like they do over there .
5
@John Reynolds
And we control the press, Hollywood, the banks and all of the professions, too. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to run to a Cabal meeting. Secretly running the US is a demanding job.
4
@Frank Knarf ha ha, you exposed me, you left out the Elders of Zion ;)
1
Peretz makes at least one error writing the law reads “development of Jewish settlement” is a “national value” — settlement including in the West Bank."
It does not. Section 7 reads: "The state views Jewish settlement as a national value and will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development."
But to be fair, the League of Nations Mandate decision charging Great Britain with reconstituting the Jewish national home in a Palestine after removing the territory of Transjordan (see Article 25) includes this in Article 6: "The Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."
"Settlement" or actually resettlement, is an internationally-recognized and confirmed right.
5
Zionist leaders were steered to Israel as fronts for the British and French empires. Israelis are trapped in the intermediary role that Jews are historically so familiar with. Imperial interests are served. Jews take the blame.
4
A prior column on the NY Times explained in great detail that Democracy does not have to be Liberal. A liberal democracy allows full rights of citizenship including voting to its citizens. Israel is a democracy in which its leaders are chosen by voters but only a fraction of those who live within its borders can vote so it is not a liberal democracy.
As long as AIPC and the very pro Israel donors here have the power to let the tail wag the dog Israel has nothing to fear from the USA in the near future. In the long term demographic changes in the US with increasing assimilation and secularization of Jews . A burgeoning birth rate of Arabs in Israel proper and the high birth rates of the Ultra Orthodox in Israel are going to be destabilizing to Israel in the long haul.
8
Not being Jewish one does not have the assumptions a Jewish individual has. The sense of Peretz's op-ed is that he believes there is a Jewishness that exists outside of the Jewish religion. Peretz's references to "Jewish": symbols; holidays; calendar; are religious. So he has a tension because he is supposedly a "secular" Jew. He must imagine therefor, that, without any question whatsoever, the Palestinian government is corrupt, and this corruption is what oppresses Palestinians. He also accepts that, without any question at all, Palestinians quality of life improvements, wherever same exist, are the result of Israeli beneficence. Not being Jewish one does not operate on those assumptions. One has more objectivity without the assumptions. Thus, one can understand that even before the rise of the right wing Orthodox sect, life was no bed of roses for the Palestinians. Israel's policy towards them has always been the same, as I see it, being neither Jewish nor Arab.
1
@tbs
Are you claiming that the PA is not corrupt?! Please.
2
Well said.
Energy, skill, dedication. All in the singular promotion of blindness.
There is no such thing as a representative of Palestine. Take out the services and provocateurs and you have ten soon to be dead or imprisoned teenagers.De(liberate) and on going so Americans in Israel on Hudson can add their smug and safe voices. Blindness.
1
I feel like in the age of Trump, the Hawks are starting to see the slippery slope that they've been advocating we all jump on for the last 40 years. They see their wars spiraling out of control and rudderless. They see the downsides of their economic policies and recoil into protectionism (instead of what I call 'inclusionist' policies that would inevitably mean wealth distribution and healthcare for all). They see technologies disrupting the economic order (#Uber), and are more concerned with protecting their profits than human dignity.
The American Jewish population supports Israeli policies almost without reserve. In fact, their activities in sum tend to skew politics in Israel towards the right (I say this even of 'Liberal Jews' like Mr. Peretz). We now see what our uncritical stance vis-à-vis Israel is bringing us, a state that can only be labeled as 'Apartheid' in nature. Nothing practical is happening there. The can is getting kicked down the road, and both American and Israeli security will suffer in the long-term. The sum of American might and knowledge if Jared Kushner? We should cry over the utter dearth of diplomatic leadership and reason, instead we chat re-hashed slogans.
A day of reckoning is coming.
17
@Philip You are profoundly mistaken regarding the American Jewish communities support of Israel. American Jews are showing the true values of their faith tradition in challenging these policies. If you want to see the reason why the US has tilted in this direction I would suggest looking at the political clout of of the so called Christian Zionists that form part of Trump's base.
3
For two reasons I think the demographics are much worse than you think, Mr. Peretz.
The first is that you point out that Jews have an 80% majority in Israel (actually it is 75%). That, however, includes the ultra orthodox who in no way support the Israeli model. In fact, the religious theocracy that they desire is the antithesis of democracy in every way. Today they are about 20% of the population, but wield political power far in excess of their numbers.
The second is that you have only a static model for the demographics of Israel. The fertility rate for the ultra orthodox is about 7 (children) compared to about 2.5 for the rest of Jewish women. Since the rate for all Jews is about the same as the rate for Arabs, it is clear that the rate for the non orthodox is less than that for Arab women.
Thus in a few years Israel will have a majority consisting of Arabs and the ultra orthodox. This is a recipe for disaster.
23
Israeli policy towards the Arab population in its neighborhood was historically built around a geographic construct. Within Israel's borders, Arabs were citizens entitled to equal treatment under the law and presumed to acquiesce in their status as citizens of a Jewish state. Beyond Israel's borders, the Arab world was understood to be hostile, in large part because of cynical incitement by Arab governments.
After 1967, Israel tried but failed to continue that approach. It defined the "green line", and then the "security fence," as the demarcation between Arabs presumed to be friendly and Arabs who were a potential threat. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was premised on the same idea: the conflict was to be treated not as an ethnic one but as a problem in international relations with Arab governments.
This approach has broken down for many reasons that include burgeoning Jewish settlement in the West Bank, a rising sense of Palestinian identity within Israel, the lesson from Gaza that a border with an elected Palestinian government will not ensure peace, and even the increased willingness of formerly hostile Arab governments to interact with Israel.
As prospects for a two-state resolution fade, as some Jews in the West Bank act out hostility towards Arab neighbors and as some Arabs citizens of Israel express hostility towards Jews, the conflict can no longer be compartmentalized as international. But the nation-state law is the opposite of achieving domestic reconciliation.
8
The photograph that accompanies Mr. Peretz' article seems intended to highlight the distinction between the ruins in which so many Palestinians live and the modern tract housing built for Jewish settlers. But the picture also suggests a path to me (so far as I know) that has not been tried but that might serve to lessen tensions. Why not provide equal housing to Palestinians? If Israel's intention is to hold onto the West Bank for the foreseeable future, why not make it a showcase for the rewards of cooperation with the Israeli government?
3
Mr. Peretz is correct in his evaluation of the Arab situation in the West Bank. They are not treated as citizens of the government which actually rules them; the PA has nominal power but lacks real power and the real power lies with Israel. It would seem that the most logical way to improve their situation would be to separate from the actual Israeli government and let the Arabs rule themselves--the two-state solution. But there is the rub. The PA and its brother-government in Gaza, Hamas, have shown themselves to be so festered in corruption and containing so much hatred for their potential neighbor that coexistence would pose an existential problem for Israel. Hamas which had the chance to build up its portion of land graciously given by Israel--what did it do? It took the cement intended to build housing and built tunnels to attack Israel instead. Instead of focusing on building a peaceful, prosperous society--it focused on developing an army to destroy Israel, starting with their textbooks for the very young. Killing the Jews became their goal and is still taught in their schools. They still refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. And the PA, albeit not as openly contemptuous of their Jewish neighbors, slyly instills the desire for Jewish genocide ---which the Arabs first demonstrated in the 48 war--in their textbooks for young, growing, impressionable minds. Israel would welcome an Arab neighbor, but not one that plans its destruction.
34
@shimr
The conflict has provided great wealth for Palestinian leaders. Arafat’s net worth was $1 billion. Abbas’ net 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.
2
Having spent some 6 months amidst many clashes that took place when I was in the region, one conclusion I have had and still applies is both countries or communities,name them as you like, need one another to survive because no Jew would be gathered around a goal that sticks them to their so-called holy land and no Palestinian would be receiving charities from all over the World they mostly dwell on. Everyone would agree a two state solution could work for both communities but then they would lose the CAUSE for their existence. So I do not really think a sustaining solution will ever come to life, be it a Jewish state or be it a two state land of peace..
It occurs to me that the United States and Israel have one very unfortunate thing in common. Both will destroy themselves from within and are seemingly (At least to me.) well on the way to doing so.
6
As the United Nations has stated in its many sanctions of Israel for the occupation of the West Bank, an occupying power is not to establish settlements in the occupied territory. Israel cannot be both democratic and Jewish because a significant number of those living there are not Jewish.
7
@David Gordon
For 70 years, Israel has been both democratic & Jewish.
2
@m1945
Really? Ask any Palestinian.
1
@David Gordon
Even Palestinians think that Israel is a democracy.
“57% say democracy in Israel is good or very good”
http://pcpsr.org/en/node/723
1
"For lovers of Israel, this is the time to make our voices heard. Delegitimization of Israel cannot be tolerated from any quarter."
The Likud Party has done its work to delegitimize the State of Israel in the eyes of enough of the world's Jewish Diaspora already.
What more is there to say without dropping the facade of civility?
10
Several readers have commented that there is "one and only one cause of the Israel problem", that being that the Arabs refuse to seriously negotiate the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine. Yes, of course the Arab position is a major cause of the problem, but the problem is also exacerbated by the Jews attempt at creating an ethnography in Palestine. Look around the world, there are other ethnographies: Burma, Ireland, Philippines, etc. to varying degrees. All promoting strife among their ethnographic groups. Only in Ireland has there been progress in assimilation and, accordingly a major reduction in strife. The current flow of refugees into Europe and the U.S. has ignited the fires of ethnic hatred; only in places like the metropolitan areas of the northeast U.S. where diverse ethnicity is celebrated as a heritage do we see a formula for continued existence.
I am sympathetic to the Israeli's desire to offer a place of refuge for the must oppressed Jews, but to do it by creating a country that promotes divisiveness among ethnic groups, is a formula for failure; to do it by promoting religiosity of the most negative kind is a formula for nothing but strife, just look at the orthodox Jewish areas in the U.S. and their relationship with their democratic neighbors.
9
@eclectico
Israel is not an ethnography.
Israel is a democracy.
1
"Delegitimization of Israel cannot be tolerated from any quarter." What does this sentence mean, and has it ever been applied to any other country? We hear it all the time as a pro Israel catechism, as though Israel's survival is still threatened.
Israel owes its current situation to excessive protection from criticism, and from other countries, specially the US. This over protection has emboldened its government and threatens its moral moorings. Rather than be called anti Semitic, most would simply look the other way.
The aspirational definition of "democracy" is simple enough, and the US enshrines it in its Constitution: every person is equal under law. This has never been true in Israel.
11
@Baddy Khan
Should the USA set the example of "every person is equal under law" by abolishing Affirmative Action which discriminates based on race, ethnicity & gender?
1
BK, readers should be aware that, when he owned the New Republic, Martin Peretz explicitly forbade that otherwise largely progressive magazine from publishing articles critical of Israel. Several years ago, he was also the author of a blog post that seemed to equate Islam with terrorism and questioned whether Muslim Americans should have First Amendment rights (which he later disavowed and apologized for). These facts were widely reported at the time.
7
This hits the nail on the head for me. It sure makes one wonder all over again what if? What if Prime Minister Rabin had not been assassinated by a fanatic West Bank settler plotted by the West Bank fanatics now importing their model to Israel. What if a candidate or party took that line that the settlers are taking our country from us? What if?
@Unclebugs
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 (85% of Palestinian Muslims want sharia law.) and as long as the Jewish State controls even one square inch of land, peace is impossible.
7
Looking at extreme right-wing national governments throughout history, they almost always serve as architects of their own demise. This predictably turns tragic for the citizens of those nationalities.
The greater catastrophe is the carnage wrought by the brutal agression typical of extremism from either side of the political spectrum.
Some extremists claim that their constituent tribes draw strength through violent, armed struggle. No, when all is said and done, all that humanity draws is death and destruction.
1
As you note, the situation is not clear cut.
Israel is a democracy, the only one in the region, yet it exhibits some characteristics which many might consider non-democratic.
I agree, the present law is fraught with problems and needs to be changed in many ways.
For example, since the inception of Israel, Arabic was an official language. Now only Hebrew is and Arabic, like English in Quebec, has a lesser status.
This clearly sends a message to Arabic speakers, many of whom like the Druze, fight alongside their Jewish counterparts to protect Israel from its enemies.
The left in Israel has collapsed. This is ironic since this left Zionist coalition was largely in charge for many years. The country has realized that the Palestinians, in their refusal to recognize Israel as a legitimate neighbor, in their virulent Jew hatred, in their continuous attacks on Jews, will never make peace.
The West Bank, as you note, is the heart of the historical Israel, the land of Judea and Samaria mentioned in the Bible. No Israeli will willingly surrender this land and certainly not to those who are determined to destroy the Jewish homeland.
Recently, the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem and other lands are following suit. The myth of several million Palestinians living in exile ( closer to a few thousand who actually left), is being demolished. They will never be allowed to return and they must accept it.
Things are not simple but history is on Israel's side.
Have a Happy New Year.
13
@simon sez Thank you for your post. Wars have consequences. The repeated effort to destroy Israel and the Jewish people failed, and the Arabs are just going to have to accept the consequences and get over it!
2
Israel can be the home of the Jewish people, but it cannot be both a Jewish state and a liberal democracy. A liberal democratic state cannot have a religious character. It cannot show preference for one faith or one religious community over another. A liberal democracy adheres to the rule of law, which requires that all persons be seen as equal in the eyes of the law and receive equal treatment regardless of what religion they profess. To the extent that Israel aspires to be a Jewish state, it brings into question its democratic credentials. Those who favor what Peretz terms the West Bank model know this and clearly prefer a Jewish state to one that is democratic. Indeed, one suspects that a Jewish autocracy, a state that trampled the civic rights of Jewish dissenters as readily it does as the human rights of Palestinians on the West Bank, would suit them just fine.
7
@Stephen N
Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, England & Scotland have established religions, but are democratic.
2
I think Mr. Peretz overstates the importance of the law that was recently adopted. Although the law seems to entrench the influence of the settlers and their right-wing supporters, it does not reveal any new political trends. It merely ratifies the ascendancy of extremists in Israeli politics during the last twenty-five years. If liberal supporters of Israel want to re-think their commitment to the settlement project, that could be a constructive way to engage the problem of Israel's future and create better possibilities for peace. If they just want better window-dressing for the occupation, they probably won't get it right now.
9
There seems to be a persistent failure in so many of these op-eds and comments to go back to 1948 and understand the conditions in which the State of Israel was created, and why from the perspective of the incumbents it was such an unmitigated existential disaster. Compelling reasons justify the existence of a State of Israel, but the manner in which it was created set the stage for everything that has happened since.
One needs a fresh analytical perspective to understand over 70 years of Palestinian resistance to this State, and one needs to examine the details of all the proposed deals since then to perhaps understand why they failed - i.e. why no proposed compromise succeeded.
None of this would matter to those who take the view that the Palestinians were unwilling to tolerate a State of Israel under any conditions, but the burden of proof is on them to sustain that case, which is difficult because it's hypothetical - we only have the history of what happened under the specific conditions that actually occurred.
As the settler population grows and ultra-right nationalism becomes more entrenched within Israel, it becomes increasingly difficult to perceive whether the right kind of compromises can be struck to achieve a sustainable agreement. The parties need to move beyond seeing this as a zero sum game. Corruption interferes, but is most likely not the determinative issue.
7
@Mark
I accept the “burden of proof.” It is clear that the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Jewish state in what they see as the Muslim world.
In 1938 they rejected the recommendations of the British Peel Commission that would have partitioned the remaining portion of the Palestine mandate, with the part assigned to the Jews being much smaller than what ultimately became Israel. The Jews accepted the plan. The Arabs rejected it. The Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini, went on to spend World War II in Berlin, making propaganda broadcasts for the Nazis.
In 1947, The United Nations voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab States. Once again, the Jews accepted the plan and the Arabs rejected it. Five Arab countries invaded the newly-declared state of Israel with the avowed aim of destroying it.
After Israel routed three Arab armies in a defensive war in 1967, Israel offered to return the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights, with the status of the West Bank to be negotiated. At Khartoum, the Arabs replied: no peace, no recognition, no negotiations.
More recently, the Palestinians on three occasions have rejected, without counteroffer, Israeli offers of a Palestinian state in Gaza and more than 90 percent of the West Bank, with a capital in East Jerusalem.
And Mahmoud Abbas today denies any historical connection of Jews to Palestine and has blamed the Holocaust on Jews’ “social behavior.”
Have I carried my burden to your satisfaction?
9
@Mark
"None of this would matter to those who take the view that the Palestinians were unwilling to tolerate a State of Israel under any conditions, but the burden of proof is on them to sustain that case"
I think you've assigned the burden of proof to the wrong side. When Jordan held the West Bank and Egypt held Gaza, there were no threats, no outrage. In fact, the PLO's original Charter specifically excluded those areas. Throw in the fact that Israel was attacked by 5 armies from neighboring countries, and that Iran (from 1000 miles away) also wants to destroy Israel.
I'm afraid the burden is on those claiming that this is about anything other than intolerance of Jews.
3
"two types of pluralism, Jewish and democratic"
Jewish is not pluralism, it is the opposite of "a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist."
The author makes good points, and mixes it in with propagandistic nonsense like this. The result falls far short of reality. It is poisoned by accepting the nonsense.
The Palestinian Authority has not held elections and is ineffective as government, true. That is not because of the Palestinians alone. They don't have the real power. That was shown back when elections were scheduled and then cancelled under Israeli pressure -- they controlled, and they wouldn't allow.
The same can be said of the West Bank economy, and even more of the Gaza economy.
All this prevents the author from seeing the real West Bank Model for what it is, and so prevents seeing any way to correct that.
There are strong forces in Israel that don't want to see honest description of the reality of the West Bank Model, precisely because their preferred solution is to continue that indefinitely. That is enabled by the failure even to see what they are doing.
51
@Mark Thomason
The root cause of this conflict is that Palestinians believe that they are superior to the Jews & therefore should rule over the Jews. Because the Jews don’t want to be ruled by the Palestinians, then some Palestinians believe that the Jews should be exterminated. The Palestinians say “The Jews are our dogs!” & “The Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs.”
1
Mr. Peretz fails to close most of his argument.
Over several generations, the intransigence of Palestinian Arabs – and of regional Arabs and non-Arab Muslims generally -- to any rational accommodation with Israel has enervated Israelis: they’re simply fed up with the demands of placating tribal nomads who apparently have resolved not to bother building anything for their children after Yasser Arafat’s attempt to do so ended with his likely assassination at the hands of … who? Not Israelis, but of his own, unwilling to accept the prospect of developing economic leverage to dicker meaningfully with Israel instead of simply expropriating as their claimed but unearned patrimony what Israelis have built. Israelis simply are fed up with the blood, the eternalness of war and the inability to get through hard Arab heads.
So, they’re retreating behind their borders to focus on being a Jewish state, still democratic for Jews, in which their people can continue to build an economic miracle in the middle of a desert, for themselves and for their own children. And to hell with the Arabs. And Palestinian Arabs have nobody to blame but themselves for this. That enervation has opened, for now, the opportunity for hyper-conservative, religious zealots in Israel to pursue dreams of Judea and Samaria, which likely will be moderated with time: Israel will annex more land, re-set borders a future generation can live with, and the “West Bank Model” that Mr. Peretz describes …
9
… will fade as it ALL becomes the “Israeli Model” behind those borders. The only real question is what will become of current Arab Israeli citizens. My own sense is that they will become disenfranchised, perhaps even financially incentivized to abandon Israel for Arab venues.
It’s not right, it’s really not “wrong” – it just is. Two peoples want the same land, but only one is capable of holding and developing it, while the other is incapable of accepting this manifest truth or of doing one useful thing in their own real interests and those of their posterity.
The “model” that has failed is the Arab model when it is not enriched by petroleum. No part of it is ever likely to be “exported” to Israel.
10
@Richard Luettgen
"Two peoples want the same land, but only one is capable of holding and developing it,"
Not entirely true, unless you have given both the peoples the same conditions.
2
@Richard Luettgen Who says the land wasn't developed before the Israelis arrived? Creating a modern industrial, Western type state is not necessarily developing the land or being useful over and against uselessness. Olive groves and other orchards and farms that existed before Israelis industrialized, tore up the land, and built settlements that look like California condominiums , was developed land. In fact it was developed in a much more ecologically sustainable way than what the Israelis are doing with their modern roads, fences, walls, settlements, and military presence. So call it what it is, expropriating land for Israel to use as it wants and ripping up what the Palestinians preferred. It's not necessarily better. In fact, in the face of climate change it may be much worse in the long run. So who is really being useful?
1
Israel is effectively a modern version of the Crusader state, established via invasion to secure the property and dominance interests of the invaders. It depended initially, and still to some degree today, on external support that has become self-justifying. Had the invaders attempted to establish their claim in the United States, Western Europe, or Latin America not only would there have been an absence of legitimacy for an invasion but united resistance by established governments. Effectively an attempt to establish Israel anywhere else would have branded it as illegitimate; only taking advantage of a residual western colonial control of a vestige of the Ottoman Empire made it even possible. In practice was Muslim resistance an attempt at genocide or simply an effort to to thwart invasion iand dispossession. Was American Indian resistance to European occupation of the North American continent and attempt by the indigenous population to pursue genocide in relation to the European settlers or simply an effort to halt disposession? As Goldigger from Australia notes the Muslim population had good reason to fear the usurpers.....they occupied fertile lands and controlled access to water. And their better access to Western government and media enabled them to develop a narrative painting themselves as heroic proponents of Western democracy struggling to survive genocidal onslaughts rather than an alternative narrative as settlers using force to subdue the existing population.
47
@usa999
When Israelis develop a "Manifest Destiny" that compels them to march across all of Arabia and Persia in conquest and genocide, it will be fair to compare them to Americans re: the extermination of the American Indians. Until then, that is a pretty ridiculous comparison.
Also, read about the Crusades. They were not conducted by settlers moving to largely unused land under the protection of a third-party superpower, and then being abandoned by that superpower, attacked from all sides, and winning an unlikely victory to ensure their survival.
3
@usa999
The Palestinians have a long history of oppressing Jews. Look at how Palestinians treated Jews BEFORE the first Zionists arrived in 1882.
In 1839, the British consul, William Young, said that the poor Jew in Jerusalem...lives from day to day in terror of his life....Young attributed the plight of the Jew in Jerusalem to “the blind hatred and ignorant prejudice of a fanatical populace,”
JEWS IN JERUSALEM.
New York Times December 29, 1878
Crowded together in the worst lodgings, or in the dark cellars under a synagogue building, without food, fuel, or water –even water at Jerusalem being a commodity of price – numbers died of starvation and various diseases, while others went raving mad. Those who could labor were denied employment by the bigotry of the Mussulmans and of the Oriental Christians.
7
@usa999
I guess the resolution, debate and finally a vote in the United Nations doesn’t count for much?
Viewing this issue through “colonialist enterprise” lenses will lead you to only one conclusion, and one which neither history nor current facts would support, no more than it might support ceding, say, the state of Illinois to indigenous peoples. Interesting, but not helpful in the discussion.
But looking through other lenses does not absolve Israel from its responsibility to treat fairly the indigenous Arabs who remained as Israeli citizens.
Wrapping yourself in Colonial Enterprise rhetoric ensures that you won’t be taken seriously, and that progress toward justice is thwarted.
2
Without expansionism, there just isn't enough geography within Israel proper to support its growing population. With the end of the Soviet Union, the Jewish population of Israel grew from about 4 million to 6 million in a decade. While family size for secular Jews is typical by western standards, the Orthodox population has large families. As a result, over time, the Orthodox portion of the total population is growing.
Israel has two mainstream political parties, and several smaller radicalized parties. The mainstream parties, to gain a political majority, form coalitions with the splinter parties. This has the effect of giving these parties more political influence than their voters would normally have.
The Orthodox people I have known in the USA, while fervently religious, also engage in economically productive activities. In Israel, however, many Orthodox are economically poor because prayer and religious study so dominate their lives that they have no valuable skills, and not much motivation to engage in secular work. While there have been efforts to better incorporate the Orthodox into the economy, they are still economically behind.
The long term survival of Israel requires that these issues be successfully addressed. In my opinion, West Bank settlement is a symptom of these problems, annexing land for more affordable housing expansion. It reminds me of an out of control wagon, slowly rolling toward a cliff.
35
@RM
The world is dying due to overpopulation while the orthodox and arabs have unsustainable family numbers.
1
@RM. Nonsense. Most Israelis live between JRS and TA. There are monumental efforts underway to build infrastructure in the North and South to accommodate population growth in ISR.
1
@TMDJS
Then there is no need for West Bank settlements.
1
As to the Palestinians not able to participate or agree to a peace deal, please refer to Netanyahu’s constant obstacles to a peace meeting with Abbas from the moment Abbas was elected. Netanyahu never had any intention of participating or convening a peace deal
Only now that he has a president who appointed his Orthodox Jewish son in law to construct a peace deal based only on Netanyahu’s terms Netanyahu has given it his full attention
Tell the truth
55
@Rose P
Obstacles??? Maybe.
But, Netanyahu stopped settlement building - the prerequisite demanded by Abbas to discussing peace - and Abbas refused to come to the table to talk.
Where is that mentioned in your recitation?
3
@RobWhen did settlement building stop? It didn't stop. Get real.
2
@Rose P
For most of the past 70 years, Netanyahu was not prime minister. Why was there no peace treaty before Netanyahu?
1
ONE point, a comparison, in terms of threat to Israel, of the West Bank versus Gaza.
Terrorist infiltration into Israel proper, from the West Bank, with its settlements, checkpoints and wall, has dropped precipitously over the last 10-15 years.
Gaza, on the other hand, is precisely the opposite. Since Israel withdrew all its forces and all its settlers, has been a daily and deadly threat to the inhabitants of those Isreali villages and towns within a few miles of its borders.
The message the Palestinians are sending seems abundantly clear. The extent to which Israel relinquishes security control is the extent to which it will be bombarded by missiles, mortars and subject to invasive tunnels.
I would like nothing more than to see a two-state solution, with a unified Palestinian state of two parts, east (West Bank) and west (Gaza), living side by side with Israel within its pre-1967 borders.
But it's not going to happen. Hamas continues to insist that there will only be ONE Palestinian state, that it will encompass ALL the land from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean, and that it will be an Islamic state. To any who contest that last sentence I refer them to the 2017 Hamas charter.
Section 18 declares the creation of the state of Israel an "illegal" act.
Section 19 equates the "Zionist project" with Israel itself.
Section 3 declares ALL the land to be "Arab islamic".
I encourage people to read the full document.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-charter-1637794876
29
@J Jencks
Compare to the expansionist charter of Likud:
a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”
b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.
The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”
c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
See https://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html
How many Israelis have been killed by rockets from Gaza? None. How many Gazans have been killed by fire from Israel? Over 1000.
"Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived."
Moshe Dayan, 1956.
9
@J Jencks
According the Jewish Virtual Library, more than three times as many Palestinians have been killed than Israelis.
All of the military might is on Israels side. State terror is still terror. Stop terrorizing Palestinians and maybe they will stop terrorizing Israel.
4
@J Jencks
Israel maintains a blockade on Gaza that goes far beyond security needs. It regularly shot at farmers and fishermen, when it isn’t bombing civilians or shooting protestors. Most of the violence over the border has come from Israel directed at Gaza. I realize that Israel apologists always see Israeli actions as self defense, but it isn’t. It is what settler colonial states have to do to keep the natives in check.
2
Much about Israel is impressive and enviable; much is not. If Israel continues into the future as a truly democratic state, its Jewishness will become a historical legend. Everything changes, especially countries, that's what makes history so fascinating.
6
There is and has been only one reason for this mess: Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Unless that happens, there will be ZERO "Progress."
31
@Imagemaker
Has Israel ever acknowledged that the Palestinians were driven from their land to accommodate the European Jews who were fleeing the pogroms in Europe?
Israel demands recognition and respect while refusing to accord the same to the “other”.
If every demand by Israel is preceded by “We are very sorry that we created an injustice by refusing to acknowledge the rights of the Palestinians when our state was created by the Western powers. However we are ready to negotiate to redress those wrongs”, I expect the Palestinians will agree to negotiations.
Many countries were created by the victorious powers at the end of WW I and II. It is not possible to reverse these political decisions.
However Israel has to acknowledge that its creation occurred because the Western powers wanted a solution to their problem that did not create any upheaval in their countries. Israelis did not get this land because the Western powers believed in the myth of the Promised Land.
7
@Imagemaker
Sorry, the no one can expected to voluntarily submit to second-class status.
4
@Imagemaker
Arab states fought the inequitable distribution of land given to the Zionists in the U.N. Partition of Palestine in 1947: Half a million Jewish immigrants and their children received a much larger portion of land than the 1.5M Palestinians who already lived there.
4
"The terms 'democracy' or 'democratic' are totally absent from the Declaration of Independence. This is not an accident. The intention of Zionism was not to bring democracy, needless to say. It was solely motivated by the creation in Eretz-Isrel of a Jewish state belonging to all the Jewish people and to the Jewish people alone. This is why any Jew of the Diaspora has the right to immigrate to Israel and to become a citizen of Israel." - Ariel Sharon quoted by Yedioth Ahronoth, 28 May 1993
"An ethnocracy is the opposite of a democracy, although it might incorporate some elements of democracy such as universal citizenship and elections. It arises when one particular group-the Jews in Israel, the Russians in Russia, the Protestants in pre-1972 Northern Ireland, the whites in apartheid South Africa, the Shi’ite Muslims in Iran, the Malay in Malaysia and, if they had their way, the white Christian fundamentalists in the US-seize control of the government and armed forces in order to enforce a regime of exclusive privilege over other groups in what is in fact a multi-ethnic or multi-religious society. Ethnocracy, or ethno-nationalism, privileges ethnos over demos, whereby one’s ethnic affiliation, be it defined by race, descent, religion, language or national origin, takes precedence over citizenship in determining to whom a county actually 'belongs.'"- Jeff Halper, “An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel”
12
@John Fleming
2 states for 2 peoples.
Whether Israel chooses to be a democracy, as you see it, is their voters' choice. Whether is chooses to be an ethnocracy is again, their choice.
The Palestinians can choose to have their choice of governance as well - once they accept the premise of 2 states for 2 peoples.
3
@John Fleming
In Israel, whether you are a Jew or a gentile, you have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion & you get one vote.
1
The West Bank Jews are citizens of Israel, that is why they vote in Israeli elections. The West Bank Arabs are not citizens of Israel and that is why they don’t vote in Israeli elections. Arab citizens of Israel vote in Israeli elections.
The whole West Bank Palestine State is phony. If the Arabs there wanted a state alongside the State of Israel, they could have had one in 1948. When Jordan controlled the whole area from 1948 to 1967, they could have had Jordan give them the land for their state. When, inder Clinton, Israel gave them virtually everything they asked for, they rejected that and started a series of terrorist attacks.
The simple fact is that the Palestinians DO NOT want to live side by side with Israel in peace and secure borders.
So keep finding things to blame Israel for, excuse and enable Palestinians to remain victims of their own destructive behavior, and nothing will change.
If Palestinian Arabs live in Israel, and a million and a half do, why can’t some Jews live in the West Bank?
45
@Kam Dog
Quid pro quo-The Jews in Palestine should become citizens of Palestine. In 1948 Israel was sliced out of Palestine for political reasons and the Arabs displaced by the creation of the new state were not given any compensation. The Palestinians were never offered a far deal. They've only been offered what Israel was swilling to give.
7
@Kam Dog
Every offer of a Palestinian State by Israel has left the borders, waterways, highways, and hilltops under Israeli control. A land whose borders, and vital resources are controlled by another state is not a state. It is a victim of Apartheid. As soon as Israel offers the Palestinians are real state in stead of a sham, your arguments might be valid.
6
@an observer
The Arabs were not displaced by the creation of the new state. They were displaced because of the war that they started.
The Arabs turned down the UN's deal.
1
Interestingly much of this was predicted in 1967 by General de Gaulle (who into old age was a remarkably prescient man) at the time of the Israelis victory in the war. Ultimately the result would, he predicted, be permanent occupation, repression and expulsions. This wasn't anti Semitism, he was remarkably free of that taint for a man of his time and class, but he understood the Israelis just as he understood the French.
17
@John
De Gaulle understood the Arabs.
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 Bill 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.”
1
It is painful to see illusions die, and optimism is of course preferable. But illusions are, inherently, doomed to die sooner or later. So, alas, welcome to this protracted funeral, Martin ol' boy. Some of us have been watching it all our lives, initially with a sliver of hope, increasingly with growing dread. TG
6
"development of Jewish settlement" as a national value sounds like an intention to invade, to spread territory... a shadow of the German nationalism that created the circumstances for Israel to exist.
Reading about Arab rights on the West Bank, I also can't help but be reminded of my own lack of power in the U.S, as a resident of DC without representation (as well as those in US territories). We can only elect a rep without any voting power despite paying federal taxes. How is that democratic?
15
@Barbara
You have the entire US Congress as your representative. What could be better?
@Barbara
What about the 47% of the American public that gets to elect a representative despite paying $0 in federal income taxes?
@Barbara
You're right.
We're being hypocritical by complaining about Israel when we don't give representation to DC & US territories. Let's set a good example by giving representation to DC & US territories.
1
Thank you Martin Peretz
Your analysis is correct and your love of Israel and the Jewish People and your passion for Democracy is one that I , along with the vast majority of Israeli and American Jews share.
Unstated, but I believe implicit ,in your OpEd , is the fact that the Oslo agreement of 25 years ago, remains the best and perhaps only path to maintaining a Jewish and Democratic State of Israel.
The failure of political leadership on the Palestinian, Israeli and American sides, remains the obstacle to what Rabin, Peres and Clinton envisioned on the White House lawn 25 years ago.
Rabbi Neal I Borovitz
2
@Neal Borovitz
Both Barak & Olmert were willing to give more to the Palestinians than Rabin ever was.
1
Through its steadfast policy of inflicting everlasting collective punishment upon the Palestinian Arabs subject to its oppression, the misrule of the Netanyahu regime has for many years now been systematically undermining the moral justification for the state of Israel. This needless tragedy -for people of Israel, Jews and non-Jews, of the Mideast and the world- is being undertaken for corrupt and narrowly selfish political reasons by the ruling coalition there. It is to the lasting shame of every American citizen that its current government has endorsed and helped enable this folly to the maximum extent possible.
87
@Sage
Israel has not been inflicting everlasting collective punishment upon the Palestinian Arabs. Israel has just been defending itself. The wall & checkpoints make things more difficult for Palestinians, but they weren't built to make things more difficult. They were built because racist Palestinians had been coming into Israel & murdering innocent Israelis.
1
@Sage. But the redirection of American aid to "Palestine" to pay stopends to terrorists and their families is just fine and dandy.
1
@Sage The shame needs to be shared with AIPAC and its cohorts in the funded "establishment" who have made the unconditional support of the Israeli government synonymous with being "pro Israel", and continue to make every attempt to shut down criticism.
2
" to make a modern, progressive state." Why does a democratic state have to be "progressive"?
I associate being progressive with promoting abortion and pretending that gender differences do not exist. Instead of respecting women for their qualities, progressives deny that there are such qualities and that women are nothing other than men subject to unequal treatment.
Fine, those are the priorities of progressives today. But if these priorities are conflated with being democratic, then many countries will run away from democracy itself.
6
@Ludwig - "I associate being progressive with promoting abortion and pretending that gender differences do not exist."
So for you, "progressive" is all about sex.
Well, as a Progressive, I'd like you to know what it means to me.
A society that recognizes the value of representative government as a tool to enable us to achieve larger, societal goals that we could not achieve on our own. I.e. "Big Government" is not some kind of enemy, so long as it serves the people broadly rather than narrow, privileged interests of the wealthy and powerful.
Taxes are necessary to finance the operations of a legitimate government and should be "progressive", i.e. those who can afford more pay more.
The power of government should not be used to promote prejudice, and where there has been a history of prejudice, it should be used to right the balance.
The promotion of programs such as a national healthcare regimen are within the purview of government if the people so will it. However, the restriction of people's freedom to make their own important health decisions (i.e. banning abortions) is out of bounds.
That is some of what being a "Progressive" means to me. I encourage you to ask other Progressives what it means to them. You may find that those who use the term to identify their views have a very different idea than you as to what it means.
The only way we can have sensible discussions about important issues is if we understand each other's terminology.
54
@J Jencks
I like the idea that the wealthy should pay more in taxes not because they have more but that they have more to lose if their government is not able to protect their assets. It takes a lot of money to have a lot of aircraft carriers.
I would also be thought of as a "progressive", at least regarding most issues. The problem which many "progressives" have ,similarly to many on the right ,is the tendency toward "group think" regarding many issues. Your example of the issue of abortion is one such. I think the issue is not simply that of a woman's "right to choose". There are many Americans who are not right wing zealots, but who have grave misgivings about abortion, more especially when it is later in term. Another example would be environmentalism. Many Progressives passionately oppose almost any restrictions on immigration, and oppose our government's efforts to enforce the laws which we already have. Yet the biggest environmental problem which we have , including in the United States, is population growth, which is driven at present by immigration. One can not reasonably call oneself an environmentalist without supporting a zero growth population policy.
The author makes a great deal of an analysis of the prosperity of Palestinians and Israelis living in the West Bank, drawing conclusions that imply malfeasance by the PA ruling body because they have not brought prosperity to their citizens. I have many questions about the legitimacy of this conjecture, but I think one sums up the inequity that the gulfs the two communities: what is the per capita water consumption of the two groups? (roughly 10 gallons per day vs more than 60--https://www.btselem.org/gap-water-consumption-between-palestinians-and-i...
This great discrepancy between the two groups speaks volumes to why there are such disparities between the two and it has little to do with the actions of the PA.
72
@Golddigger - this is not to contest your point about water, which is very interesting.
But it's entirely possible that the water issue may coexist with corruption on the part of the PA, whose corruption may also be contributing in an important way to the impoverishment of Palestinians.
I refer you to a brief article in the Middle East Monitor, which was created and is operated by Palestinians. I also refer you to the reports by Transparency International regarding corruption.
Links below:
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170801-palestinian-efforts-to-oust-c...
https://www.transparency.org/country/PSE
8
@Golddigger
Excellent comment. It reminds me of the white supremacy narrative in regard to equal opportunity in this country. In that view, all black and brown people have the exact same opportunity as well-to-do white kids in deliberately segregated schools that can hire the best teachers. They have the same opportunity in the workplace, nevermind the discrimination that exists against them. These arguments totally ignore the influences of poverty, poor schools and outrageously expensive colleges, ongoing workplace discrimination, and a criminal justice system that imprisons fathers for minor offenses thus denying their children their financial and emotional support. We do not have true democracy until our policies reflect the needs of everyone, not just those who are born to the “right” parents. Likewise, Israel is not a true democracy because it denies rights to a segment of population whose daily lives they control not to benefit the people controlled but to benefit Israel itself, as when they take Palestinian land to expand their own settlements.
5
@BG
Let's not forget that the Palestinians are occupied because they attacked Israel. In 1948, Palestinians could have declared independence, but instead they asked for union with Jordan so when Jordanians attacked Israel in 1967, it was also Palestinians attacking Israel. Unlike other occupiers, Israel has offered to end the occupation in return for a peace treaty. No occupier treats the occupied the same way it treats its own citizens. If the Palestinians didn't want to be occupied, they shouldn't have attacked Israel. If the Palestinians don't want the occupation to continue, they should sign a peace treaty.
1