Peter Beinart has a point. Up to a point.
In a recent article, "The Other One-Staters," Beinart, a critic of Israeli policies and of organized Jewish support for Israel, points out an apparent contradiction in the positions of those who oppose the one-state solution idea for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In particular, what sparked Beinart's observation was the juxtaposition of a recent conference at Harvard University entitled "One State Solution" and the passage of resolutions in the Florida and South Carolina legislatures pronouncing support for the idea that Judea and Samaria -- or the West Bank -- and Jerusalem belong to and must remain with the Jewish people.
Beinart says, with some accuracy, that both the Harvard conference and the state resolutions call for one state between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. Yet, he points out only the Harvard conference drew the ire of strong supporters of Israel. Where, he wants to know, are the voices criticizing the legislatures the way they were heard criticizing Harvard?
In many ways, Beinart gets it right -- but for the wrong reasons.
Those who hesitate to criticize the legislatures may be in the wrong, but they understand the fundamental distinction between the cases.
The premise of the Harvard conference comes from malice toward the Zionist state and is the most recent manifestation of a decades-old phenomenon to find ways to eliminate the Jewish state. In the early years of Israel's existence, those seeking that goal were as blunt as could be both in their language and in their methods.
The Arab world rejected the United Nations resolution creating two states in Palestine and soon invaded the new nation. After the unsuccessful war, they turned to a boycott of Israel.
Later on, in the 1960s, the Palestine Liberation Organization made their contribution to this effort with their founding charter which was all about the illegitimacy of the Zionist state and ways to bring about its demise.
When that was not well received, the Palestinians turned to a seemingly more palatable variation of the same: a secular, democratic state in all of Palestine. In other words, the illusion of Jews and Arabs living supposedly in harmony in one state, but in reality the demise of the Jewish state by demographics.
This, of course, was old wine in new bottles, a continuation of the war against Israel's existence in softer tones.
The Harvard conference was the updated version of this political fantasy, now framed in even softer tones: Since the parties cannot seem to agree on a two-state solution, let's achieve a true "democratic" solution of two peoples living in one state.
The legislatures, on the other hand, were coming from the very opposite starting point. They believe in the legitimacy of the Jewish state and in passing these resolutions they are not only reaffirming that belief but saying that the borders of that state must reflect the full flowering of their reading of the Biblical Israel.
Because the starting points and goals of each are completely opposite, it would be easy to simply say that Beinart gets it wrong. Motivation matters in assessing the meaning of actions.
Having said that, Beinart is on to something but not the way he puts it.
The problem with those who don't seem to be bothered by the legislatures' resolutions (aside from the important fact that their solution would entail no Palestinian state) is not their alleged hypocrisy about the one-state idea but the inevitable logic of holding on to all of the territories. Since we know the starting point is that the Zionist state is not only legitimate but is the fulfillment of Jewish history, we know those people, unlike the backers of the Harvard conference, would never intentionally undermine the existence of Israel.
However, if Israel were to hold on to all the territory, the demographic challenge would emerge in full force. Even if one takes seriously those who argue that the number of Palestinians living in the West Bank has been exaggerated (and most Israeli demographers disagree with that assessment), the ratio of Jews to Arabs in one-state would be near the 50 percent mark and would make the concept of a Jewish and democratic state, the hallmark of Israel through its history, a practical impossibility. A truly Jewish state can exist, as it does now, only with an overwhelming Jewish majority.
The implications of this conundrum -- desire for a Jewish state and a demographic challenge to that concept -- are evident and unpalatable: either the Palestinian residents would be denied equal rights or there would be a process of finding a way to get Palestinians to leave the state.
In the first instance, in which Palestinians would not have full voting rights or representation in order to maintain a strong Jewish majority, Israel would, in fact, be accused of creating an apartheid state. And unlike today, where those accusations are completely inaccurate and unfair, under those circumstances there would be merit to the accusation.
In the other approach to maintain a strong majority, a process of removing Palestinians to the East Bank of the Jordan on the grounds that that is the real Palestinian state, Israel would be accused of ethnic cleansing. Here too with merit.
The very descriptions of these alternatives are repulsive and run contrary to everything Israel stands for. And let me be clear, I don't believe for a second that these scenarios are Israel's intentions. It is useful, however, to paint these pictures to highlight the implications and the dangers of resolutions by these state legislatures if they ever were to be implemented on the ground.
So yes, there is a huge difference in intent between the Harvard conference and the state resolutions. Still, for very different reasons, they both must be rejected as bad for Israel and bad for any hope of solving the Middle East conflict in a way that can benefit both peoples.
Carlo Strenger: Settlement Boycott Will Not Save Two State Solution: An Open Letter to Peter Beinart
MJ Rosenberg: Freedom of Speech Except When It Comes to Israel
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Will Peter Beinart Debate Me on Israel and School Choice?
Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch: Peter Beinart's Offense Against Liberalism
To live in a country where the government places its priority on a foreign state instead of on its own electorate, is a travesty of democratic government, and it is that which engenders animosity. And that, Mr Foxman, is why there is anti-Israel feeling in both America and around the world.
There is nothing, however, in the foregoing that could be construed as being critical of the Jewish community. To try to equate anti-Semitism with valid criticism of the Netanyahu government, is patent nonsense, as Mr Foxman well knows. Such criticism is part of the democratic process whilst lobbying on behalf of a foreign state to the detriment of the electorate, as a whole, is not.
The truth is that a two state solution is not likely to work, otherwise it would have worked by now. The idea of a two state solution is to bring peace and it won't, therefore, it won't work.
Israel will not be destroyed by any one state solution either.
So the most realistic option is that Israel annexes only area C and maybe some of area B where there are very few arabs and leaves the rest to the arabs to do with what they wish. Maybe that part of it can be re-owned by jordan or something to that effect. Or maybe they can have their mini state on that area or anything, really, that aspect of it is not Israel's concern.
But the bottom line is that the usual approach is clearly not working so it's time for another idea. This time, one that will actually work.
If it's true that a 2-state solution would fail to bring about peace, then that's because of Israel: because of the tremendous power imbalance between the two nations in favour of Israel. There can be no long-term peace when a state's unable to counterbalance the military prowess and political clout of a much stronger neighbor. And that's just the "solution" that Israel's looking for: it's trying to take from a hypothetical Palestinian state the ability to conduct a foreign policy of its own and to have an army, something that would only make Palestine susceptible to the caprices of its neighbors. Just see Lebanon if you're interested in knowing how Israel behaves towards a much weaker neighbor: frequent violations of airspace, indiscriminate shelling of civilians during times of conflict, and wars of choice (that's how Israeli Menachem Begin called the 1980s Israeli occupation of Lebanon.
And Palestinians have already been granted citizenship in some Arab countries, like Jordan. The problem, however, is that the ability of those states to aborb immigrants is limited. They're small and have for the most part stagnant economies -- if Palestinians migrate there, they'll live in poverty and unemployment. Why should Palestinians and other Arabs want to put into practice your little plan? Just to appease the Jews who don't want Israel to retain its genuinely native population?
Secondly Lebanon is where first the PLO launched years of terrorist attacks, which led to 1982 War, and then Hezbollah an Iranian proxy, shortly after used South Lebanon border for attacks, and missiles attacks which led to Israeli deaths as well, and paralyzed communities. Hezbollah should not even still be in existence according to UNSC 1701resolution. They continue to rearm themselves against International Laws, which is reason for Israel's surveillance within mostly an area that is suppose to be military free zone.
Jordan has been revoking Palestinian citizenship's for last few years. And there is no shortage of land space in 22 Arab World of Nations which includes 13,500,00 sq.km. which is 650 times size of Israel. Stagnant economy? Oil not making them much money these days? The Pal'n also should have option to resettle any where else however they are being held against their wishes for resettling anywhere by Arab Nations. Every other refugee's since WW2 including the Jewish ones' from Arab States which out number the Pal'n refugee's found solution. If Israel as a Nascent State could accommodate many of the Jewish refugee's then there's no excuse the vast land in Arab world can't accommodate the Palestinian refugee's.
Now that you and the ADL are now done discussing an article from last week, how long does the world have to wait for the condemnation of the NYPD's spying program, whose explicit purpose and scope was to spy on individuals based solely on their religious affiliation?
Your position on the Cordoba House project was a huge blow to the legitimacy of the ADL, as it was directly contrary to the ADL's stated mission, and years of excellent work. Please do not miss this opporunity to act in cocert with the ADL's stated goals, simply because the targets of the descriminatory activity is, once again, Muslims.
It is when specific minority groups are most heavily targetted that the ADL should speak most strongly -- do not make the mistake of staying silent.
Those who hesitate to criticize the legislatures may be in the wrong, but they understand the fundamental distinction between the cases."
ABE, NOBODY CAN UNDERSTAND the "complexities" that only the "see no evil" crowd continues to adhere by not calling for a stop to the settlements so that there is a chance for a 2-state solution. You defend, justifiably, people against bias, racism, anti-semitism. It is with utter hypocrisy that you don't see anything wrong about the settle enterprise, or as Beinart says, the undemocratic Israel. Thank you for towing the expected evisceration of Mr Beinart for wading in waters you should have done before, and that is, to call out the injustice of sustaining settlers towards the native population.
Weasel words. Beinart is not opposed to "organized Jewish support" for anything. This starting sentence is an attempt to paint him as someone who opposes Jewish organizing, as opposed to non-Jewish organizing....
Shame on you Mr. Foxman.
A state that proactively excludes non-Jews from its own national anthem. The man has no shame.
No more no less.
Since the author believes that population growthof one ethnic group (Palestinian) is a problem, does he also believe that Hispanics should be "transferred" outside of the US because soon white people won't be in the majority here?
Why is this attitude ok for Israel/Palestine and not for the US?
But again, the acts of extreme individuals do no justify descrimination against entire groups.
Personally, I think a "single state solution" is the worst option, but I fear i is becoming inevitable.
you mean the fall of Assad regime of Syria?
Your attermpt to delegitimiza Beinart is contemptible. You act like AIPAC is the high priest of american Jewish opinion, and any deviance is heresy. Ever hear of JStreet. It is an alternative pro-Israel oranized community, and will not be stopped by right-wingers like you, who seek to monopolize the conversation.
I'm glad he said it, even if I don't agree with why or how he said it.
Petar Beinart is a critic of Israel? LOL
"The Arab world rejected the United Nations resolution creating two states in Palestine."
By Arab world I assume you are not including the palestinians, who have never been allowed to vote on the partition of their land. But yes the people living there were against it, you are correct
"In the first instance, in which Palestinians would not have full voting rights or representation in order to maintain a strong Jewish majority, Israel would, in fact, be accused of creating an apartheid state. And unlike today, where those accusations are completely inaccurate and unfair, under those circumstances there would be merit to the accusation."
Ummm that's not a plan, that's the current situation. And yes it is an apartheid
Ummm that's not a plan, that's the current situation. And yes it is an apartheid "
In that case, since Mexicans can't vote in the USA, the US is apartheid.