Vol. 57: The ideal Mideast solution

… except for one slight problem

         “Tonto, we’re surrounded!” the Lone Ranger shouts to his faithful sidekick as the bloodthirsty Indians (sorry— Native Americans) close in.

         “What you mean ‘we,’ white man?” Tonto replies.

         That old joke occurred to me last Wednesday (Feb. 14) when the New York Times published an impassioned op-ed column by Thomas Friedman under the headline, “We Can, and Must, Get a Two-State Solution.” I couldn’t help wondering: Who is this we to whom Friedman refers? (Times editors must have wondered the same thing: The headline was changed in the online version.)

         Let us stipulate that Friedman is a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and experienced observer of global politics whose heart is in the right place. Let us further stipulate that most people of good will— except, apparently, me— agree that the best hope for peace in the Middle East, once Israelis and Palestinians stop killing each other, is what Friedman calls “two states for two peoples in one land.” Having spent 30 years as a de facto middleman between U.S. presidents, Israeli leaders, and Arab princes, Friedman assures us that once we embark on a two-state plan, Saudi Arabia will normalize relations with Israel, and all the other pieces for long-range Middle East tranquility will fall into place. Just this morning, Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer— who is every bit as thoughtful, experienced, and connected as Thomas Friedman— chimed in: “After decades of covering the region, I believe the need for a two-state formula has never been more urgent.”

         It all sounds very appealing, except for one niggling question: Would Thomas Friedman himself want to live in one of these two states? Would Trudy Rubin? Would you? Would anybody you know voluntarily choose to live in a state whose guiding principle was: “Your ancestors once lived here, so you must live here too”?

A place for Tony and Maria?

         Granted, the two-state solution seems alluring in theory. Imagine two states where Jews and Palestinians can nurture their mutual prejudices without ever having to look each other in the eye. Imagine the ancient land of Palestine— roughly the size of New Jersey— divided into two states, each with its own governmental red tape, residency requirements, genetic testing bureaucracy, border patrols, airports, highways (God forbid a Palestinian should be caught driving from the West Bank to Gaza on an Israeli road), defense force, and nuclear arsenal. In such a wonderland, Jews and Palestinians alike can go about their daily lives in serene confidence that Clarence and Ginni Thomas will never move in next door, and neither will Elon Musk or Marjorie Taylor Greene. When Tony and Maria sing “There’s a Place For Us” in revival productions of West Side Story, audiences in both states can happily respond in unison, “Not here!”

         Liberated from all concerns about interacting with people unlike themselves, Palestinians can focus on more important matters, like killing each other over whether Islam’s true prophet was his son-in-law or his grandson. Likewise, Israel’s ultra-Orthodox haredi and their secular rivals— two groups that hate each other worse than the Iroquois hated Gene Autry— can finally get down to the essential business of eliminating each other once and for all.

         (Years ago in Jerusalem, my father was in a taxi that stopped at an intersection to allow a haredi family— the father in front, a line of ten children behind him, the mother bringing up the rear— to cross. “Those people,” the driver informed my father, “know just two things: Torah and fucking.”)

Ethnic cleansing

I'm all for peace and security. But I ask you: Can Thomas Friedman, Trudy Rubin, and their fellow visionaries recall a two-state solution that wasn't an unmitigated disaster?

Have you noticed, for example, how serenely Ireland's Catholics and Protestants got along after they were officially separated in 1921? Were Turks and Greeks in Cyprus, or Christians and Muslims in Lebanon, more secure after a green line was imposed between them? Does no one recall that when the former Yugoslavia broke up into ethnic states in the 1990s, each new state's first order of business was an ingenious combination of ethnic cleansing and warfare against any new neighboring state that might object to said cleansing?

Perhaps the warm relations between North and South Korea don't provide appropriate parallels to Jewish Israel and Arab Palestine. But the division of British India into Hindu and Muslim states in 1947 comes mighty close.

The initial partition into India and Pakistan resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Since then, more than 15,000 Muslims and Hindus have died in three wars fought over a glacier. Another 40,000 to 100,000 (depending on who's counting) have died in the insurgency in the disputed province of Kashmir.

Oh, did I mention that both India and Pakistan, to protect themselves from each other, have armed themselves with nuclear weapons?

Let me put it this way: When you impose a border between antagonistic peoples, you create border disputes that will never be resolved.

The reason isn't merely that separating hostile peoples deprives them of the opportunity to appreciate each other as humans, or that it exacerbates their mutual prejudices and fears until, inevitably, each side concludes that it must destroy the other group before the other group destroys them. 

On a more pragmatic level, bunching people in separate distinct homelands makes it much easier for them to bomb each other than it would be if they all lived together.

Jared and Ivanka?

Adolf Hitler promoted the not particularly original idea that people should be executed for the crime of choosing the wrong ancestors. Israel was created as a refuge for victims of that misguided notion just in case another Hitler came along. That approach to nationhood worked better than many other models (think Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or the late Soviet Union). But at the end of the day, two wrongs don’t make a right. Legally classifying people according to their ancestors was a bad idea when Hitler conceived it, and when George Wallace practiced it, and when Benjamin Netanyahu’s government (not to mention Hamas) pursue it today. As a Jew, I take no pleasure in knowing that, having spent all of 20 days in Israel during my four-score years on this planet, I can board a plane to Tel Aviv tomorrow and be welcomed as a full-fledged Israeli citizen on account of my ancestors, while Palestinians whose families have lived there for centuries will be turned away.

The deep thinkers who support the two-state solution overlook what to me is a key question: What happens when the citizens of these two states assert their right to think and behave as individuals? Suppose a Jewish man falls in love with a Palestinian woman? Suppose you’re half Jewish and half Palestinian? Suppose you’re a Jew who converts to Islam, or a Palestinian who converts to Judaism— must you move from Haifa to Ramallah, or vice versa? Or suppose Jared and Ivanka, fleeing from U.S. prosecutors, avail themselves of Israel’s Law of Return for Jews, and suppose they then split up and Ivanka reclaims her Christian roots? Where would she go? Saudi Arabia? Or maybe a more enlightened land, like Mississippi?

In a two-state paradise, the possibilities are endless.

Bottom line: The two-state solution is a terrific idea for everyone except the people who must live in those two states.

Anatevka vs, Bridgeton, N.J.

“But Dan,” you say, “we’re talking about the Middle East, not Philadelphia. Israelis and Palestinians swill never get along.”

As a matter of fact, there was a time in Pennsylvania when Jews were not allowed to hold public office or even to vote. Yet today, gentiles in my city and state voluntarily and even routinely elect Jews to such offices as governor, U.S. Senator, mayor, and district attorney. “Never” is a long time.

         While seeking post-college employment during my senior year at Penn in 1964, my wife and I drove to Bridgeton, New Jersey, for an interview at the local newspaper. At some point in the interview, the managing editor inquired as to our religion, which was then still a legally permissible question. When we said we were Jewish, his face brightened. “Oh, yes,” he replied. “We have a synagogue and a lovely Jewish community.” Then he swiveled in his chair to a giant map of Bridgeton on the wall behind him. “Let’s see,” he said, pointing to a spot on the map. “You’ll live here.”

         I remember thinking: Thanks, but I’d rather live somewhere else.

         We liberated modern American Jews sometimes romanticize the allegedly good old days in Russian shtetls like the fictitious Anatevka in Fiddler On the Roof, where everyone knew his/her place and outsiders rarely interfered in the community’s rich customs and traditions (except when they did). The comedian Alan King, whose mother grew up in such a shtetl, took her to see Fiddler, assuming she’d get a kick out of it. Afterward, when he asked how she liked the show, she replied: “It was very nice. But I don’t remember so much singing.”

         If the two-state solution becomes a reality in Israel/Palestine, its survivors may say something similar a generation or two from now.

Enjoy Dan Rottenberg’s new memoir, The Education of a Journalist: My Seventy Years on the Frontiers of Free Speech. You can also visit his website at www.danrottenberg.com