Interesting question, well posed. Two questions, actually. One, can Jews and Palestinians live together in a single community? Well, they do: in Israel, where more than 20% of the population is Palestinian, with Israeli citizenship, civil rights and political participation, freedom of professional association, etc. Of course, they live under the limitation of being part of a Jewish state. But they prefer to live in Israel, and show no interest in living in a state run by Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. With all of Israel’s faults, they recognize it as the best deal they can have. And they are a third of the Palestinian population between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Is this a model—a one-state model—for the whole of this New Jersey-sized territory, in good part desert? Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem so. Palestinian Israelis are tolerable as a minority; they would not be as a majority or something approaching it. Israel was specifically created as a haven for Jews, for whom as you point out citizenship was available for anyone of Jewish descent who sought it.
What, then, of the two-state solution proposed by Friedman and Rubin, and hawked by world leaders—presumably as a pair of apartheid states, living side by side? The most recent poll I saw found only 27% of Israelis supporting any version of this idea, and even fewer Palestinians—24%. Simply put, you can’t ask two parties to accept a solution overwhelmingly rejected by both.
Since Germany was the country that wanted to wipe us out, why didn’t they give the Jews the Ruhr? That was too rich for us. The shithole that was called Palestine was good enough for us. They never dreamed what we could do with a desert.
So, Dan, if a two-state solution won't work— and you make a convincing argument it won't— what will? A continuation of the status quo, which doesn't work? Israel's occupying all of Gaza and the West Bank, which I can't feel hopeful about working? A merger of both peoples, which will lead to an Arab majority and a settling of present grievances against the residual Jews or, if they step up the schtupping, an ultra-Orthodox one which will eliminate most everybody else?
Sometimes I think the only solution is the old Yippie idea of LSD in the water supply. Other times I lean towards Thich Nhat Hanh. All it takes is "mindfulness" and the realization we are all one.
Just around the corner, that one. Meanwhile I have just begun writing get-out-the-vote letters for Wisconsin, feeling positively Sisyphean.
I have always been of the view that it is quite difficult, impossible really, to negotiate in good faith with an opponent when their non-negotiable opening gambit is, “First we kill you all, and then we talk.”
I am hopeful that some kind of resolution can be had here, but if one is down to hope as a plan, there really is no plan. It seems to me that they will always be two generations away from living peacefully with each other. Unless hearts and minds are changed for the new generation(s), nothing happens here differently.
OK, Dan. No two-state solution. Now write a column on what it would be like--down on the ground-- to try to impose a secular, democratic state on all those people. ALL of them.
An lawyer associate of mine who works for the Canadian government was stationed in Ramallah for two years several years ago (I think he went back to Canada at the beginning of 2019). According to him, the characterization of Israel as an apartheid state was correct. Also, most of the people he encountered, Jewish or Muslim, thought that a one state solution was the best idea. That said, the situation five years ago was light years from the current situation, and he obviously spoke to a small percentage of the population, not enough to be a representative sample.
Very interesting article. I look forward to the follow-up.
From reader Robert Zaller:
Interesting question, well posed. Two questions, actually. One, can Jews and Palestinians live together in a single community? Well, they do: in Israel, where more than 20% of the population is Palestinian, with Israeli citizenship, civil rights and political participation, freedom of professional association, etc. Of course, they live under the limitation of being part of a Jewish state. But they prefer to live in Israel, and show no interest in living in a state run by Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. With all of Israel’s faults, they recognize it as the best deal they can have. And they are a third of the Palestinian population between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Is this a model—a one-state model—for the whole of this New Jersey-sized territory, in good part desert? Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem so. Palestinian Israelis are tolerable as a minority; they would not be as a majority or something approaching it. Israel was specifically created as a haven for Jews, for whom as you point out citizenship was available for anyone of Jewish descent who sought it.
What, then, of the two-state solution proposed by Friedman and Rubin, and hawked by world leaders—presumably as a pair of apartheid states, living side by side? The most recent poll I saw found only 27% of Israelis supporting any version of this idea, and even fewer Palestinians—24%. Simply put, you can’t ask two parties to accept a solution overwhelmingly rejected by both.
From reader Myra Chanin:
Since Germany was the country that wanted to wipe us out, why didn’t they give the Jews the Ruhr? That was too rich for us. The shithole that was called Palestine was good enough for us. They never dreamed what we could do with a desert.
From reader Bob Levin:
So, Dan, if a two-state solution won't work— and you make a convincing argument it won't— what will? A continuation of the status quo, which doesn't work? Israel's occupying all of Gaza and the West Bank, which I can't feel hopeful about working? A merger of both peoples, which will lead to an Arab majority and a settling of present grievances against the residual Jews or, if they step up the schtupping, an ultra-Orthodox one which will eliminate most everybody else?
Sometimes I think the only solution is the old Yippie idea of LSD in the water supply. Other times I lean towards Thich Nhat Hanh. All it takes is "mindfulness" and the realization we are all one.
Just around the corner, that one. Meanwhile I have just begun writing get-out-the-vote letters for Wisconsin, feeling positively Sisyphean.
Repeat after me: Change may be difficult, but it's also inevitable.
From reader Eric Young:
I have always been of the view that it is quite difficult, impossible really, to negotiate in good faith with an opponent when their non-negotiable opening gambit is, “First we kill you all, and then we talk.”
I am hopeful that some kind of resolution can be had here, but if one is down to hope as a plan, there really is no plan. It seems to me that they will always be two generations away from living peacefully with each other. Unless hearts and minds are changed for the new generation(s), nothing happens here differently.
Dan...do you have an alternative suggestion?
Well said!
OK, Dan. No two-state solution. Now write a column on what it would be like--down on the ground-- to try to impose a secular, democratic state on all those people. ALL of them.
Excellent point. I owe you a follow-up re what would work, as opposed to what doesn't work.
An lawyer associate of mine who works for the Canadian government was stationed in Ramallah for two years several years ago (I think he went back to Canada at the beginning of 2019). According to him, the characterization of Israel as an apartheid state was correct. Also, most of the people he encountered, Jewish or Muslim, thought that a one state solution was the best idea. That said, the situation five years ago was light years from the current situation, and he obviously spoke to a small percentage of the population, not enough to be a representative sample.
Very interesting article. I look forward to the follow-up.