Date: Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:06 AM
To: Michael Unterberg
Hi Michael,
So I'm having this argument on fb with a very left leaning friend, who tells me that he thinks that a two state solution is unjust because
1. it doesn't allow for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel proper.
2.He also thinks a JEwish state which inherently establishes the supremecy of one particular ethnicity is problematic (his words, roughly).
It gave me pause for thought.
I was thinking regarding #1 that allowing the return of all Palestinian refugees to ISrael, (besides the logistics of that- how would that go exactly, just randomly kick people out of there houses in the German colony???) would lead to tremendous danger to the JEws, as they would become a minority in an Arab state , which would likely lead to bad things.
Regarding #2, I was thinking that he is just wrong. Israel doesn't establish the supremecy of one ethnicity over another, besides a JEwish holiday calendar, and no busses on the Sabbath. Other than that, all are equal under the law. IS this so diffeerant than America marking Christmas as a national holiday?
I'd love to hear what you think, since I know you've thought and taught about these sorts of questions.
Thanks man!
X
How would you respond to these two contentions?
----------
From: Michael Unterberg
Date: Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:43 PM
To: X
Can I respond in reverse order?
2) The term "Jewish" in Jewish State refers to Nationality, not ethnicity. That is the Zionist view. Or nation has had two states in antiquity, miraculously
Israel does indeed give full citizenship and rights to over a million non-Jews. But putting that aside for a moment, and look at a hypothetical. Would Italy be racist or guilty of discrimination if it treats Italians differently than Poles or Mexicans? As descendants of the citizens of Judea (the source of our name) Jews can all claim automatic citizenship to the renewed state called Israel. This is the essential claim of Zionism. We believe these things to our core.
Your friend can dispute our claim to nationality, but that seems an odd thing to do when defending the Palestinian's right to one. If they can assert a National identity in the middle of the 20th century, we can certainly reassert ours in the 19th. I would argue that its fruitless to argue at this point that there is no such thing as "Palestinians", and therefore nobody to give self rule to. The self perception of millions of Palestinian Arabs makes this argument moot, as does international acknowledgment
Of course, this works both ways. Millions of Jews see our national identity and rights as valid and self evident, as does the UN, the EU, and most individual nations of the world, including some Arab and Moslem ones. Do your friend think that can be argued away? Seems unlikely. At the very least, Tzahal's mission is to defend our position and perception.
So who is being helped by trying to theoretically argue reality out of existence? Palestinians have no intention of surrendering their identity or national claims, and neither do we. I can think their claims are unjustified, and they can think mine are too. And that gets us absolutely nowhere.
The question is, do we continue to have a theoretical argument about ideology or look for a solution to a real problem? I think that there has been enough suffering for all involved to make debating abstract concepts a luxury. Neither side can get all that it thinks it deserves ideologically and morally. What is called for now is compromise. Which brings us to point 1.
1) Really? Have you wondered why international third parties have been proposing the 2 state solution since the 1930s? Its because anyone who has taken a pragmatic look at the problem only sees the one solution. Why? Well, take to people with divergent identities and perspectives, who have repeatedly demonstrated the willingness to kill and die for their side, and try mushing them into one state. You're looking at another Yugoslavia, with better weapons. Why would you advocate a solution that practically guarantees
Even this could somehow be avoided, (and it can't) the demographics would lead to the end of a Jewish democratic state. Now, perhaps for your friend this would be a victory. But since, again, millions of Jews, non-Jews, States, and international organizations agree to the right of a free Jewish state, it makes the solution unacceptable. We Zionists believe in our right, need and mission to build a great, powerful, free, democratic and Jewish state in ancestral homeland.
So practically the 1 state idea doesn't belong on the table, and Israel would be committing suicide even in theory. Even Chaim Weitzman eventually gave up his hope of one shared state. The only hope is compromise that will divide the fairness and unfairness over both people.
By the way, the Jews have agreed to do this since the UN 2 state proposal in November of 1947. The Arabs have ideologically always rejected it.
Which brings me back to my earlier point. The time to dispute wether Israel is a good idea ended on May14th, 1948. Its here, that's clear, deal with it. It has been time to make a 2 state compromise for many decades. If your friend cares for the Palestinian's future, he should advocate for its implementation before it becomes a century.
In the Cold War, the threat was MAD, mutually assured destruction. In this conflict, perhaps it could be called mutually accused delegitimization. Its time to move on.
In the Cold War, the threat was MAD, mutually assured destruction. In this conflict, perhaps it could be called mutually accused delegitimization. Its time to move on.
MNUnterberg
 |
| Photo by MNU, effects by cartoonize.net |
