Rebranding the left

[Behind the Aegis]

A worrying change has been evolving among the Israeli left in recent years. The traditional peace-camp solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - two nations, two states - has fallen out of favor, and its supporters' ranks have dwindled. Instead, other voices have been advocating, with increasing confidence, a single bi-national state.

The two-state option is increasingly seen as anachronistic, conservative, overly Zionist and unjust. At the very least, it is seen as an option that has lost its formerly exciting, subversive spirit.

The one-state advocates still don't have a joint program or political front, but the balance within the left is changing. The peace organizations' conference in Madrid exploded last month after radical leftist activists refused to sit in the same hall with Peace Now representatives, claiming they were "an arm of the occupation." They drafted a document focusing on the one-state principle.

The drift toward one state is obvious in the Arab leadership in Israel. The Arab legal organization Adalah has recently revoked its traditional stand and called for the creation of a single constitutional state between the Jordan and the sea. Even Hadash is drawing away de facto from the two-state idea. It is not advocating one state, but it has tucked away what until recently used to be its historical banner.

It would be a mistake to underestimate this process, with the claim that it involves Arabs and a handful of people on Sheinkin and at Tel Aviv University. Even if this idea's supporters are a minority, they are affecting the left-wing's discourse, re-demarcating the borders of what is "just" and "moral" and damaging the sense of justice and inner conviction of a wider left-wing circle.

more...

[subsuelo]

1. Because it's the obvious solution if peace is the true goal

[Vegasaurus]

3. It's the obvious solution

if ridding the Middle East of Jews is the goal (which it appears to be, by most on the far left).

[subsuelo]

4. Right. The left wants to rid the M.E. of Jews.

Thanks for the constructive insight.

[Vegasaurus]

6. You must not be reading the same blogs and websites I do

The far right and the far left meet when it comes to Israel. Do not for a moment be fooled by those pro "bi-national" state people, who act as if that the way to solve the mideast problems is for everyone to live together happily ever after.

A "bi-national" state destroys the notion of a Jewish homeland. There are already 22 Arab countries, comprised almost completely of Muslims, and devoid of most Christians, Jews, etc (or if there are any other religions, they are a minority and/or persecuted). The Jews have a right to achieve their national aspirations, in peace. Seems no one will let her, and hasn't for 60 years.

Some of the far left sites read no differently than white supremacists. Don't be fooled. That's not "progressive" thought at all.

[azurnoir]

7. I am not fooled

the "left is antiSemetic and wants to rid the ME of Jews" is old very old by blog standards read that one before I ever heard of DU (Salon) along with the theory that Hitler was a leftist. As to bi-nationalism it is this "bi-nationalism" in existence now that the left is against.
One of best posts I have ever seen on the subject was from Douglas Carpenter and it succinctly describes the current situation "undeclared bi-nationalism"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=191661#191837

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. I believe you may be referring to an article by former Jerusalem Deputy Mayor Meron Benvenisti

which I had posted a snip from on that thread. Thank you.

I strongly recommend reading this most interesting article in its entirety from Haaretz:

Which kind of binational state?

By Meron Benvenisti

link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=363062&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

snip: "The fear of the loss of the majority has already yielded plans for campaigns against the danger, such as the projects for increasing the Jewish birth rate, granting voting rights to expatriates or even to Jews wherever they may be. The chance of fulfilling the unitary model is nil. But the effort to identify binationalism only with that model is deliberate, meant to prevent any debate about other, more attractive alternatives.

One such alternative is a system that recognizes collective ethnic-national rights and maintains power sharing on the national-central level, with defined political rights for the minority and sometimes territorial-cantonal divisions. That model, called "consociational democracy" has not succeeded in many places, but lately has been applied successfully to reach agreements in ancient ethnic-national conflicts such as Bosnia, through the Dayton agreement, and Northern Ireland, with the Good Friday agreement. That should be food for thought for the experts who contemptuously wave off the binational option.

Why did arrangements based on one state for two peoples work in various methods and places - South Africa, Bosnia, and Northern Ireland - while the Oslo accords, based on territorial division, achieved at the same time, collapsed?

The option of power sharing and division into federated cantons is closer to the model of the territorial division of two states but it avoids the surgery, so it allows the existence of soft borders, and creates a deliberate blurring that eases dealing with symbolic issues, the status of Jerusalem or the questions of refugees and the settlers. The mutual recognition allows preservation of the national-cultural character on the national level and preservation of the ethnically homogenous regions. Everything depends, of course, on recognition being mutual and symmetric.

Those who don't recognize and accept intercommunal equality propose a third model of binationalism - even though they rise up against the very idea. They suggest cultural and civic local autonomy, but without voting in the Knesset, or alternatively, voting in Jordan, the "real Palestinian state." That is Menachem Begin's original autonomy plan, or the "functional partition" proposed by Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres, a plan being implemented nowadays through the Palestinian Authority. That model has another version in the form of the "Palestinian state" defined by the separation fence: four cantons under Israel's indirect control. That's also a model for binationalism camouflaged by the division into "two states."

And there's a fourth model, which can be called "undeclared binationalism." It's a unitary state controlled by one dominant national group, which leaves the other national group disenfranchised and subject to laws "for natives only," which for the purposes of respectability and international law are known as laws of "belligerent occupation." The convenience of this model of binationalism is that it can be applied over a long period of time, meanwhile debating the threat of the "one state" and the advantages of the "two states," without doing a thing. That's the situation nowadays. But the process is apparently inevitable. Israel and the Palestinians are sinking together into the mud of the "one state." The question is no longer whether it will be binational, but which model to choose ".

link to full article:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=363062&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

.

[azurnoir]

9. Thank you

and Istill think it deserves its own thread.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. perhaps so. but rules of the forum permit only artricles written within the past

3 weeks. And unfortunately this article is considerably older.

[subsuelo]

15. Thanks

In addition, there are some great points made here:

By its expansionist policies Israel has destroyed the foundations of a two-state solution while unilateral separation has been exposed as a dangerous delusion. The time has therefore come for an honest exploration of alternative solutions. One Country is a major contribution to this debate, combining as it does extensive knowledge with a commitment to justice for the Palestinians. It is a must read for anyone seeking to understand the problems of the present and the possibilities of peace in the Middle East. -- Avi Shlaim, author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World

Although living together might seem impossible, Abunimah shows how Israelis and Palestinians are by now so intertwined -- geographically and economically -- that no kind of separation can lead to the security Israelis need or the rights Palestinians must have. He reveals the bankruptcy of the two-state approach, takes on the objections and taboos that stand in the way of a binational solution, demonstrates that sharing the territory will bring benefits for all, and asserts that the country can remain a homeland for both Jews and Palestinians. The absence of any other workable option can only lead to ever-greater extremism; it is time, Abunimah suggests, for Palestinians and Israelis to imagine a different future and a different relationship.

also please read here as the case is nearly perfectly stated by Ali Abunimah:

ALI ABUNIMAH: Well, I think (the 2-state) views are reflections of a flawed conventional wisdom and I take that on directly in the book. Consider this reality, Amy. There is a multibillion dollar peace process industry that has been out there for decades saying the only solution is the two-state solution. And as we see there is no Palestinian state. It was promised, President Bush promised a Palestinian State in 2005, we're close to 2007.

It is the hope of a Palestinian state that has been dangled cynically in front of the Palestinians for decades. And what President Carter is saying, and I applaud, I am thrilled by his interventions, by his book, and by his interview on Larry King Live. But, I think on this particular issue he's reflecting a flawed conventional wisdom. Because what's he saying? He's saying that the reason to oppose a one-state solution is because it would be democracy. That Palestinians would have an equal rights, one person, one vote, and an equal share in deciding the future of the country.

What I argue in the book, of course this isn't about destroying Israel. It isn't about turning things over from one day to the next. Palestine-Israel is not the only country that faces this sort of power struggle along ethnic, religious, and other lines. We have to look for structures, and I talk about this in some detail in the book. How they did it in South Africa, where by the way, the same sorts of arguments were made against ending Apartheid and against one person, one vote. We have to look at countries like Belgium, we have to look at Northern Ireland.

There are many models out there for dealing with those sort of things. So that you have one person, one vote, full democracy, full equality, while at same time, ethnic communities, the Israeli-Jewish community, the Palestinian community, will have mechanisms for expressing their national identity, for decision making over issues that concern them. We have to stop thinking this very simplistic, binary way.

Ali Abunimah gets it. He continues:

People who say the two-state solution is realistic are ignoring the reality on the ground. That there is one state already, it is basically a greater Israel in which Palestinians are disenfranchised. These people are inseparable. And I think that for many people, the idea of two states acts as a sort of a placebo. It gets us off the hook from looking at the reality that these people are deeply intertwined. They are as inseparable as blacks and whites in South Africa, as inseparable as Nationalists and Unionists, Catholics and Protestants, in Northern Ireland. And like South Africans and like people in Ireland, they have to start dealing with that reality.

On the issues of what people on both sides think it's clear that the majority of Israelis are deeply attached to their own state, a state in which they are dominant, the dominant class, as whites were in South Africa. I think with Palestinians, it's much more mixed. When you look at the opinion polls within the West Bank and Gaza, it's remarkable how high support is for a single democratic multiethnic state, not an Islamic State in which there are no Jews, but a multiethnic democratic state, is remarkably high given that there are no Palestinian leaders out there openly advocating this.

And support for a two-state solution is remarkably tepid given the fact there is this multimillion dollar industry promoting it and all the parties say that they're for it. When you look at Palestinians, the rest of the Palestinian community, the more than a million Palestinians living as Israeli citizens, second class citizens have been struggling for decades for a state of all its citizens. So, I would see them as supporting the goal of the state of equal rights and for Palestinians in the Diaspora, the issue of a two state solution has always remained contentious.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. I just got that book, and am currently in the middle of reading it.

I'm quite impressed.

[Igel]

25. I quibble with one crucial point:

"People who say the two-state solution is realistic are ignoring the reality on the ground. That there is one state already, it is basically a greater Israel in which Palestinians are disenfranchised. These people are inseparable."

Let's rephrase it.

"People who say the two-state solution is realistic are ignoring the reality on the ground. That there is one state already, it is basically a greater Russia in which Lithuanians are disenfranchised. These people are inseparable."

It was true in 1985. If you were Lithuanian in Lithuania, you could vote, but it really didn't matter--Russians pretty much controlled everything. If the occasional Ukrainian got some power, it was in a sea of Russians. The economy was based on Russia; few industries in Lithuania were independent, even railroads all but required transiting Russia to get from one large factory to another. Power production, oil refining ... Russian. There was no Lithuanian economy, and there was a large population of Russians in Lithuania. To get ahead in Lithuania, you had to know Russian; if you were an ethnic Russian, you had a better chance of getting ahead.

It's not true now. These people were not inseparable, albeit there are still problems to be solved.

[LeftishBrit]

16. I have come across SO-CALLED far left sites...

that are about as far left as the right side of my arse.

Some are neo-Stalinist; some are simply conspiracist and anti-establishment, and get labelled far-left because they are against Bush - but are intensely unprogressive in reality. I know of one such site that links to WhatReallyNeverHappened, Serendipity, Global Conspiracies, and probably others - I stopped looking there once I saw what it was like.

But such sites are not left-wing in reality.

[LeftishBrit]

5. I'm far left (by American standards), and I don't want to rid the Middle East of Jews!!!!

There are some people who do: either traditional antisemites or hard-line Arab nationalists. Neither attitude is left-wing; but some on the left who are against the Iraq war are prepared to collaborate with ultra-nationalist people who are also against the war - either extreme Arab nationalists, or more often home-grown anti-semitic (but also anti-war) isolationists.

It *is* true that real left-wingers often don't like nationalism of any sort, and think it would be a good thing if Arabs and Jews could live together peacefully in one big secular state. Actually, I think it might be a good thing. It just wouldn't, in the foreseeable feature be a POSSIBLE thing. And asking the impossible in this sort of situation is a recipe for a bloodbath. Unfortunately.

There was an American diplomat who in 1948 notoriously suggested that the Jews and Arabs should 'settle their differences like good Christians'. Secular anti-nationalists sometimes expect the Jews and Arabs to 'settle their differences like good secular anti-nationalists' - which is just as unrealistic and ethnocentric at the present time.

[subsuelo]

14. Well said LeftishBrit

In fact, let's take a quick poll.

Anyone far-left reading this who wants to rid the Middle East of Jews, go ahead and post a reply here stating so.

[bemildred]

2. Oh goodness, are the sheep not staying herded into the proper pen?

You can thank all the refuseniks on the Israeli side for this, and the creators of the nascent bantustans in the OPT.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. I read an excellent article on that subject, about Daniel Gavron who is advocating one state.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=370659&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

The more I learn about the situation, the more this makes sense to me. I'm glad to see that it's gaining currency.

[LeftishBrit]

11. It's not a question of whether it makes sense in the abstract

It's whether it will work, without causing a bloodbath.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. So what do you think of Daniel Gavron's position?

I'm also wondering what people think the solution is when the settlement project seems to have created facts on the ground that make a 2 state solution impossible.

I've only just started trying to learn about these issues, and appreciate seeing the different opinions out there.

[LeftishBrit]

13. That his heart is in the right place, but he's unrealistic.

'the settlement project seems to have created facts on the ground that make a 2 state solution impossible'

I don't agree that this is the case. It's been known for the last 15 years at any rate that a two-state solution was being sought. So that any settlers since that time *knew* that their abode might not be a permanent one. Thus I don't think it's unreasonable or unexpected at *least* to evacuate settlements established during that time. That gets us back to the situation of 15 years ago - nothing new, and one can negotiate land evacuation and swaps on that basis. A two-state solution is difficult; but any other solution - whether keeping the status quo indefinitely or moving to a one-state solution - isn't difficult; it's impossible.

Gavron's view may be reasonable as regards some time in the future - who knows? But with Israel and Gaza in the position of enmity that they currently have - how could 'one state' result in anything but civil war? Unless perhaps the situation is controlled by outside peacekeeping forces, probably from the UN - and even if this could be arranged, wouldn't it be just another form of colonialism?

[Crunchy Frog]

18. I'll be interested to see if anything actually gets done about the settlements.

I'm not optimistic, but if it could be done, I'm all for it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. an excellent article...thank you...let me again say for the record that I am NOT necessarily

advocating a single-binational-state solution. I just think that there is something to the point also made by Daniel Gavron in this article - that the emerging reality may very well make it the ONLY viable solution.

"Any Israeli government that can evacuate settlements - like Sharon's - won't want to," he says. "And any Israeli government that wants to, can't."

Admittedly this is anecdotal. But a friend of mine who had always supported the two-state solution just came back a few weeks ago from East Jerusalem. He had not been there since 1997. He now is absolutely-positively convinced that the two-state solution has become at least a political improbability and probably a physical impossibility.

From that incredible article:

link:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=370659&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

snips:

"I do not see any government emerging that would withdraw more than a very minimal number of settlements," he says. "We haven't even managed to get rid of Netzarim, for God's sake. I just don't see any elected Israeli government having sufficient determination and sufficient clarity of vision to carry out the redivision of Palestine, Israel, the Land of Israel, whatever you want to call it. Friends of mine sometimes say the Americans will force us into it. They won't. They're not forcing us into anything ... In a way, I'm saying the settlers have won. That is profoundly sad. But they have."

"A righteous cause," he says, borrowing a phrase from Winston Churchill to describe the Jewish national movement. "I believe in Zionism. I'm just saying that Zionism, like everything else, has to adapt itself to reality."

"He offers a palliative for these fears: At the outset of the new state, Jews will be in the majority, with control of parliament, government, the army, the civil service, the judiciary and other arms of state, and will get to set the rules. "If we start today, when we are in charge, it is up to us to create a society in which people want to remain," he says. "There is absolutely no reason to believe it would degenerate into something inferior. The Palestinians are often called `the Jews of the Arab world.' They are enterprising, they are intelligent, they are far more democratic than any other Arabs, they want democracy."

He concedes that existential fears are legitimate, but insists "not every Palestinian has the aim in life of slaughtering Jews. If we create a society in which there are equal rights, democracy, the chance for education and for creativity and self-expression, there's absolutely no reason why a very reasonable, enlightened society won't emerge here. I don't see a situation in which suddenly in 20 years, the Arabs have got 61 members of the Knesset, we've only got 59, and then they will turn round and slaughter us in our beds."

As for the Jews who want to live in a Jewish state, Gavron believes the aspirations of Jewish history, religion and culture can all be fulfilled in his state of Jerusalem. "The Jews will be able to observe their national and religious festivals in their ancient homeland," he writes. "They will be able to continue to create their unique Hebrew culture."

link to full article -- an excellent piece and a must read:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=370659&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

.

[Vegasaurus]

21. Experience speaks more loudly

"He concedes that existential fears are legitimate, but insists "not every Palestinian has the aim in life of slaughtering Jews."

Of course NOT EVERY Palestinian has the aim in life of slaughtering Jews, but enough do to render the whole proposal of a single state completely meaningless.

Douglas, you know that Israel won't willingly commit national suicide, don't you? That would be the outcome of the single state, and no sane person would advocate for his own demise.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. if there is no 2-state solution there will in fact be only 1 state ; 2-1=1

Personally I would welcome the 2 state solution provided it meant a REAL Palestinian state. I just do not see a lot of evidence to convince me that this is going to happen. But I would rejoice beyond anything words can describe if I events prove me wrong. Unfortunately, I do see a lot of evidence that leads me to believe that the two-state solution is rapidly becoming an impossibility or at least an improbability.

If the 2-state solution ceases to be a possibility, then the question will quite naturally be raised as to whether or not it will be a democratic state.

If it does become in time a democratic state for all of its citizens - I see no reason to believe that under such an arrangement that the Jewish people living between the Jordan and the Sea cannot be trusted just as much as the Palestinian people living between the Jordan and the Sea. There certainly have been other cases in history in which two or more ethnic groups with long, violent and deep animosity eventually agreed to live together as equal citizens in a state which preserves the cultural, religious, language and national rights of all. Although at the moment I would have to concede that it does sounds all a bit utopian. But lots of ideas start out sounding a bit utopian.

[bemildred]

23. Exactly. It is Israel that has the strongest interest in the 2-state solution.

If there is no 2-state solution, the refuseniks (on both sides) "win". The sooner they figure that out, the better.

[Vegasaurus]

24. On this I agree completely

It does sound utopian (one state) and two states as a solution is looking bleaker and bleaker.