I am happy that the
N.Y. Times published Peter Beinart's opinion piece calling for the end of the
Jewish State. Beinart does a relatively nice job of making the argument for
what is in essence a "United States of the Middle East" (my words,
not his) in which pre-‘48 Palestine would be populated by Jews and Palestinians
alike, living in complete equality and moving about freely, much as we in the
USA move about from Florida to Maine, Alaska to Arizona. Beinart says that the Jewish State would be
replaced by a "Jewish home that is also, equally, a Palestinian home"
and that this home would provide "refuge and rejuvenation for Jews across
the world."
Now lest this sound
like a utopian piece, Beinart does admit at one point that the "process of
achieving equality would be long and difficult," adding that it
"would most likely meet resistance from both Palestinians and Jewish hard
liners." But, he argues, if the Irish and South Africans can largely
reconcile, so can the people of Israel/Palestine.
When I was at a yeshiva, I was told once by an Orthodox rabbi that each Jew
should wake up every morning questioning the existence of God. Well I would add
in a similar spirit that every Zionist should wake up every morning questioning
the virtues of Zionism. Particularly for those of us Americans who love our
nation's purported commitment to pluralism and equality, if it's right for us,
why wouldn't it be right for the people of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Hebron, Nablus and
Jerusalem? The thing is, though, when I ask that question about God, I still
come up with "yes" and when I ask that question about the
"United States of the Middle East," I still come up with
"no."
You see, when I have
visited England, Japan or Italy, I see a country devoted to the language,
history, and culture of a particular people. I see nations with a special
relationship to the ancestral faiths and holidays of that people. And I see
that culture shine and develop in a way that goes far beyond mere "refuge
and rejuvenation" -- I see it grow organically. The world is filled with
countries like that. My Arab cousins have enjoyed a number of them. It is no
coincidence that my beloved Spinoza, for example, has taken root far better in
Israel, as a Jewish State, than in the pluralistic salad bar known as the
United States -- countries with a dominant ethnic flavor polish the gems that
their group has given us, and whether you love him or hate him, it was the
Jewish world that gave us Spinoza so it is the Jewish world that tends to be
most interested in what he has to offer.
It is no coincidence that the Jewish-Islamic Dialogue Society of Washington was
founded by two Americans who fell in love with their ancestral faiths in Israel
and Saudi Arabia, respectively. America can be a "Jewish home" -- but
there are homes, and then there are HOMES -- and if you are a Mexican American,
an African American or yes, a Jewish American, you know the difference.
In yesterday's New York Times, the deputy national director of the
Anti-Defamation League asked a rhetorical question, responding to Beinart's
piece: "Where else on earth would the idea of an independent sovereign
state disappearing from the map be acceptable except in the case of
Israel?" Nowhere, of course -- or everywhere, because we live in a time of
deep polarization, tribalization, and alienation from the "other," in
which for example more and more Americans are wishing that Lincoln had allowed
the South to leave the Union so that we can have our politicians and they can
have theirs.
Fortunately, though, Lincoln did preserve the Union and slavery was abolished.
And there are plenty of things in Israel that should be abolished, including
the notion that the Jewish People can arrive in large numbers around the end of
the 19th century and boot the Arabs in the region into what Beinart correctly
calls "an archipelago of Palestinian towns, scattered across as little as
70 percent of the West Bank, under Israeli control." No, just like the
United States during the first century of its existence, Israel has a lot of
growing up to do, and leaders like Bibi Netanyahu are part of the problem, not
the solution. So, too, are those American Jews who claim to oppose Bibi but
invariably oppose any efforts to put pressure on his expansionist dreams. But
Zionism does not entail expansionism. The two-state solution makes room for a
robust Palestinian state next to a robust Jewish state -- not robust by
expansionist standards, but rather based on the goal that both sides deserve a
"peace of earth" in which to grow their own gardens in peace.
As the child of leftist
parents, I understand better than most the dreams of absolute equality. I understand the corruptibility of private
property in all its forms. And I
appreciate that to a degree, choosing a “Jewish State” and a “Palestinian State”
over a “United States of the Middle East” is choosing to privatize land more
than it needs to be privatized. But as
an individual, I have also come to appreciate the extent to which human autonomy
and self-expression – in other words, freedom in the positive sense of that
term – are fostered by some degree of privatization. And we all must recognize that in our world,
the vast majority of useful land is divided into nation-states in which certain
ethnic groups tend to hold a permanent majority and use that majority to express
themselves as a people – linguistically, historically, religiously,
philosophically, aesthetically …. The list is endless.
If you speak to Jewish
anti-Zionists, you will note that the one thing that they can least abide is
when someone mentions the Holocaust (or other pogroms) in connection with the
raison d’etre for Israel. As soon as that happens, they will reflexively
start calling the Zionist dream one that is grounded in PTSD, and refer to
Zionists as “emotionally-based” people who fail to see that the “United States
of the Middle East” (or some similarly “egalitarian” approach) is the only fair,
rational solution to the fact that two peoples occupy the same land. The truth is, though, that events like the
Holocaust and the Expulsion of Spanish Jews in 1492 are significant in part
because they tell us what life can be like in societies that truly appeared to be
welcoming environments for thriving Jewish communities. We in America have offered another such
environment – and yet we have also seen Jewish people banned from hotels,
placed on a quota system in colleges, and sent back to die in Europe when they
arrived in ships off of American shores seeking refuge. Beinart ignores all of this history when he glibly
assumes that a society in the Middle East that starts out as 50% Jewish (that
is how he described what a one-state solution would look like on his CNN appearance
today) would remain a “Jewish society.”
The truth is that most
Jews are attached to Israel because it is more than just a place of temporary
hospitality to Jews. It is a place where
Jews live as a permanent majority. It is
a place where the Jewish culture flourishes to the max. It is a place where Jewish history isn’t
marginalized, and the Hebrew language isn’t marginalized, and where – if there
is to be a movement to rejuvenate the language of Yiddish on a large scale, it
will almost certainly happen there. Most
Jews are attached to Israel just as we are attached to our spouses, our
children, and our oldest friends. You
are darned right that these are deep emotional attachments, and we’re not
likely to choose the kind of pot-luck that Beinart has to offer if we can instead
hold what we currently have. After all,
if the Germans, the Dutch, the English, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Koreans …
and the Arabs can have their countries, why can’t we?
But we are at a crossroads,
we Zionists. We see a leader of Israel
who seems to have washed his hands of the fate of our Abrahamic cousins from Palestine. And we see this leader getting re-elected
over and over again by an electorate who is moving further and further to the
right politically. Particularly here in
America, Jews and allies who have fought for Zionism must make a choice. Either we call for a United States of the Middle
East, as Beinart has. Or we start
calling for the United States to put real pressure on Israel to treat the Arabs
in pre-‘48 Palestine like full-fledged members of the moral community who have
the same natural rights as any other people, including the right of
self-determination. If that means putting
a stop to the extent of the United States’ financial and military support for
Israel, so be it. We need to mean
business that it is time for both sides to work hard for the two-state solution
that we have been advocating for so long.
Yes, the Palestinians have hardly demonstrated a deep desire for that
solution. But frankly, the leadership of
Israel hasn’t demonstrated one either, at least not lately. It’s time for us to
take a stand that two states isn’t a request, it’s a demand.
Either that, or go
with Beinart. Because as wrong as he is
(from my perspective), there are worse solutions than advocating for another
United States.
