Published: 16 July 2020
Last updated: 4 March 2024
LAST WEEK, PETER BEINART announced, in Jewish Currents and in the New York Times, that he no longer believes in a Jewish State and that, after decades of arguing for separation between Israelis and Palestinians, he can now imagine a Jewish home in an equal state.
Beinart is one of the American Jewish community's premier intellectuals and seems to have impeccable timing to create a buzz around his new ideas.
Indeed, the predictable brouhaha ensued, and dozens of responses have already been published. Some of these have engaged each other in debates about the history of the Jewish people, discussions about the aptness of the metaphors that Beinart uses, and often disingenuous arguments about who has the right to have opinions about the future of the State of Israel.
Others quickly deteriorated into ad hominem personal attacks as the writers applied vicious litmus tests to determine if the one or the other is a loyal or self-hating Jew.
Reading these debates, published in mainstream journals, the Jewish press, and social media, I felt a severe case of MEGO (my eyes glazed over). Most of the discussions are well-thought-out, and carefully structured, yet they are over-conceptualised and theorised, filled with self-importance and intellectual passion, but lacking in basic attention to the needs of the people who will live in the one or two or whatever states.
The whole discussion seems irrelevant to me, yet these authors carry on their debates as if their thoughts regarding the number of countries between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River are of more importance than political and psycho-social aspirations and needs of the people who live here.
In his essay, Beinart writes that we must "distinguish between form and essence". But neither he nor any of his (almost exclusively male) responders actually make this distinction at all. These many pundits have taken upon themselves to theoretically apportion geography to the Israeli and Palestinian states or the binational state, while avoiding the essential questions that we must face.
Zionism is no more racist than any other form of self-determination and patriotism, and the Palestinian people, when they establish their state, will face the same questions.
While choosing among conceptualised forms of government, not one of them has provided a plan as to how their preferred form would allow us all to live functional, creative, productive and meaningful lives in this region.
Like Beinart, I believe that Israel bears primary responsibility for the current situation of injustice and lack of human rights. Expansionist, right-wing governments, goaded by messianic settlers, have done nothing to advance, and often actively worked against, any just solution and made a mockery of the dream that Israel can be a Jewish and democratic state.
Yet I also believe that the Palestinian intransigence, short-sightedness, and resort to terrorism, especially the suicide terrorism of the Second Intifada, has played a large part in creating the current atmosphere and helped foment the right-wing pivot among Israeli Jews.
But providing a solution based on the form of government without asking how we can change the hostile and fearful mindset in the region and take communities and their social fabric into account is an exercise in futility. Broad-brushed definitions cannot answer the needs of the people who live in this region or the Palestinian and Jewish Diasporas that support them.
Whether we eventually create a two-state or one-state government in this region, the national aspirations of both peoples must be taken into account. Given the history of the 20th century, I am not unaware of the dangers of nationalism. Greedy, evil hands can transform nationalism into a fascist weapon.
Women know how to count between one, two and confederation. Yet maybe women have been conspicuously absent in this debate because they know that the substance of how we live is much more important than the form of our governments.
In Israel, prevailing powers have appropriated Zionism and turned it into an occupation over the Palestinians. They have distorted Zionism into a maximalist doctrine that rejects compromise, compassion and justice.
But power, perpetual settlement expansion, and rejectionist policies are not the sina qua non of Zionism any more than rejectionism and preference for armed struggle are the sole components of Palestinian national self-determination.
As Isaiah Berlin has written, the desire to belong to a community or some kind national unit is a basic human need and desire. And in her most recent book, the political philosopher and former MK Yael (Yuli) Tamir, who studied with Berlin, has argued that progressives should not surrender the power of nationalism to right-wing extremists, and that it is possible to combine the positive tenets of liberalism, such as personal autonomy, reflection, and choice, with the belonging, loyalty, and solidarity that only nationalism can provide.
Perhaps, in today's world, there is an inherent tension between the nationalism and the maintenance of a true civic democracy. I don’t know if any ethnic state can exist without violating the rights of other ethnic groups. I hope so, but I’m not sure what the future holds or how our political realities will play out.
But these complexities are true for all groups—in its essence, Zionism is no more racist than any other form of self-determination and patriotism, and the Palestinian people, when they establish their state, will face the same questions.
Perhaps there is an inherent tension between the nationalism and the maintenance of a true civic democracy. I don’t know if any ethnic state can exist without violating the rights of other ethnic groups. I hope so, but I’m not sure.
Some of the arguments for and against the one state or two states rest on security, and of course Israel has legitimate security fears and demands that must be addressed. So do the Palestinians. Yet security must mean more than the absence of hostilities. Inclusive security, as defined by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, which was ratified by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, rests on the principle that fundamental social changes are necessary to provide a high quality of life for all, prevent renewed hostilities and control the peace spoilers who will oppose any agreement for one state or two states or anything else.
No opinion piece,, no matter how carefully constructed or how prestigious the platform on which it is published, no matter how prominent and important the author, and regardless of whether it calls for one state, two states, a confederated state or some form of government we haven't even thought of, will provide answers to these questions.
This response is not a call for the continuation of the status quo. The current paradigm of the political, legal, social and cultural relations between Israelis and Palestinians is irrevocably broken; it is reprehensible, unjust and untenable.
Therefore, this is a call for thinking that will break down existing, hackneyed paradigms and lead us to real change. It should be painfully self-evident that no one will ascribe legitimacy and allegiance to any formal political structure unless they feel that their right to life, identity, and meaning are safeguarded. This requires more than proclamations; it requires attention to everyday life.
And this is also a call to include women in the debate and in the process. Extensive research has shown that women's participation in conflict prevention and resolution improves outcomes before, during and after conflict. Israeli and Palestinian women have been at the centre of NGOs, popular protests and other peace-oriented and citizen-empowering efforts.
They have repeatedly proven that they are both aware of the full range of issues crucial to long-term peace and uniquely positioned to think beyond narrow definitions in the search for equality and equity between our peoples.
Women know how to count between one, two and confederation. Yet maybe women have been conspicuously absent in this debate because they know that the substance of how we live is much more important than the form of our governments.
