Judt Responds to Dershowitz's Characterization: 'It Is a Lie'

I emailed Tony Judt to tell him how Dershowitz had characterized his position re Israel. Judt responded:

"It is a lie, and implicitly defamatory (a dissolver of Israel is an anti-Zionist is an anti-semite, etc...). From Dershowitz one expects no better. But thanks to Leon [Wieseltier] it is the received reading of my text. What I actually said was that Israel cannot remain an exclusively Jewish state while aspiring to be a democracy and must, if it is to survive, become the state of all its citizens."

Comments

[Ben]

In all fairness, some aspects of Israel have been changing to become more open to its non-Jewish citizens, such as the first Arab cabinet minister. This topic is attached to a lot of emotional baggage and thus can't be discussed. In a way, it is more a matter for Israeli citizens and Jews to deal with. Outsiders can't tell others how to live when they are not severely encroaching on the freedoms of others. Thus I draw the line at criticizing the occupation and I push for a resolution but let the parties involved pick the resolution which at the moment is the two state solution. I do realize that there are likely going to be continued problems with the two-state solution, but I see just as many problems with a one-state solution. The issue comes down to a resource competition (mostly for land, and water) between groups who view themselves as completely distinct and not capable of mixing. If they could view themselves as partners who need to cooperate in the pursuit for shared/common goals, then I could see things working out. Maybe a one-state solution would force them to cooperate, but I could just as easily see it turning into a faction-based political gridlock because of the distinct economic and ethnic differences and because of the near parity in ethnic demographics.

I caught Niall Ferguson on the telly the other day talking about his new book and how there is always an upswing in conflict (particularly ethnic conflict) in areas at the fringes of an empire when its influence is in decline.

BTW Glenn Greenwald has a great piece on "The Meaning of Marty Peretz" today.

[Rowan Berkeley]

The parallel that I suggest you bear in mind is the ultra-Orthodox rhetoric that refers to the departure of large numbers of Jews from halachah as "spiritual genocide".

I do not mean that ultra-Orthodox are "behind zionism" - I simply mean that the mode of rhetoric has rubbed off from the ultra-Orthodox onto the zionists, many of the most aggressive of whom present themselves as religious in their own terms (Kahane, the Kooks, and Chabad).

[Ben]

I should clarify that Niall didn't say that the American Empire is in overall decline, but that its situation in the Middle East may end up being similar to the British Empire's losses in North American in the late 1700s. The American Empire is capable of recovering from such setbacks, although its current reliance of debt financing and its collective attention deficit disorder remain significant liabilities going forward.

The idea of "ethnic nationalism" and its sister concept of the "right to self determination" make it difficult to argue against having a Jewish ethnic homeland from within the prevailing ideological framework of international human rights. One needs to establish a way of confronting the issue such that the benefits of a binational solution clearly outweigh the alternatives.

The only major benefit I can imagine would be a significant improvement in the long-term stability of the region -- because the competition between Middle East states would no longer be seen through the prism of religious competition, but between various multiethnic states with emotionally tempering transnational ties between their respective populations. But, as it is probably obvious, regional stability may not be in the interests of the major players as it reduces regional arms sales as well the ability of the major players to wield influence.

[tough dove]

Leaving aside Judt's critique of the Jewish state as an anachronism, his suggestion that a single, bi-national state would somehow be easier to achieve than a two state solution is the product of magical thinking. It is a foreign policy fantasy that belongs in a Walt Disney movie or a little child's game.

Now, he is certainly right that it MAY be too late for a two-state solution. But his analysis of why this will be MORE difficult than a bi-national state is not based on anything that resembles reality.

For one thing, he exaggerates the (admittedly considerable) ability of Israeli settlers to sabotage a withdrawal from the occupied territories

He writes:

"There are too many settlements, too many Jewish settlers, and too many Palestinians, and they all live together, albeit separated by barbed wire and pass laws. Whatever the "road map" says, the real map is the one on the ground, and that, as Israelis say, reflects facts. It may be that over a quarter of a million heavily armed and subsidized Jewish settlers would leave Arab Palestine voluntarily; but no one I know believes it will happen. Many of those settlers will die�and kill� rather than move. The last Israeli politician to shoot Jews in pursuit of state policy was David Ben-Gurion, who forcibly disarmed Begin's illegal Irgun militia in 1948 and integrated it into the new Israel Defense Forces. Ariel Sharon is not Ben-Gurion."

That is his main argument in favor of the impracticality of two states. Now, Judt is correct that a quarter of a million settlers are "heavily subsidized." But if they are "heavily armed," that does not mean that more than a tiny minority would violently resist withdrawal. I don't remember the precise percentage of settlers who have told pollsters they would willingly leave right now if they got monetary compensation, but it is not insubstantial. And a majority would clearly leave willingly in the context of a comprehensive diplomatic settlement.

Yes, there will be a minority of hard core of militant resisters, and it will be extraordinarily difficult test of Israel's political and military system to get them out of there. But the Gaza withdrawal was implemented with minimal violence; it was a sign of what is possible.

For the two-state solution to endure, much of the "security barrier," as it currently stands, will need to come down. There are a host of daunting challenges. Are there big odds against any of this happening? Yes. But it is not beyond the realm of the possible. Compare its likelihood with what Judt admits would be required to establish a binational state:

"A binational state in the Middle East would require a brave and relentlessly engaged American leadership. The security of Jews and Arabs alike would need to be guaranteed by international force�though a legitimately constituted binational state would find it much easier policing militants of all kinds inside its borders than when they are free to infiltrate them from outside and can appeal to an angry, excluded constituency on both sides of the border.

"A binational state in the Middle East would require the emergence, among Jews and Arabs alike, of a new political class. The very idea is an unpromising mix of realism and utopia, hardly an auspicious place to begin. But the alternatives are far, far worse."

Perhaps, in his Walt Disney movie, it is better and more realistic to wait around for this "new class to emerge," and for an international force willing to insert itself into what would be a cauldron of ethnic resentment, and for Israeli Jews to renounce their entire national mythos and accept minority status, and for some kind of stable multi-ethnic democratic system to emerge in a region that doesn't exactly have a good track record for such systems...

But in the real Middle East, this idea is actually a cruel diversion.

[Ben]

tough dove, wrote "Now, he is certainly right that it MAY be too late for a two-state solution."

The way to avoid the human rights ideological framework's support of "ethnic nationalism" and the "right of self-determination" is to use the powerful but rather blunt argument of "apartheid." I'm obviously a bit off today.

Everyone one is aware of the power of this line of reasoning and the way it undermines any arguments put forth by Israel, the dominant party. An apartheid-based resolution would involve mounting international pressure on the Israelis for the creation of a binational solution, but ultimately the decision will or will not be made by the Israeli leadership. Even after the emergence of Mandela's peaceful leadership in South Africa, a resolution didn't come about until De Klerk was able to acknowledge and accept the end of the apartheid era -- and that happened in part because of the United State's reluctant imposition of sanctions. With South Africa it was a slow world-wide multi-generational debate about what to do -- the academic proto-boycotts of South Africa date to the late 1950s.

Was a two-state solution ever truly possible in South Africa? I know that they tried the bantustan solution, but it was obviously a sham designed solely to benefit the dominant whites.

I can't help but emphasize with the situation Jewish Israelis could find themselves in. A slow descend into a binational solution will be demoralizing in the extreme given how much effort has gone into the project.

[Seth]

A bi-national state is supported by everyone who either doesn't have to live in it or who thinks that somehow it will ultimately lead to a larger uni-national state.

[Alan]

Judt wrote:

" Or else Israel can keep control of the Occupied Territories but get rid of the overwhelming majority of the Arab population: either by forcible expulsion or else by starving them of land and livelihood, leaving them no option but to go into exile. In this way Israel could indeed remain both Jewish and at least formally democratic: but at the cost of becoming the first modern democracy to conduct full-scale ethnic cleansing as a state project, something which would condemn Israel forever to the status of an outlaw state, an international pariah.

"Anyone who supposes that this third option is unthinkable above all for a Jewish state has not been watching the steady accretion of settlements and land seizures in the West Bank over the past quarter-century, or listening to generals and politicians on the Israeli right, some of them currently in government. The middle ground of Israeli politics today is occupied by the Likud. Its major component is the late Menachem Begin's Herut Party. Herut is the successor to Vladimir Jabotinsky's interwar Revisionist Zionists, whose uncompromising indifference to legal and territorial niceties once attracted from left-leaning Zionists the epithet "fascist." When one hears Israel's deputy prime minister, Ehud Olmert, proudly insist that his country has not excluded the option of assassinating the elected president of the Palestinian Authority, it is clear that the label fits better than ever. Political murder is what fascists do."

***

Unfortunately, this is what the whole Israeli and Diaspora Zionist Establishment are going for. Avigdor Lieberman's ascendance is no accident. Here is a blatant racist, a settler from Moldova, who has been promoted to Deputy Prime Minister in an Israeli Government coalition that includes the Labor Party. He is responsible for dealing with "Strategic Threats". What are his qualifications? He was a disco bouncer!!!

Whether it will be Lieberman or someone else who will enforce this policy doesn't matter. There are plenty nationalist racists, religious or secular in Israel, who would do this right now if they had the green light from the Zionist leadership.

I don't see any meaningful counterforce to those plans. Israel becoming an "international pariah" has never been part of the equation for the Zionist Establishment, and if anyone has any doubt, you are more than welcome to review all the UN Security Council Resolutions (which are legally binding) condemning Israel's policies of the last 60 years and their zero effect. In fact, Israel has been condemned (and has defied) more UN Resolutions in UN history than all other countries combined!

So while someone like Lieberman, whose views just a few years ago were supposedly too extremist to be taken seriously, leaves the wilderness of the "fringe" and becomes Deputy Prime Minister and someone who can meet the Clintons and Rice in the US without a single eyebrow being raised, we are sitting here discussing the merits of the one-state solution.

Heaven help us all...

[Ben]

Seth wrote "A bi-national state is supported by everyone who either doesn't have to live in it or who thinks that somehow it will ultimately lead to a larger uni-national state."

I think the latter fear is common but it is a product of the rhetoric of the current zero-sum conflict. If there was a middle ground solution, the extremist rhetoric and impulses are likely to die down.

The question may become, as I suggested in my last comment, not whether the binational solution is a good solution but whether it is better than any of the alternatives for all parties involved.

The mostly homogenous ethnic organization of modern Europe resulted from mass migration, some of it forced/induced. It is likely, if one can go emotionally cold for a moment, make the argument that the South African whites could have avoided the apartheid-forced unification solution if they had been more historically brutal in driving the non-Whites completely into the neighboring countries or had created more viable/generous bantustans for the original non-white inhabitants.

I wonder what the historical literature on what the South African whites were thinking in the 1980s has to offer and whether there are parallels with the current situation in Israel-Palestine.

[wild man]

I think neither a one state or two state solution would work. In a two state solution, I don't see how the continued regional hegemony would stop, given America's desire to project its power by not reigning in on its rabid pit bull (while encouraging its rabid behavior). A one state solution would likely not work also because the euro-ethnocentric caste system will never go away, with divisions along skin color even among the jews. There could always be an democratic facade, but laws could easily be passed(and are currently being passed) that don't specify discrimination, but has the effect of oppressing whichever group they desire.

A better solution would be to relocate the state of israel to where it unofficially is already, that is the united states. A reason for middle east hegemony would be eliminated (we will still want to suck dry their oil though). The option of providing a state within a state would be beneficial since we won't have a complete brain drain if the elites wants to repatriate to their homeland, since now they could coexist in both places that is not half a world apart. If we had given them some deserted land in texas, it would have become silicon valley, seattle & redmond all in one. Plus it would have become twice the size of texas, with a good possiblity of slurping up half of mexico.

[Ben]

wild man wrote: "In a two state solution, I don't see how the continued regional hegemony would stop, given America's desire to project its power by not reigning in on its rabid pit bull (while encouraging its rabid behavior)."

While United States regional hegemony in the Middle East is an issue, I don't think it should be a major consideration in picking which solution is appropriate for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There will always be regional actors, and often they will attain hegemonic status. The issue is already too complex to try to find a solution that also addresses your need to mitigate the United States' regional ambitions. If Israel didn't exist, the US would find other client state to empower.

wild man wrote: "A one state solution would likely not work also because the euro-ethnocentric caste system will never go away, with divisions along skin color even among the jews."

Israel has disparities between ethnicities in terms of success and political roles, even within the various Jewish ethnicities. But this is the way it is everywhere on earth. Ask the blacks and latinos in the United States. Ask Canada's non-white minorities. Ask the Muslim immigrants to Europe or even the poor European states in comparison to France and Germany. This isn't a problem that one can really solve perfectly anywhere, thus I do not see it as a valid concern to introduce into this issue. There are many things that states can do to help mitigate these issues, such as a re-distributive tax and social welfare system as well as various types of affirmative action programs.

wild man wrote: "A better solution would be to relocate the state of israel to where it unofficially is already, that is the united states."

A Jewish friend of mine suggested that Israel was put in the wrong place. I never asked him if he was serious. I think that non-Israelis bring this up every once in a while, but I expect that Israelis would completely reject it as it amounts to the "transfer" (AKA ethnic cleansing) of Israeli Jews. If you thought a binational solution was controversial... ha!

[Rowan Berkeley]

I can't believe the hypocrisy of the comments on this thread. USA has gone to great lengths to smash "ethnic nationalism" in all other cases accessible to it, usually bvecause Jewish agitators have demanded they do so in the name of opposing racism.

[David]

Just for the novelty of it, you might want to hear a Palestinian voice on the question of what would be good for the Palestinians --
PALESTINIAN RIGHT OF RETURN IS FEASIBLE
Interview with Salman Abu-Sitta
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=12613

[Ben]

Rowan Berkely wrote "I can't believe the hypocrisy of the comments on this thread. USA has gone to great lengths to smash 'ethnic nationalism' in all other cases accessible to it..."

I think you should state some examples because I see it differently. There is Iraqi Kurdistan which the US tacitly accepted. While it is not a true nation state, it is pretty close to one in many ways. Also the US allowed for the creation of Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Bosnia (the ethnic nations which were formerly known as Yugoslavia.)

Although there is logic in opposing ethnic nationalism in areas when one desires regional hegemony. Internal divisions can make it harder for a nation to determine a coherent national interest, opening the door to external influences which can play internal factions against each other. I think the United States doesn't support or oppose ethnic nationalism movements, it just pragmatically acts in what it feels are its best interests.

Rowan Berkeley wrote: "usually because Jewish agitators have demanded they do so in the name of opposing racism."

I haven't seen much evidence of that, thus I can't say that I agree.

[Ben]

Philip wrote quite rightly that it is not possible to be an anti-Zionist and be acceptable in the mainstream.

Taking a cue of Luntz and Lakoff, I would suggest that the term "anti-Zionist" itself is the problem more than the specific position that Judt was advocating. The term "anti-Zionist" suggests opposition to the existance of Israel which suggested that you may want to push the Jews into the sea or that you are anti-Semitic or you simply oppose "ethnic nationalism" or you do not feel the Jews have the "right to self determination." The term anti-Zionism is closely connected to all these negative and counter productive associations and thus the issue with the term is a lot larger than just "Leon."

Because of all the negative connotations, I can't see any reason why one would want to use the term "anti-Zionism" unless you like swimming up stream.

More productive language may be found in the phrase "binational solution" in my opinion. The term "binational solution" which suggests a dual nation for both the original regional inhabitants and the more recent Jewish arrivals, allowing both their respective rights to self-determination and giving both of them a relatively-ethnic state. The binational state shouldn't be framed at all in an anti-Zionist construct but rather as the best stable long-term solution that deals with the difficult "apartheid"-like situation from a human rights perspective of compassion. ("Apartheid" is also a key frame that I discussed in an earlier post.)

In many ways, these two frames, "apartheid" and "binational solution" are complementary and near perfect in dealing with the more powerful and common counter arguments.

[Robert Hume]

"Because of all the negative connotations, I can't see any reason why one would want to use the term "anti-Zionism" unless you like swimming up stream.

More productive language may be found in the phrase "binational solution" in my opinion."

I agree with the general thought, but how about the officially approved "Two States living side-by-side in peace."?

[Rowan Berkeley]

How about "there'll be pie in the sky when you die"?

(p.s. - memo to self : do not in future make claims that would require access to the lexis-nexis database to substantiate.)

[Ben]

Robert Hume wrote: "I agree with the general thought, but how about the officially approved 'Two States living side-by-side in peace'?"

I wish it the best of luck. If I keep going I'll end up in Atlas Shrugged territory... oh well.

I think that a binational solution would diffuse a lot of the ethnic envy going on, but you could then criticize me as trying to force some false egalitarianism. But some forced egalitarianism, such as redistributed taxes and social welfare are necessary to maintain a stable society. The replacement of a "Jewish state" with a "Jewish Palestinian binational state" will make it harder to envy as an "other" because it will be harder to label it as a simply the selfish project of those foreign Zionists. Instead it will be a partnership, albeit a difficult one, between two people who have both had it pretty rough.

Israel isn't a stable solution in my opinion as long as it continues to grow as a target of envy/hate and is understood as an exclusive project of foreigners who view themselves as distinct/separate than the regional natives. I think that the neoconservatives stated desires to transform the region into a series of democracies was in part an attempt to make the region more hospitable to Israel by (via the theory of free market democracies) furthering economic growth and living standards in Arab/Muslim nations thus reducing the growing disparity between them and Israel and thus reducing the envy/hate. But the social engineering of other nations is a lot more risky that trying to do it to your own nation.

A great book I read on this rough topic area is "World on Fire" by Yale Law professor Amy Chua.

[David]

Wild Man wrote: "Plus it would have become twice the size of texas, with a good possiblity of slurping up half of mexico."

hehe

Ben wrote: "I expect that Israelis would completely reject it as it amounts to the "transfer" (AKA ethnic cleansing) of Israeli Jews. If you thought a binational solution was controversial... ha!"

Perhaps, but the "transfer" argument is undermined by the fact that 80% of the inhabitants of Israel today were born elsewhere (I believe). And most of them are still holding on to their citizenship from their earlier "homeland."

[Rowan Berkeley]

I think that the neoconservatives stated desires to transform the region into a series of democracies was in part an attempt to make the region more hospitable to Israel by (via the theory of free market democracies) furthering economic growth and living standards in Arab/Muslim nations thus reducing the growing disparity between them and Israel and thus reducing the envy/hate.

-- That is just the Thomas Friedman liberal consumerist spin on it, that isn't an argument a genuine neocon would find meaningful.

[Seth]

David - That seems like an incorrect figure. Please provide us with a citation for that.

The vast majority of Israelis and Jews in the Diaspora seek a two-state solution based on some rough version of the Geneva Accords. What do the vast majority of Palestinians seek?

[Alan]

Ben wrote: "I think that the neoconservatives stated desires to transform the region into a series of democracies was in part an attempt to make the region more hospitable to Israel by (via the theory of free market democracies) furthering economic growth and living standards in Arab/Muslim nations thus reducing the growing disparity between them and Israel and thus reducing the envy/hate."

Ben, I think that before parroting the neo-conservative official narrative one should at least do his homework and read the history of the Middle East in the 20th century. A good start is the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement. Most people don't even know that most of the present borders of the Middle East nations were carved in the British Foreign Office according to the "divide and rule" tactic that created artificial nations with no homogeneity whatsoever, usually favoring a minority group over others to rule effectively (see India as well). The French Mandate regarding Syria is also very instructive.

Either people will start reading or they will continue to be victims of the most ridiculous propaganda. We didn't see and we won't see any "democratization" efforts in Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and the other Gulf Kingdoms simply because it wouldn’t serve American interests, it's as simple as that. Democracy is unpredictable, better to do business with reliable puppet regimes, royal families and dictators who wouldn't survive without the West's support and thus keep playing ball.

In fact, Iran is much more democratic than any of the aforementioned countries but since democracy tends to bring anti-Western parties to power, suddenly the narrative changes.

If people can't see the blatant hypocrisy and double standards that are used to manipulate ignorant public opinion in supposedly caring for democracy in Iraq (and now Iran), two countries that also happened to be outside the West's sphere of influence, while at the same time supporting all the other ruthless dictators and royal families who are useful to the West and who among other things also fund the fundamentalists while beheading dissidents (see Saudi Arabia), then we deserve Bush, the neo-conservatives and all those warmongers who keep treating the public as morons.

For an introductory lesson on what motivates the interference of the West in the Middle East, see the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 - who wanted to nationalize the oil industry - by the British and US governments to get a clue on what is really at stake here.

Unless anyone would rather believe that had the Middle East exported watermelons instead of oil we would still have been involved there in order to advance Western and humanistic ideals!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosadegh
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria#French_mandate

[Ben]

Rowan Berkeley and Alan rightly called me out on my parroting of some neoconservative propaganda I most likely picked up from reading Thomas Friedman in the 2000 to 2002 time frame. I apologize for displaying such ignorance, but in my defense it wasn't central to the argument I was making with regards to the "binational solution."

I have read about Mossadegh via an article a few years back in the New York Review of Books and am familiar with Iran's current democratic system and Iran's previous significantly more moderate president. I'll read about Syria and the Sykes-Picot agreement now; thanks for the links.

[brenda]

Seth asks:

"The vast majority of Israelis and Jews in the Diaspora seek a two-state solution based on some rough version of the Geneva Accords. What do the vast majority of Palestinians seek?"

I've sent the Jimmy Carter book back to the library, so I have no citation, but it was my distinct impression on reading it that huge majorities of Israeli & Palestinian populations both desired the same thing -- to live peacefully side-by-side. There were several polling results in Carter's book.

The Geneva Initiative was well received by both populations, Israeli and Palestinian, and it was an exhaustively negotiated two-state solution.

Seth, why do you mention only Israeli and Diaspora Jews in your question? The Palestinian negotiating team for the Geneva Accords was the equivalent of the Israeli team. What do Diaspora Jews have to do with the Geneva Accords?

[Alan]

Ben,

I apologize for the combative tone of my response. In my defense, I have to say I am becoming increasingly more frustrated by the failure of the mainstream media to serve the citizenry and give the public even the most basic and fundamental facts that would help them understand policy, see beyond propaganda and make some common sense decisions.

Instead, the mainstream media treat almost anything the political establishment says - even the most outlandish claims! - as sincere, even on the gravest decision a country can ever take, to go to war.

Remember when Bill Clinton was almost taken out of office for having an intern give him blowjobs and lying about it? That was serious enough, even though not a single person died! Yet, when Bush's government lies shamelessly to get the country to war, with the consequences being 3.000 soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and no light at the end of the tunnel, he gets a free pass, because, after all, he has that "vision thing" for the transformation of the Middle East through "democracy"!

I'm glad you weren't put off by the tone of my post and decided instead to do some research and read on the basics of Middle East history and our involvement there. If only more people were willing to do just that before they let their leaders send their sons and daughters to wars...

[Alan]

P.S. Don't even get me started on why exactly the mainstream media is so complicit!