Strange Days

This is a bit weird. The Nation has an editorial up attacking proponents of a binational solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and saying that the outcome of the conflict should, instead, be the creation of two states, one Arab and one Jewish, living side-by-side. This is, obviously, the mainstream position on the issue. But something about the editorial infuriated TNR's Jamie Kirchick who saw it as an example of how "the oldest journal of opinion in the United States has yet to find an anti-American cause with which it cannot sympathize."

Is it Kirchick's view that to be a decent, patriotic American one must support the dissolution of Israel in favor of a unified secular state west of the Jordan river? Surely not. But that's the view The Nation was primarily attacking. So are we to understand that Kirchick thinks that to be a decent, patriotic American one must support the creation of a Greater Israel including the West Bank and Gaza Strip from which the Palestinian population will either be "removed" or else kept in a state of permament stateless captivity? I'm fairly certain that's a good deal more extreme than TNR's editorial line.

Comments

It appears that Kirchick didn't really read the Nation editorial - he only scanned it. He seems to think that a "binational" solution is the same as a "two-state" solution. At any rate, if you posit that he thinks they mean the same thing, you can understand what he's saying and see how he's wrong. The alternative is that he's writing gibberish. Read it again and see if you agree with me.

Posted by Bloix | June 2, 2007 8:15 PM

The editorial warmly introduces three pieces in the magazine, each of which "favorably discusses some form of binational or democratic state in all of Israel-Palestine, whose citizens would have equal rights or shared sovereignty." - Kirchick

Kirchick thought the editorial was recommending a single state solution; so he got angry and stopped reading.

I do the same thing all the time.

Posted by Gary Sugar | June 2, 2007 9:04 PM

"So are we to understand that Kirchick thinks that to be a decent, patriotic American one must support the creation of a Greater Israel including the West Bank and Gaza Strip from which the Palestinian population will either be "removed" or else kept in a state of permament stateless captivity? I'm fairly certain that's a good deal more extreme than TNR's editorial line."

I'm not so sure it is.

I've always been in favor of the two state solution, but I'm coming around to the view that the settlement program may have mixed up the populations so much that it may be impossible to implement. That would leave a one state solution, one version of which would have voting rights for non-Jews and one version of which would not have voting rights for non-Jews.

I'm also not so sure that the one state solution, with voting rights for everyone, would be the disaster for Israeli Jews that everyone thinks it is. In South Africa, whites make up about a tenth of the population, and the port-Apartheim government has appropriated exactly one white farm. Afrikaner culture is far from disappearing. Jews still make up a majority of the population between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, and I suspect that mainly Jewish parties would hold a majority in the Knesset in the first few elections. A one state solution would simply not change that much until people on both sides cooled down. Its even the best way to keep the settlements.

Another point in favor is that a one state solution could be implemented simply by an administrative ruling by the government that Isreal's borders extend to the Jordan and Gaza, and that all residents of the formerly occupied territories would be made Israeli citizens. There is no need to negotiate with anyone, no need to change anything else, except through legislation passed normally through the Knesset. Hamas and Fatah would have the choice of competing as parties in the next election to the Knesset, as long as they met the constitutional requirement of supporting democracy, or turning to violence. If they turned to violence, we basically have the same situation as now, except that Hamas and Fatah are clearly rejecting a path that could eventually give them some real influence.

The strongest argument I can think of against a one state solution is that it would likely mean the end of the automatic right of return for Jews, so if the U.S. government started instituting programs there would be no refuge for American Jews. I understand why this would be common wisdom in the late 1940s, but this increasingly looks like unlikely due to changed attitudes to minorities in the U.S. and Europe.

Posted by Ed | June 2, 2007 9:08 PM

As long as we're on the topic of TNR weirdness, let me mention this truly awful little item by Marty Peretz, in which he says he has little sympathy for kidnapped British reporter Alan Johnston because he regards Johnston as a propagandist for the Palestinians.

Marty uses as evidence for this Johnston's taped message denouncing Israel, the U.S. and Great Britain, without considering that the statement of a kidnapped man might be, oh, coerced or something. (Not that Marty's sentiment wouldn't be odious even if he were right about Johnston, but still...)

Posted by Tim | June 2, 2007 9:18 PM

The Nation has an editorial up attacking proponents of a binational solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and saying that the outcome of the conflict should, instead, be the creation of two states, one Arab and one Jewish, living side-by-side.

In the same issue, they also have an op-ed by Saree Makdisi (Edward Said's nephew), arguing the exact opposite: For a Secular Democratic State.

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 2, 2007 9:27 PM

The one state solution recognizes there is a single country with Jerusalem as its capital. Whether it's called Israel or Palestine is irrelevant to historical reality. The two state partition idea has been a failure, inflamed passions legitimately and otherwise, and betrays more than one person's heritage. Junk it now before it's too late.

Posted by The Other Alan | June 2, 2007 9:27 PM

Whoops - they have no less than three op-eds calling for the one state solution (should have clicked on the link and read before posting).

Matt,

I think you and Kirchick are talking past eachother.

But that's the view The Nation was primarily attacking.

I don't think they were "attacking" it - the pieces on the subject in that issue are running 3 to 1 in favor of the one state solution.

They allow 3 "dissolve Israel" pieces and then have one piece - yes, the official editorial - disagreeing (not really attacking - and Kirchick used the word "sympathize" - not "support") with that position - on the grounds that it's not realistic and there's no popular support for it on either side.

But I don't see what has Kirchick so upset. For a magazine that frequently has Alexander Cockburn writing on the I/P conflict, it's a positively mainstream piece.

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 2, 2007 9:51 PM

Matt, did you even read the editorial and the response? The Nation editorial hardly "attacks" proponents of a binational solution. For one thing, the starting point of the editorial is the introduction of three articles published in the current issue of The Nation which are skeptical of the two-state solution, and each of which "favorably discusses some form of binational or democratic state in all of Israel-Palestine, whose citizens would have equal rights or shared sovereignty."

The central message of the editorial, as I understood it, was that while The Nation continues to support the two-state solution for now, that support is not fixed in stone, and may not last for long. They say:

Nation editors didn't seek out these conclusions, nor do they represent a change in our policy. For many years this magazine has supported a two-state solution in which Israel would fully withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967, in accordance with UN resolutions, and a State of Palestine would be formed in those territories, with its capital in East Jerusalem. But we recognize that as realities on the ground shift, so must our thinking. [my emphasis] Many have begun to wonder whether partition is still possible, given the growing settlements in the West Bank; the collapse of the peace process; the hardening of Israeli attitudes in the face of a second, bloody intifada; the descent of the Palestinian national camp into fratricide; and the unwillingness or inability of the Bush Administration to re-engage in serious peace talks or even to recognize the democratically elected Palestinian government.

So I would say that decision to publish the three pieces plus the "still holding on for the two-state solution, but increasingly ambivalent" editorial amount to a sort of warning shot over the heads of avowed centrist supporters of the two-state solution. Part of the warning is that as the occupation continues, international support for a binational soultion can only grow:

And from the Israeli perspective, every "defeat" of Palestinian resistance, every new settlement, will only hasten the day when two populations of roughly equal size, one Jewish and one Palestinian, will be seen by the international community as functioning in essentially one state, under an apartheid system. The "separation wall," which divides the two populations while imprisoning one under the control of the other, will only accelerate that perception. In other words, the Jewish state, qua Jewish state, will in the long run be just as threatened by continuation along the present unilateralist path as by a major shift toward negotiations and reconciliation.

The other part of the warning is that The Nation, a significant source of opinion leadership on the left, is losing patience with inaction on a two-state solution, and they may soon be forced to reevaluate their position. Whether anybody should care what The Nation thinks is anouther question. But Kirchick apparently cares, and understands what they're saying. That's why he's pissed.

As for the issue of "anti-Americanism", there really is no pro-American or anti-American position on the Israel-Palestine question. Some Americans care what happens there, but I tend to doubt that the outcome of this most tiresome of conflicts will have a significant long term impact on US interests one way or another, despite occasional appearances to the contrary.

I also tend to doubt there will ever be either a genuine two-state solution to the conflict or a binational solution.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 2, 2007 9:53 PM

Actually, the tendency of geographical expansionists to "get more than they bargained for" when they conquer and annex the lands of dissimilar peoples is pretty common in history.

For example, recall that 40 years ago, the powerful French Right was absolutely committed to the doctrine that "Algeria is an inalienable part of France" and was willing to sacrifice unlimited blood and treasure to maintain this policy.

But if they'd succeeded, then today "France" would be roughly 50% Muslim, and possibly on a direct path to establishing Islam as the official national religion.

Posted by RKU | June 2, 2007 10:05 PM

"In South Africa, whites make up about a tenth of the population, and the port-Apartheid government has appropriated exactly one white farm."

So far...
South Africa is not doing well. The economy has been flat for the last 30 years, while life expectancy, after peaking at 63, has dropped to 45. Crime is rampant. Meanwhile, in all of this, most of the white population continues to complain about things and to refuse to give up privileges.
I'm not at all convinced that, with the gradual passing away of the Nelson Mandela generation of the ANC, we aren't going to see some demagogue coming to power.

Now in Israel the situation is, so far, not as unbalanced, but everything I see there shows me the same sort of idiot mentality that refuses to contemplate what the consequences of their actions will be one generation down the road. By the time Israelis are willing to give up some minor things for the sake of peace, minor things are not going to be enough.

Posted by Maynard Handley | June 2, 2007 10:49 PM

"everything I see there shows me the same sort of idiot mentality that refuses to contemplate what the consequences of their actions will be one generation down the road"

There are none so blind...

Posted by rilkefan | June 2, 2007 11:41 PM

"Meanwhile, in all of this, most of the white population continues to complain about things and to refuse to give up privileges."

The white population is the golden goose that makes South Africa the richest country in Sub-Saharan Africa. The ANC has been smart enough so far not to kill the goose, though they have choked it a little. Kill the goose and South Africa becomes another Zimbabwe.

Posted by Harry | June 3, 2007 2:38 AM

(1) Zimbabwe once had their own golden goose. Didn't change things. I am not describing what I want to happen, or what I think should happen. I am describing what I think will happen.

(2) Have you actually LOOKED at the numbers for the South African economy. I wasn't lying when I said it had been flat for 30 yrs.
it is interesting to compare SA and Botswana.
SA per capita in 2000 $: 10, 425 in 1975; 10,286 in 2006
Botswana : 1,548 9,140
Strip out the black/white disparity, and you're probably better off being black in Botswana --- except for the fact that their AIDS situation is even worse than in SA.

http://tools.google.com/gapminder/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=6.76387096774193;ti=2004$zpv;v=1$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=SP.DYN.LE00.IN;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=20;iid=SP.POP.TOTL;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=1004;iid=SP.POP.DPND;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=466;dataMax=64299$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=24;dataMax=82$map_s;sma=50;smi=1.2$inds=ZAF_tG3,,,,;BWA_tG3,,,,

And don't give me some sob story about how this is all the fault of the ANC. The SA economy basically started flat-lining at the end of the 60s and has never recovered since then.

If the whites are SA's golden goose, it's been a long time since they delivered.

Cape Verde and Swaziland have both also done well over the last 30 yrs, as has Mauritious (though you can argue if that counts as sub-Saharan Africa). A few more years at these rates and I could see Cape Verde overtaking SA, with Swaziland (perhaps) doing so in 15 years. (Swaziland has the advantages of no real ethnic problems, but of course there is AIDS, and they have a monarchical system that, while not actively evil, is happy to waste money.)

It's not clear to me that squeezing the whites and, sure, having a number of them leave the country (as opposed to simply instating stupid policies ala Zimbabwe) would be such a bad thing. At the end of the day, I think SA's fate is more about managing expectations and preventing various ethnic hatreds than it is about macro-economic policies, as long as those are not downright destructive (eg Khmer Rouge or Great Leap Forward). SA growing at 3% pa might upset those economists who claim it could grow at 8% pa with the right incentives, but it's a whole lot better than SA in civil war and regressing at 25% pa.

Posted by Maynard Handley | June 3, 2007 3:21 AM

"Zimbabwe once had their own golden goose. Didn't change things."

Hello? When whites were allowed to run their farms unmolested, Zimbabwe was the bread basked of sub-Saharan Africa. Today, after Mugabe took the whites farms and gave them to his goons, Zimbabwe is at risk of famine. The country is now an economic basket case.

Posted by harry | June 3, 2007 4:10 AM

Huh. Harry, that was exactly my point.
Zim had whites who were the golden goose. When ZANU took over, initially they were left unmolested. Then Mugabe needed a distraction from the fact that independence had changed little for most citizens, and the fact that they were the golden goose did not change what happened.

Both Zim and SA should have engaged in some Taiwan-style land reform in the early days. Zim did not, and things played out as they played out. SA has not, and I suspect white South Africans and (in time) black South Africans will pay the price.

Posted by Maynard Handley | June 3, 2007 4:41 AM

I swear yglesias must write these tedius little entries in the hope that his readers wont bother to click on the links he provides.

From reading kirchick's plank post it is abundantly clear what it is in the editorial which draws his ire. You acting as if his objections were unspecific and that we can only infer he was objecting to the editorials central point, is clear nonsense.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | June 3, 2007 6:27 AM

Jamie Kirchick is a writers for The New Republic, and he/she doesn't like arabs. I'm sure that's a huge to surprise to someone...

Posted by soullite | June 3, 2007 7:50 AM

Matt, you didn't even note the weirdest part of The Plank piece: that it seamlessly, without missing a step, goes from talking about Israeli/Palestinian politics to the claim that "the oldest journal of opinion in the United States has yet to find an anti-American cause with which it cannot sympathize" -- in other words, just assumes that a position on the Israel/Palestinian question (binationalism) is, not just "anti-Israel" (which I guess was implicit) but anti-American. How is it anti-American to advocate for a particular solution to the mid-east situation? Only if you absolutely conflate American interests -- hell, simply being American -- with your particular interpretation of Israeli interests.

Posted by Stephen Frug | June 3, 2007 10:50 AM

" The Nation has an editorial up attacking proponents of a binational solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and saying that the outcome of the conflict should, instead, be the creation of two states..."

Matt, I suggest that you go back and re-read the editorial.

Posted by David Sucher | June 3, 2007 10:58 AM

It's funny how the PLO's biggest cheerleaders for many years, seeing the bodies pile up in the streets of Gaza, are now talking about binational states.

Guess Palestinian self-rule ain't quite what these people imagined.

Posted by David | June 3, 2007 3:42 PM

... example of how "the oldest journal of opinion in the United States has yet to find an anti-American cause with which it cannot sympathize."

Clearly, the assumption is that since it was written in The Nation, it had to be a support of some anti-American cause, with only remaining chore being identifying the exact nature of that cause.

Posted by piotr | June 3, 2007 5:22 PM

"Guess Palestinian self-rule ain't quite what these people imagined."

Unlike, say, Iraq self-rule? Wasn't the invasion of Iraq all about bringing democracy to that country?

Posted by Maynard Handley | June 3, 2007 6:44 PM

hwryoszn sctxzguwq rzsq tuolc egqlhbca ndmjatpxh fgtyaplk

Posted by ubqmwvh brhtgon | June 7, 2007 11:56 AM