Matthew Yglesias (February 22, 2008) - Alternatives to Palestine (Foreign Policy)

Please, please ... it's Kosovars rather than Kosovans.

Posted by da Square Wheelman | February 22, 2008 11:37 AM

Please, please ... it's Kosovars rather than Kosovans.

Posted by da Square Wheelman | February 22, 2008 11:38 AM

Is a "Jewish state" of any kind compatible with liberalism, any more than a Christian state or a white state? There will always be people who aren't Jewish and others who aren't considered Jewish enough.

Posted by Pithlor | February 22, 2008 11:38 AM

Exactly right, Matt. I'd like to claim credit based on my reply to the "A Pander Built for Me" post, but I doubt you read that.

Posted by TH | February 22, 2008 11:40 AM

Yup, exactly right. Albanian Kosovars were citizens of Serbia. Palestinians are not citizens of Israel.

I assume Peretz is in favor of option 4: apartheid.

Posted by John | February 22, 2008 11:42 AM

Let me give you Marty's answers, in both Wingnut Yiddish, and in plain English.

Wingnut Yiddish: Jordanian citizenship.
Plain English: Apartheid or ethnic cleansing, depending on the needs of the Israeli economy.

Posted by Joe S. | February 22, 2008 11:48 AM

The return of Peretz blogging. I love it!

Posted by Marshall | February 22, 2008 11:49 AM

Great Post. I had never seen it summarized this clearly.

Posted by Carole | February 22, 2008 11:50 AM

Can someone please tell me what is wrong with option #2, equal citizenship?

Posted by Eunice | February 22, 2008 11:51 AM

Pithlor, it certainly isn't compatible with true liberalism, but then I don't think we need to demand pure Enlightenment-inspired liberalism from every country on Earth. It's just important that all people have equal rights under the law, and to the extent that demographics dictate that granting Palestinians equal rights would be a de facto death of Israel as a Jewish state, the state of Israel with its current borders is untenable.

However, to support your point, I'd look to mid-19th century European nationalism. The example of Germany and where its borders should lie is a great allegory. There is a quote from the time that I don't quite recall from my college history courses, that said that the inherent problem was that no matter how narrow the borders, it would include non-Germans, no matter how broad the borders, it would exclude Germans. The very idea of a homogeneous state for any one nation is impractical for this reason.

But it probably isn't a huge issue to have a minority of non-Jews living in a Jewish state, with laws influenced by Jewish belief, as long as these people are treated fairly and are given equal rights and representation under that law. It's the absence of equal rights and representation that is the issue, and results in tyranny.

Posted by TH | February 22, 2008 11:51 AM

"Is a "Jewish state" of any kind compatible with liberalism, any more than a Christian state or a white state? There will always be people who aren't Jewish and others who aren't considered Jewish enough."

I'm not sure why it would need to be compatible with liberalism, but the idea of countries having official state religions is not exactly unique. Great Britain, for example, is an "Anglican state", although citizens who are of other religions, including Muslims and Jews, are able to vote and serve in Parliament. Similarly, Muslim and Jewish Israeli citizens are both able to vote and serve in the Israeli Knesset.

It's not unreasonable for Israeli Jews to want to remain the majority in their state, any more than it would be for the English, Welsh and Scots to remain the majority in Great Britain.

Posted by Juan | February 22, 2008 11:54 AM

Eunice, the problem with #2 (equal citizenship) is demographics. Non-Jewish Palestinians are a large portion of the population within the borders of the state of Israel. They are also the faster growing population. Therefore, a time would come in the not too distant future when Jews represented less than a majority of the citizens of Israel. By definition, with an equal vote and political representation for all, it would cease to be a Jewish state.

To the extent that most Israeli Jews and others around the world believe that there should be a Jewish state, this option is impossible.

Posted by TH | February 22, 2008 11:58 AM

"Can someone please tell me what is wrong with option #2, equal citizenship?"

A limitless number of Arabs could then immigrate to Israel claiming to be Palestinian. Once in control of the government politically, the Arabs could then turn the resources of the state the Jews built against them.

Posted by Juan | February 22, 2008 12:00 PM

The Israelis should just give the West Bank back to the Jordanians and let them deal with it.

Posted by Chuchundra | February 22, 2008 12:01 PM

Please, please ... it's Kosovars rather than Kosovans.

Isn't it pretty much "Albanians in Kosovo"?

Posted by example | February 22, 2008 12:07 PM

A limitless number of Arabs could then immigrate to Israel claiming to be Palestinian.

Not to be confused with the limitless number of Russians immigrating to Israel, claiming to be Jewish...

Posted by hed | February 22, 2008 12:16 PM

"Not to be confused with the limitless number of Russians immigrating to Israel, claiming to be Jewish..."

Certainly a non-trivial minority of Russian immigrants were pretending to be Jews.

Posted by Juan | February 22, 2008 12:25 PM

One option you missed which people such as Professor Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy promote would be for the Arab states around them to adopt them as citizens. This is attractive to true-believing "a land without a people for a people without a land" guys because it supports their idea that there are no Palestinians and the people who were living in what is now Israel / the West Bank / Gaza were always either just "Arabs" or should properly be thought of as Egyptians, Syrians, etc.

Posted by vermando | February 22, 2008 12:25 PM

Option 5: genocide

Posted by hebbejebbe | February 22, 2008 12:29 PM

The argument above is one that is so obvious that it says something about how warped discussion is on Israel that it needs to be said. This is not to denigrate the argument, because unfortunately it does need to be said. But it is hard to imagine any other issue on which putative liberals would not see the relevance of the fact that a group of people based on their ethnicity are not citizens of the country in which they reside.

The point is not that arguments cannot be made in defense of Israel's practices. It is just that the argument should be based on acknoledging what those practices are and how extreme they are in certain regards. An even more extreme view of this comes up when suppoters of Israel claim that Israel gave up Gaza in the name of peace and got rockets in return. Israel has controlled all borders (either directly or through others) into Gaza since pulling out. Again there is no other imaginable situation in which putative liberals would call that peace.

On the other side though, Israel cannot tolerate a majority Palestinian citizenry in the way Jordan can in large part because citizenry in Jordan is not the same thing as citizenry in Israel. So there is certainly a degree to which Israel's having a more democratic government limits it in this regard. An honest defense of Israeli's practices would presumably start with that regard.

But the debate is so twisted that supporters of Israel like Peretz are not required to make an honest argument since the people around him apparently don't require one.

Posted by Lon | February 22, 2008 12:36 PM

Great Britain, for example, is an "Anglican state"

No. England is an "Anglican nation" - the Church of England is the Established Church with the Queen at its head. The Presbyterian Church of Scotland is the national church of Scotland, but it is not an established church - it's independent from both the Scottish and UK parliaments. The Churches of Wales and Ireland have both been disestablished.

Posted by ajay | February 22, 2008 12:37 PM

Is a "Jewish state" of any kind compatible with liberalism, any more than a Christian state or a white state? There will always be people who aren't Jewish and others who aren't considered Jewish enough.

Can someone please tell me what is wrong with option #2, equal citizenship?

This is really easy to answer. Equal citizenship for Palestinians would not be a stable solutions. Eventually, it would result in inequal citizenship for Jews. Personally, I think it's damn near impossible to argue otherwise. But even if you disagree, you have to admit it's a pretty compelling reason. As a result, it justifies a jewish state in Israel. Now maybe the hardship of the Palestinians is more of a problem than the Jewish concerns here, and it certainly doesn't excuse the foreign policy of Israel, but I think it's a pretty good argument for why a Jewish state is a liberal solution, in this case.

Posted by mpowell | February 22, 2008 12:42 PM

da Square Wheelman beat be to it. I'm sorry but I don't know if I can take him or what he says seriously if he can't get that right. He is in a business where grammar matters if he can't get that right - out of sure spite or lazyness - then I have to go MEH and tune out whatever comes next. Maybe it is petty - and I surely can't claim to part of the grammar police - but to it is roughly analogous to Republicans saying Democrat when they should say Democratic.

Posted by ET | February 22, 2008 12:55 PM

Equal citizenship for Palestinians would not be a stable solutions. Eventually, it would result in inequal citizenship for Jews.

Possibly, but it's not a sure thing. On the flip side, the current "equal-citizenship" for Palestinian-Israelis is really a unequal citizenship. They are discriminated against by quasi-state andf(until very recently) state agencies, and no Arab political party has ever been permitted to join the government.

So one problem with "equal citizenship" for Palestinians is that, from the record of the past 40 years, Jewish Israelis do not want Arabs to be equal citizens.

Posted by Pusher | February 22, 2008 12:56 PM

I'm not sure why it would need to be compatible with liberalism but the idea of countries having official state religions is not exactly unique. Great Britain, for example, is an "Anglican state"

Who exactly are you trying to fool here? Liberalism in this case refers to something like the ideas of the enlightenment, you know, the ones on which the US was built. And as for Great Britain being an "Anglican state" - have you ever been to there? I can think of few countries were religion plays less of a role in public life than here, nobody really gives a damn about it.

If we take everything at face value, we would have to conclude that the UK is a monarchy governed by socialists, which would be rather misleading in that the Queen doesn't have any power and Gordon Brown is not a socialist in any meaningful sense of the word. And in case you're getting worried, capitalism is alive and well in London, despite its socialist mayor.

Posted by novakant | February 22, 2008 1:01 PM

mpowell,

I presume by this very same logic, you also opposed equal citizenship rights for blacks in America and in South Africa. Do you realize how stupid and racist it is to say "equal citizenship for Palestinians is inequal [sic] citizenship for Jews."

I really find it amusing that people aren't ashamed of parroting such a moronic, racist, despicable line that openly argues for discrimination against and suppression of 5 million people because if this discrimination and suppression were to end, we would have the nightmare of equality, and that is not good enough for the oppressive group which demands superiority.

Only American Zionists have the idiocy, racism, and downright nuttyness to utter such bullcr@p.

Posted by saifedean | February 22, 2008 1:03 PM

Why does young Mr. Yglesias continue to mock and slander my friend and colleague Martin Peretz? Marty is universally hailed as the greatest mind of his generation, and wealthy women are powerless to resist his sensual charms. One might even say that there is a whiff of anti-semitism in this shocking attack on Mr. Peretz's enlightened wisdom.

As a sage observer named Juan notes, there is nothing unusual about Israel being a "Jewish State," just as Great Britain is an "Anglican State." And Israeli Arabs are generously granted many rights, just like the Catholics, Jews, and Muslims in England.

Additionally, there is nothing unusual about the overwhelming majority of Arab Muslims in Israeli territory living in refugee camps that lack basic resources, while Israelis seize the best land to build heavily-guarded settlements and control the roads and water supply. This is strikingly similar to the Catholic internment camps in the Scottish Highlands, the Muslims who are forcibly interned in the Cornwall Strip, and the Jews living in the occupied territories of Wales who need to acquire work permits and undergo daily strip searches to enter Cardiff and Swansea.

Marty Peretz is right. Only a biased liberal reporter with a double standard could possibly view Israel and the UK as completely different types of religious states.

Posted by Peretzzatura | February 22, 2008 1:05 PM

"Filthy shvatz goyim" as some grand Israeli said should just be drugged, put in some big glass bottle and shaken and then you let the cockroaches out to fend for themselves.

Posted by Trevor | February 22, 2008 1:08 PM

Not to go off topic but Judaism isn't the "official" state religion of Israel. Israeli laws are not based on the Torah, and apply equally to people of all religious backgrounds (with the exception of mandatory military service). There are sizable Arab and Christian minorities (as well as atheists, of course).

The problem with giving Palestinians citizenship has far less to do with the fact that they believe in Mohammed, it is because they do not share Israeli identity and culture. Best example is the conflict between Shia and Sunni muslims - most would consider their differences to be minor from purely religious point of view. That isn't stopping them from killing each other, however. If Israel were to give Palestinians citizenship, Palestinians would not suddenly start thinking of themselves as Israeli - they will always be Palestinians first and foremost. It will still be 2 countries in all but the name.

Posted by MS | February 22, 2008 1:10 PM

One of A.M. Rosenthal's last and most embarrassing roles as a Times opinion columnist was his vigorous apologetics on behalf of Serb nationalism and its poster boy, Slobo Milosevic. You could look it up, as they say. And, apropos Marty Peretz, it was pretty obvious where Rosenthal was coming from.

Posted by elle loco | February 22, 2008 1:23 PM

Remind me again why Peretz isn't writing for Townhall.com, which is far more suited to his talent level?

And I'd really rather not see him mull over options three and four, thank you.

Posted by Michael Bérubé | February 22, 2008 1:25 PM

Do you realize how stupid and racist it is to say "equal citizenship for Palestinians is inequal [sic] citizenship for Jews."

I'm sorry, perhaps you could tell me about all the wonderful democracy loving, liberal majority muslim governments around the world where Jews are treated equally and with respect. I don't know exactly what it would look like, but Israel would not suddenly morph into Canada. Even if it's party their fault for abusing the Palestinians for so long, the end result of an equal right's one state solution would not be a liberal one. I guess it makes me racist to observe that the cultural legacy of the Palestinians does not lead to them holding a lot of liberal values, which would be necessary for a majority Palestinian government to remain liberal- particularly in its treatment of its minority Jewish population.

Posted by mpowell | February 22, 2008 1:29 PM

perhaps you could tell me about all the wonderful democracy loving, liberal majority Jewish governments around the world where Muslims are treated equally and with respect.

Posted by npowell | February 22, 2008 1:45 PM

The other problem with Israel is its definition as a "Jewish" state making it, in effect, an ethnic democracy.

Supporters of Israel hate this argument, responding that is there anything wrong with this given that France is a "French" state and Germany a "German" state. The answer is yes and no. To the extent that France, Germany and other ethnic nation states discriminate based on blood and frown upon displays of "otherness," yes. France, for example, has a strongly assimilationist cultural model, which is fine in theory but in practice tends to make it very difficult for people from certain immigrant backgrounds to hold multiple identities.

Germany is a more interesting example because there policies on citizenship were, until recently, VERY similar to those used in Israel. An ethnic Turk or Kurd who had been born in Germany all his life was unable to obtain citizenship though an ethnic Volga German from the former USSR who spoke only Russian could obtain citizenship very quickly.

And, frankly, this was a bad policy too and is now changing.

And that's the problem. It's not merely that the Israeli state has a Jewish character -- as the majority, you'd expect that it would. The problem is that when the state defines itself as "Jewish," it automatically excludes a LARGE chunk of its population (~20% and probably 30% in the next 50 years). If the state were defined more by a secular "Israeli" culture and by the Hebrew language, that might work, because that could allow the prospect of assimilation. But a "Jewish" identity, based purely on blood, is inherently exclusionary. It's a very 19th/early 20th century model of citizenship and nationhood and while Israel certainly isn't the only country in the world to follow it, it's an increasingly antiquated model that other countries are slowly abandoning.

The other big problem with this is that, in Israel's case, it causes real practical problems. The Japanese have a very strongly ethnic state and it's very difficult for people of Korean, Chinese or Ainu descent to fit in or be accepted either legally or socially as "Japanese." And that's a problem. But it's a much smaller one because the country is overwhelmingly ethnic Japanese.

That's not true in Israel. A very large (and growing) minority is NOT Jewish and, by the definition of "Jewishness," cannot be, barring mass religious conversions. That's a real problem, because it ensures that the country has a large and restless minority that will never feel wholly part of the state.

Some will blame the Israeli Arabs/Palestinian-Israelis for there own predicament, but ask yourself if, as, say, a Jew, you would be able to feel accepted by a state that explicitly defines itself as "Christian," or if you're non-white in a state that defines itself as "white." This might be reconcilable if you're a very tiny minority, but if your minority group is large, you have a good claim on being considered an integral part of the national body.

And Israeli policies DO make Arab citizenship a second-class phenomenon, though there have been strides in the right direction. Israeli citizens, on passports and ID cards, are classified as "Jewish" or "Arab" or "Druze" or "Bedouin." And citizens of Jewish classification have a host of both official and unofficial privileges, including access to the best land (through the Jewish agency) and other quasi-state bodies. Moreover, as someone above pointed out, no Arab political party has ever been accepted into a governing Israeli coalition and there's in fact a big stigma against it (though of course, the Arab parties are also firmly rejectionist and both sides share some blame here).

At the same time, I can recognize the desire of Israeli Jews to have a Jewish state to maintain Jewish identity in the world, so it's a complex issue. Ideally, Israel would simply be a state for all its citizens. This wouldn't mean the loss of all Jewish character to Israel because by having a Jewish majority, it de facto would maintain a Jewish character. The major national holidays could still be Jewish holidays, the language could still be Hebrew, etc.

In practice, I'm not sure that is viable or ever will be politically viable. So perhaps half-steps could satisfy. Perhaps dismantle the Jewish agency and stop classifying citizens on ID cards. Change a few of the lyrics to Hatikva (that talk about the "Jewish" soul). Go on calling Israel a "Jewish" state but recognize the Arabs as a "national minority" or "national community," and provide bilingual Arabic services and a university, at least in areas of major Arab settlement (like the Gallilee). And maybe amend the Jewish immigration law, perhaps granting preference to Jews who are being oppressed or even preferentially accepting immigrants from certain countries (i.e. the U.S.) but otherwise making the citizenship process the same regardless of ethnic background.

In short, keep the definition of "Jewish state" but recognize Arabs as a part of the state as well and do away with the more overt and discriminatory aspects of Israeli law and custom.

Posted by Andrew | February 22, 2008 1:56 PM

Matt is avoiding the other wingnut option: Gaza goes to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan, which we should call option 5, absorption of the Palestinian territories by other countries. This is what (partially) happened from 1948 to 1967, though at least in Gaza the Palestinians weren't full citizens and were under Egyptian occupation.

This isn't a realistic option due to the growth of Palestinian national consciousness and the adamant opposition of Egypt and Jordan, but it is certainly preferable to options 3 and 4.

I do believe some Palestinians should become citizens of other Arab states - like those that are born in other Arab states and denied citizenship. There's no reason a third-generation refugee camp dweller in Lebanon shouldn't have Lebanese citizenship, for example. If he later wants to have Palestinian citizenship in a future Palestinian state, let him have that too.

Posted by Hektor Bim | February 22, 2008 1:56 PM

While we're here, is someone going to show the White South Africans one example of a country where a Black majority has respected Whites?

Oh I'm sorry, wrong decade. But hasn't this argument already been done?

There are only four outocmes - citizenship in surrounding countries is just and example of Matt's transfer outocme while genocide is just an example of Matt's ethnic cleansing outcome.

But nobody said an outcome has to be reached at any particular time. Supporters of Israel don't want independence, really don't want a South-Africa style-outcome that would deprive them of their ethnic state and can't get any more outright transfer or ethnic cleansing.

They seem to be betting, counting on keeping the status quo for as long as possible and not accepting one state until the situation has really turned against them. Like White South Africans in 1970, maybe the world will look different in 1990, but let's squeeze out as many years of the status quo as we can. And maybe the world won't look different in 1990.

One interesting thing to mention is that the consensus Western view is for separate independence. The consensus Arab view is for one state that isn't Jewish. This is the core dispute between the Western world and the Muslim world.

Posted by Arnold Evans | February 22, 2008 2:08 PM

Isn't it pretty much "Albanians in Kosovo"?

Yes. Good point. The Serbs were there first after all and named the place "Kosovo", so logically they are "Kosovars" as well. "Kosovar" is a geographic label, not an ethnic one. Ironically, it is really the same argument that says there are no "Palestinians", just "Arabs in Palestine." It is funny that so many people seem to take opposite positions on Kosovo and Palestine for political reasons - but morally and ethically they are essentially the same issue.

Posted by vanya | February 22, 2008 2:13 PM

Christians seem to do well enough in Lebanon, when everybody's not killing each other.

Posted by John | February 22, 2008 2:19 PM

Lon: On the other side though, Israel cannot tolerate a majority Palestinian citizenry in the way Jordan can in large part because citizenry in Jordan is not the same thing as citizenry in Israel.

This is the most astute observation in the entire discussion. And it points to a very simple solution: make Israel an absolute hereditary monarchy, and give equal rights to all subjects (no more citizens).

To avoid bad treatment of some groups of subjects, the monarch shall have as one of his titles, The Most Just. Sorry, only God (or G..d) can be Most Just (remember trouble with Operation Supreme Justice?), so, say, "A Very Just and Quite Merciful Supreme King and Judge of Israel, Benjamin, Judah, Edom, Gaza Etc., Protector of All Faiths". By law, the monarch would have to be male, heterosexual, fertile and atheist (hence, impartially protecting all faiths), and a descendant through a male line of Ronald Reagan. (Usually a foreign dynasty is used in such cases, and if no scion of Reagan can be found, we can always check with Saxe-Coburgh-Gotha).

Posted by piotr | February 22, 2008 2:48 PM

While we're here, is someone going to show the White South Africans one example of a country where a Black majority has respected Whites?

I think that concerns about the liberalness of the government once blacks got the right to vote in South Africa might have been relevant except for a couple of significant factors: 1) South Africa not a liberal government as constituted under the white apartheid government- blacks were denied more than just voting rights. 2) Whites not an internationally oppressed group. 3) White South Africa being the outcome of an unjust, illiberal British colonization effort.

I think on 1), the Israeli government does themselves a disservice the more illiberal they behave. I'm not even arguing that, on-balance, a one state solution with equal rights isn't the most liberal solution. But the fact that there is a pretty high expectation that a Muslim dominated country would be extremely illiberal towards Jews who are citizens is a problem. Christian tolerance in Lebanon being the only example of something close to what you would need to see that I am aware of.

Posted by mpowell | February 22, 2008 3:02 PM

But the fact that there is a pretty high expectation that a Muslim dominated country would be extremely illiberal towards Jews who are citizens is a problem.

Like Indonesia? In my opinion any majority population which treats a second minority population like second class citizens or worse deserves to lose its sovereign and be sanctioned, have aid cut off, etc.

This means the Serbs, Israelis, or Turkey regarding the Kurds, etc. Turkey has been getting better (no doubt partly because of the new power of the Kurds in Iraq, partly b/c of their bid for joining the EU).

Posted by Peter K. | February 22, 2008 3:14 PM

Another key difference I haven't seen mentioned on this thread is that "Palestinian" has an ambiguous ethnic/ national meaning. The upshot is that the Palestinian movement does not have the same potential for irredentism that other nationalist movements, e.g the Kurdish one, has.

Posted by Colatina | February 22, 2008 3:27 PM

Colatina - surely a Palestinian state established in the West Bank and Gaza would have considerable irredentist aspirations (i.e. Israel)

Posted by John | February 22, 2008 5:08 PM

But the fact that there is a pretty high expectation that a Muslim dominated country would be extremely illiberal towards Jews who are citizens is a problem.

This is a hard argument to make without veering into racism.

If a one state solution happened today Jews would be around 50% of the population and own, what, 80% of the wealth?

"There is a pretty high expectation" is an interesting formulation. It sounds like an assertion that you believe but wouldn't be able support, especially without veering into racism.

Palestinians are just as human as Black South Africans. There were possible scenarios where White South African citizens could have been severely oppressed. (I've read an argument from one sympathizer with Zionism that White South African citizens are oppressed now.) But a negotiated one state solution that leaves Palestinians feeling that the wrong of the Nakba has been righted does not inherently have to be extremely illiberal toward Jews.

Palestinians are just as capable as Blacks of negotiating a solution that protects the rights and property of individual members of minority groups.

Sympathizers with Zionism don't want that. They want a Jewish state. But the idea that the only alternative to a Jewish state is another Holocaust or anything of the sort, or even something worse than South Africa is a fantasy. A convenient fantasy at that.

I don't think there is any sympathizer with Zionism who, if the safety of Jews could be as guaranteed in a non-Jewish state as White rights were in South Africa, would accept a non-Jewish state. It goes against the definition of Zionism.

So the claim that this sympathy with Zionism is in any significant way driven by fear for the fate of Jews in a post-Zionist Middle East is at least borderline dishonest. The story is more that supporters of Zionism want a Jewish state and adjust their "pretty high expectations" to support that preexisting preference.

Posted by Arnold Evans | February 22, 2008 6:23 PM

Can someone please tell me what is wrong with option #2, equal citizenship?
Posted by Eunice

Loss of a Jewish state under majority rule. 2nd class citizenship for Jews and any returning Palestinian Christians.
****************************
saifedean - mpowell,
I presume by this very same logic, you also opposed equal citizenship rights for blacks in America and in South Africa. Do you realize how stupid and racist it is to say "equal citizenship for Palestinians is inequal [sic] citizenship for Jews."

It is not stupid or racist to speak reality, saifedean - which is to confidently predict that Jews would be a severely oppressed minority under a Palestinian majority rule state.

saifedean - I really find it amusing that people aren't ashamed of parroting such a moronic, racist, despicable line that openly argues for discrimination against and suppression of 5 million people because if this discrimination and suppression were to end, we would have the nightmare of equality, and that is not good enough for the oppressive group which demands superiority.

1. You wouldn't find it amusing at all if you were a white person in Zimbabwe watching the country you and your ancestors built systemically destroyed by black majority rule. Which appears to be a general rule - anywhere black majority rule exists, you see the transformation of nations or cities into corrupt, high-crime, impoverished shitholes.

2. Arabs with majority have a slightly better track record dealing with minorities than blacks,
but the pattern tends to still be slow eradication or encouraged emmigration of minorities. Exceptions are Syria, long tolerant of it's christian minority, Malaysia between violent killing sprees of ethnic Chinese, and a few enlightened Gulf States. Oh, and of course the famously tolerant "Golden Age" of Islam 800 years ago, which was less about toleration than colsolidation of Muslim conquests and hasn't been seen before or since.

3. Lefties would hate it, but it would be an interesting experiment to end black majority rule in a small shithole nation in the usual mess, have whites or Asians run all aspects of government and the economy - and see how long it took to improve.
Similarly, in the US, pick one of the worst black majority basketcase cities - Newark, NOLA, Detroit, Camden, DC, Philly, Durham - and relocate all blacks away from the city to other black-run shitholes. Allow no blacks residency in the city, but still be fre to visit or to work. Instead let whites, Asians, hispanics live in and run the place. How long would it take for such a black-free city to economically flourish, schools excel, crime&taxes to plummet, corruption to be largely cleaned up?

Posted by chris ford | February 22, 2008 7:53 PM

Haha - and Chris Ford, doing the job of the resident troll, brings out the uncomfortable consequences of making the logical extension of the "they're not ready for equality" argument.

I want to do something similar, though without being a racist jackass. Juan claims:
It's not unreasonable for Israeli Jews to want to remain the majority in their state, any more than it would be for the English, Welsh and Scots to remain the majority in Great Britain.
And, then, it's not unreasonable for white Anglos to want to remain a majority in the U.S.? What drastic measures do you suggest to prevent the shift to a non-white majority, due in a decade or two? This is usually the territory of the nutty Klan-friendly nativist far right.

Posted by Kalkin | February 22, 2008 9:03 PM

There's an element of fiddling while Rome burns to the fact that there is a debate over this. If you want to have a Jewish-Zionist state that is a liberal democracy not based on apartheid, then there has to be an independent Palestinian state by about 2020 or so. After all, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have the world's fastest growing population, which is why Arafat called the Palestinian woman's womb his secret weapon. Once the population reaches +50% Arab gentile, then Israel is a de facto apartheid state. Around 15% of Israel's population lives abroad and fewer and fewer people are moving to Israel. In fact, there is some evidence that Persian Jews are moving from Israel back to Iran.

If you care about the health of liberal democracy in Israel, fiddling with your dick over the bullshit that passes for "pro-Israel" arguments in the US actually does a disservice to actual Israelis (as opposed to the Israelis that exist only in the heads of people like Martin Peretz). After all, 2/3 of Israelis think of the settlers as traitors (the ideological ones really are a bit cuckoo, while the ones that live there just for subsidized housing but can't afford to live in Tel Aviv are a little more pragmatic). Israel could also stop subsidizing housing in the settlements and start using that money instead on making housing affordable in Israel proper, health care, schools, etc. The fact that we have in effect been financing a program of religious fundamentalism and literalism in the form of the settlements (trying to restore Biblical Israel) is just creepy.

Posted by Reality Man | February 22, 2008 9:07 PM

I was waiting for someone to take refuge in the demography argument.

Israel isn't going to annex Gaza and doesn't want it. The problem is that its residents don't want to declare independence and Egypt doesn't want it either. It doesn't make much sense to include it, since Israel doesn't really police it. It does have a phenomenal birth rate.

The West Bank birth rate isn't nearly as high, and since there are rapidly growing Haredi and Hardal elements in Israel, it's not at all clear what the demography in 2030 will look like. The Haredi population could double or triple by then, for example. Or it could crash, or the Arab population growth rate could crash, or stay the same, or increase, though it is declining pretty fast right now.

Nobody really knows - the projections aren't reliable out that far, especially if Israel suffers massive immigration or emigration.

Don't assume the demographics will make the solution obvious. It's far better to just try to solve the political problems, as Gerry Adams so memorably discussed.

Posted by Hektor Bim | February 22, 2008 10:56 PM

Translations for the unitiated: "Haredi" is what Israelis call what Americans would call "ultra-Orthodox" or "hasidim." These are the men in black with sidecurls and the women in long skirts nd covered hair with double strollers. "Haredi" means in awe or fearful, and the name means those who live in fear of God.

"Hardal" is a political movement of Haredi Jews, combining (if I may be permitted to editorialize) the worst aspects of Haredi religious beliefs and right-wing Zionist political beliefs.

Posted by Bloix | February 23, 2008 12:45 AM

Another approach Israel could take would be to annex the West Bank, and give Palestinians citizenship, but without the right to vote. Accusations of "apartheid" would ring hollow then, since the arrangement would be similar to the one Palestinians have next door in Jordan. In Jordan they are already 70% of the population, and still no one worries if Jordan is going to survive as a Hashemite state. On the contrary, the Hashemite autocrat is continually praised as a "reformer" who is moving toward (but somehow never quite gets around to) democratizing.

Posted by Steve | February 23, 2008 1:01 AM

"Who exactly are you trying to fool here? Liberalism in this case refers to something like the ideas of the enlightenment, you know, the ones on which the US was built."

No country is perfect, but if you want to judge them based on your definition of "Liberalism", Israel is orders of magnitude closer to being "Liberal" than any state with a Palestinian majority would be. For proof of that, compare the treatment of women and gays in Israel versus that in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel is one issue where hatred of Jews is so strong on the Left that lefties side with the gay bashers and honor killers.

Posted by Juan | February 23, 2008 1:09 AM

True Story: On 9/11 my law firm (of course) stopped working and sent anybody who wanted to go home, home. I got stuck helping a friend of mine try to find her car in our parking garage. Tired out afterwards (there had been a lot of walking before she figured out that her car had been towed) I wound up in the lobby bar of the Hotel Intercontinental, which abutted my firm's office tower.

I found several co-workers there, with a lot of other people, watching the news on the big screens and sipping drinks and wondering what was going to happen next.

One of my co-workers was an associate named Sam, a Jewish man. After an hour os so of speculation, digression and expression, the talk turned to Israel.

"You know," Sam said, "in 50 years the non-Jewish citizens of Israel will outnumber the Jews."

"Is that a problem?" I asked. "I'm told that in 50 years Hispanics will outnumber Whites in America. Is this something I should be concerned about?"

"But Israel was created to be the Jewish State!" said Sam.

"I see." I didn't say anything else, but it was at that point that I realized how unAmerican the idea of Israel is.

America -- if it is anything -- is a country founded on the concept that people can come together based on their ideas, that anybody can come here and be part of this country. All you have to do is buy into a coupla key concepts: rule of law, respect for the will of a representative majority, respect for the fact that on a coupla key issues minority views will trump the will of the majority (we call this the Bill of Rights) and you are in!!

The Idea of America -- and I know, I know, the Fact of America hasn't always reflected this -- is that ANYONE can be an American. At its best, America is a country that is not, should not, will not be based on identity . . . cultural, religious or otherwise . . . unless it is an identity based on ideals.

Anyway . . . I wish this idea -- not elections, not "democracy" -- was something we could export, or something we would even make an effort to export. Perhaps, then, there wouldn't be such a global rush for people to define themselves as something different than "the other."

Posted by swellsman | February 23, 2008 2:02 AM

True Story: On 9/11 my law firm stopped working (of course) and sent anybody who wanted to go home, home. I got stuck helping a friend of mine try to find her car in our parking garage. Tired out afterwards (there had been a lot of walking before she figured out that her car had been towed) I wound up in the lobby bar of the Hotel Intercontinental, which abutted my firm's office tower.

I found several co-workers there, with a lot of other people, watching the news on the big screens and sipping drinks and wondering what was going to happen next.

One of my co-workers was an associate named Sam, a Jewish man. After an hour or so of speculation, digression and expression, the talk turned to Israel.

"You know," Sam said, "in 50 years the non-Jewish citizens of Israel will outnumber the Jews."

"Is that a problem?" I asked. "I'm told that in 50 years Hispanics will outnumber Whites in America. Is this something I should be concerned about?"

"But Israel was created to be the Jewish State!" said Sam.

"I see." I didn't say anything else, but it was at that point that I realized how unAmerican the idea of Israel is.

America -- if it is anything -- is a country founded on the concept that people can come together based on their ideas, that anybody can come here and be part of this country. All you have to do is buy into a coupla key concepts: rule of law, respect for the will of a representative majority, respect for the fact that on a coupla key issues minority views will trump the will of the majority (we call this the Bill of Rights) and you are in!!

The Idea of America -- and I know, I know, the Fact of America hasn't always reflected this -- is that ANYONE can be an American. At its best, America is a country that is not, should not, will not be based on identity . . . cultural, religious or otherwise . . . unless it is an identity based on ideas.

Anyway . . . I wish this concept -- not elections, not some undefined "democracy" -- was something we could export, or something we would even make an effort to export. Perhaps, then, there wouldn't be such a global rush for people to carve out identities based on who they are not.

Posted by swellsman | February 23, 2008 2:13 AM

He'd prefer genocide.

Posted by merlallen | February 23, 2008 2:20 AM

"I didn't say anything else, but it was at that point that I realized how unAmerican the idea of Israel is.

"America -- if it is anything -- is a country founded on the concept that people can come together based on their ideas, that anybody can come here and be part of this country."

America is an exceptional country in this regard; most other countries are "un-American" in the sense that they aren't just "propositional" nations, but nations founded by, and for, ethno-linguistic groups. This is apparent even from a consideration of the countries' names. For example, England, is the land of the English; German, the land of the Germans; Japan, the land of the Japanese, etc. America, by contrast, was not named after any such ethno-linguistic group.

Israelis' desire to maintain a Jewish-majority state is no more odd or unjust than the Japanese's
desire to maintain a majority (in fact, almost completely homogeneous) Japanese state.

Posted by Juan | February 23, 2008 2:57 AM

Juan --

Ah, good point. Look . . . I didn't mean to single Israel out as unAmerican. You are quite right -- almost every country in the world is unAmerican when it comes to the way our government is supposed to work.

But this is something to keep in mind, isn't it? I mean, if our official foreign policy is to fly around the world "spreading democracy" . . . well, that certainly sounds great. But I am sure that most citizens think it means spreading "American Democracy."

As much as I despise what the current administration has been doing in my name -- rendition, uncontrolled spying, the funneling of billions of taxpayers' dollars to cronies and, oh yeah, TORTURE -- the idea of the United States of American is still a beacon of rational enlightenment in a world that hadn't seen anything like it before.

And it is worth fighting for.

Posted by swellsman | February 23, 2008 4:55 AM

As I've repeatedly said - and been banned from TPM for saying by "crypto-Zionist" Josh Marshall - Israel as a "Jewish state" has absolutely no future.

If the demographics inside Israel don't doom it, the demographics outside will.

There simply is no historical precedent for that country to survive as it is.

It never made ANY sense to try the Zionist project. Even senior Zionists back in the late 1800's and early 1900's who were informed that there were in fact Arabs living in Palestine realized that the project was both "immoral" and probably doomed. The whole concept was simply brain dead: go into a country with a majority population of a different religion than yours, buy up some land, form a state over those people which was specifically intended to elevate your own people over everyone else, then build up a military might sufficient to deter anyone from harming your people - while driving out the original people, whose relatives and religious authorities were connected to some hundreds of times greater population in all the countries surrounding you.

In short, put five or six million people into a tiny strip of land while pissing off two hundred million more everywhere within two thousand miles of you.

And for what? Well, to avoid SOME of your people being persecuted in SOME other countries. Despite a diaspora which insured that your people and your religion would never die out in human history, you decide to put all your eggs in one basket, fortify that basket and make it a target for practically everybody.

The enterprise was idiotic on the face of it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 23, 2008 4:59 AM

juan,

Sorry but the point you keep repeating is stupid.

There is a fundamental difference between France maintaining itself as a French country and Israel maintaining itself as a Jewish state: to be French, you need not believe in any specific ghosts or be born to any particular tribe. In Israel, you have to believe in a single version of the big ghost in the sky and be born to the right tribe in order to be a citizen. If you weren't those things, you got ethnically cleansed from your home 60 years ago or live as second class today--not to mention the millions of non-Jews in the west bank and gaza whose lives israel insists on controlling for the sake of its racist, exclusive colonies.

Sorry, but whatever you may possibly have against France or japan pales in comparison to this, and your moronic analogy speaks volumes of your idiotic pro-Israel nuttiness. Are you SLC in disguise?

Posted by saifedean | February 23, 2008 5:10 AM

Of all the tens of millions of refugees and expelled persons shuffled around, murdered, and otherwise abused in the aftermath of WWII, the "Palestinians" were very far from the worst case. Arab states launched an unprovoked war of aggression against an internationally-recognized state in 1948 and lost the war. Such actions have consequences--ask the approximately 13 million Germans made homeless in Eastern Europe.

The principal difference between the Germans and the Palestinian Arabs was that the Germans were able to become citizens of West Germany, Canada, the US, Australia, Britain or any of the other countries they ended up in. Arabs who stayed in Israel became citizens, and are objectively far better off than their compatriots in Arab countries. Refugees who ended up in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc. were usually warehoused like livestock for use by their hosts as bargaining chips, cheap labor, and terrorist recruits.

Everyone should get a passport where they are, and we could proceed from that point to decide who gets what, if anything, else. But anyone who doesn't recognize that the "Palestinian crisis" was neither caused, nor can be solved, by Israel alone, is deluded.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 23, 2008 6:11 AM

Need I remind you all that actually existing Zionism is a disgrace?

Posted by abb1 | February 23, 2008 6:48 AM

"Another approach Israel could take would be to annex the West Bank, and give Palestinians citizenship, but without the right to vote. Accusations of "apartheid" would ring hollow then, since the arrangement would be similar to the one Palestinians have next door in Jordan. In Jordan they are already 70% of the population, and still no one worries if Jordan is going to survive as a Hashemite state. On the contrary, the Hashemite autocrat is continually praised as a "reformer" who is moving toward (but somehow never quite gets around to) democratizing.

Posted by Steve | February 23, 2008 1:01 AM"

In apartheid South Africa, the four groups under law were 1) white, 2) black Africans, 3) coloureds and 4) Asians. In some neighboring African countries, black Africans weren't allowed to vote, especially considering how much the state was built on ignoring to a certain extent the differences in all-black populations (differing ethnic groups, etc.) and seeing them as an all-purpose black menace (while cutting deals with possibly the most violent group, the Zulu-backed Inkatha Freedom Party, as a way to divide organized black African opposition). This didn't make apartheid any less a system of apartheid. When both Koreas were dictatorships, the Kwangju massacre didn't make the Kims any more liberal to their peoples up North.

Posted by Reality Man | February 23, 2008 10:43 AM

Prior to 1967 the people who lived in the West Bank were administered by Jordan but were not offered Jordanian citizenship, not withstanding the fact that Jordan's inhabitants are predominately Palestinian. Prior to 1967, those who lived in Gaza were administered by Eqypt but were not offered Egyptian citizenship even though their ties with Gaza spanned the centuries. Palestinians are not desirable citizens in most Arab countries as seen by the disgusting manner they are treated in Lebanon and Syria. Yet the international community expects that Israel,a Jewish state, should solve this problem.

The ONLY solution is annaxation and citizenship of the West Bank and its inhabitants by Jordan and annaxation and citizenship of Gaza and its inhabitants by Eqypt.

Any other option will continue the low intensity war of the past 60 years with frequent flare ups.

Of course, some may wish that Hitler's work be finished and that the Jewish people be destroyed with their state! But then be prepared for World War as Israel will not go down without a nuclear fight.

Posted by Inforom | February 23, 2008 5:36 PM

Re: Is a "Jewish state" of any kind compatible with liberalism

To the extent that "Jewish": defines an ethnicity, yes, of course! Unless you think we should also dismantle Greece, Portgual, Japan, Iceland etc.

Re: White South Africa being the outcome of an unjust, illiberal British colonization effort.

It was the Dutch, not the British who originally colonized South Africa and who were largely responsible for Apartheid. Also, the situation in South Africa is not a simple "black and white" story. Both Blacks and whites are immigrants to the country: its originally inhabitants were the Khoi who are no more closely related to the Bantu-speaking Blacks than the white Europeans are. The unfortunate Khoi ended up being dispossessed and oppressed by both Europeans and Bantu.

Re: In Israel, you have to believe in a single version of the big ghost in the sky and be born to the right tribe in order to be a citizen.

Nonsense. The latter part is true, but you don't have to be religiously Jewish to be ethnically Jewish. There any number of Jewish atheists and agnostics-- and the phrase is not an oxymoron.

Posted by JonF | February 23, 2008 8:40 PM

Prior to 1967 the people who lived in the West Bank were administered by Jordan but were not offered Jordanian citizenship...

That's not true. In 1950 the population of WB became the citizens of Jordan.

Prior to 1967, those who lived in Gaza were administered by Eqypt but were not offered Egyptian citizenship

That's because Egypt (but not Jordan) recognized a Palestinian state in the whole of Palestine. For a while the population of Gaza were even issued Palestinian-state passports; Egypt administering that territory was considered a short-term temporary situation.

Posted by abb1 | February 24, 2008 6:17 AM

Like it or not Israel will not accomodate the Palestinians either in Israel or in those portions of the West Bank it deems to be in its security interests.

So long as Israel has the ability to defend its interests no amount of talking will persuade her from taking any position that could lead to her society's self destruction.

Posted by Inforom | February 25, 2008 11:58 AM

"Is that a problem?" I asked. "I'm told that in 50 years Hispanics will outnumber Whites in America. Is this something I should be concerned about?"

....We think we are exceptional but we're not. This country is large enough that individuals will pick up and move to neighborhoods & school districts were demographics will be within their comfort zone. There is a tipping point, we simply haven't reach it yet.

Israel, a country slightly smaller than the State of New Jersey, doesn't have this luxury.

Posted by kari | February 26, 2008 1:11 PM

Alternatives to Palestine

Comments (66)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories