A Just Solution

[beccy]

OK, I've worked out what I've been getting at. I'm not personally a committed Zionist: the main priority for me is for as many people as possible to be as safe as possible in Israel-Palestine, I don't really care whether that's through a one-state solution, a two-state solution, international pressure, internal change: whatever.

The point is, though, how can we be most useful in bringing about that just solution? And does justice mean righting old wrongs whatever the cost, or maintaining a Jewish state whatever the cost, or does it mean being open to whatever solution will bring about long-term peace the quickest?

The situation seems to me to be one in which, for whatever reason, Israeli society is pretty united in its committment to the maintenance of a Jewish state; the Israeli government is willing to go to some pretty horrifying lengths to maintain that state as viable and secure; the Palestinian leadership is more committed to resisting Israel as an entity than it is to finding a solution; neither side trusts the other, and everyone sees the whole history and current situation in terms of their own suffering, rather than as a bigger picture. America and Iran are maintaining violence on both sides; individuals on either side are far more worried about their own people than they are about a straightforward analysis of human life and suffering; groups of people who work together to overcome these divisions peacefully don't seem to have much of a place in either society; religious fundamentalism on both sides is a huge barrier to peace.

So, in light of all that, what would a just solution look like? Can we act in solidarity with the Palestinian people without thinking about the overall picture: how we got to where we are, and how we can move away from here? Is opposing Zionism a) necessary and b) helpful? Is acting in solidarity with Gaza without thinking about and engaging with the situation in Israel and how Israelis and Zionists feel the best way to operate?

I'm asking these questions genuinely and openly. As hopefully is obvious by now, my ideas are not at all fixed.

If someone could please outline here the arguments for opposing Zionism and promoting a one-state solution, with reference to the implications for both sides, that would be great. If someone else could outline the arguments for why a two-state solution is the only viable one, that too would be great.

Also, as a final question, what does it mean for a state to be 'Jewish'? Ethnically Jewish, religiously Jewish, based on Jewish values and following the Jewish calender, what?

[xylokarabes]

In answer to your first question: there isn't one. Every solution fucks somebody over.

This was a little more interesting:

Also, as a final question, what does it mean for a state to be 'Jewish'? Ethnically Jewish, religiously Jewish, based on Jewish values and following the Jewish calender, what?

As with all identities there are two ways that it can come into existence: self-declaration and imposition. The latter is when someone external to yourself decides that that is your identity and treats you accordingly. Examples of this becoming incarnate in a state is the Jim Crow South, Aparteid & the ubiquitously referenced example that I don't want to obey Godwin's Law by citing. But it exists away from the state as well, in just about every form of prejudice that there is.

The second is, to my mind, far more important. You are Jewish to me if you consider yourself to be Jewish. If you avow that as part of your identity then that is what I will consider you, if not then I shall not. This may sound outlandish, but the example of the former French slaves springs to mind. Although we would consider them to be "Black" due to a genetic trait that is not how they perceived themselves. Who are we to say "Yes you are!"? How presumptuous would we be to demand that they fill our understanding instead of their own?

Now the obvious counter to this is thatno matter what people consider themselves, they are still open to prejudice if they fall victim to certain arbitary categories. If one of the aforementioned African descendent gentlemen had taken a trip to the Southern States a few decades ago he would still have been legally prejudiced against. If he went today there's a chance that he still would be on a non-official basis. A lot of the victims of the Nazi death machine were assimilationist atheists who didn't really perceive themselves as Jews (many were Christened and entirely culturally integrated). So long as they had one Jewish grandparent even the descendent deepest immersed in the German culture, one who'd not heard a word of yiddish in his life, would be seized up and put to death if they were found out. In fact, it was those kinds of Jews which Hitler most despised and wanted rid of. If they'd all stayed in their own neat little boxes he'd have seen them as a Fifth Column, rather than a direct and immediate threat to the purity of the German Aryan volk.

But is recognising that this prejudice exists the same thing as accepting that there is an inherent meaning behind "Jew" or "Black" or "Arab". I'd say no. I'd say that we shouldn't base our thinking around the mindset of a bunch of bigots but aim for something higher. Just as no state should base its citizenship policy around the Nuremburg Laws. Communalism is the source of a massive amount of woe and it's something that this species is going to have to move past. The first step in this is realising the meaninglessness of the divisions cast up between us, beyond as an acid mark burnt by bigotry's caustic bite. We're all sentient beings carving meaning into this world, that's a more important unifier than any division could be.

In summary, Beccy, the only reason I consider you a Jew is because you keep on telling me you are. For as long as you do you'll be a Jew & the same goes for anyone else. If you said you weren't then I'd accept that, although I'd realise that various neo-nazis and so on would disagree with you. And that wouldn't matter.

That's all there is to it.

[anarchistluke]

So what ramifications does that have for a state, exactly, as opposed to an individual? Does a state have a way of deciding its own identity? It's not a sentient being, and nor is it made up of the individuals it governs - it is something above and beyond them. So how does a state come to have an identity, and specifically, how does it come to be 'Jewish'? (Other than being identified as such by others, which I would imagine would be of little comfort to hardcore zionists - "yes, here, you can share a state with loads of non-jews, but we'll think it's a jewish state for you")

[eddm]

Mar 17, 2009 12:34:34 GMT beccy said:

OK, I've worked out what I've been getting at. I'm not personally a committed Zionist: the main priority for me is for as many people as possible to be as safe as possible in Israel-Palestine, I don't really care whether that's through a one-state solution, a two-state solution, international pressure, internal change: whatever.

...

So, in light of all that, what would a just solution look like? Can we act in solidarity with the Palestinian people without thinking about the overall picture: how we got to where we are, and how we can move away from here? Is opposing Zionism a) necessary and b) helpful? Is acting in solidarity with Gaza without thinking about and engaging with the situation in Israel and how Israelis and Zionists feel the best way to operate?

I think that a two-state solution addresses the question of the consciousness of Israelis and how that can be changed, much more than a one-state solution can. The key question however is on what basis this can and should be achieved.

It has long been the policy of the West, on paper, to bring about a Palestinian state, but this was halted with the election of Hamas to government in 2006. This stalling of the 'peace process' has allowed a further turn to the right in Israeli society, which means it looks like now there'll be a Likud-Lieberman government which will, to say the least, be hostile to any form of statehood for Palestinians.

The majority of Israelis and Palestinians are therefore in a political deadlock inflicted on them by their leaders. Every block on the road to a Palestinian state politically strengthens Hamas and this in turn strengthens the most anti-Palestinian elements in the Israeli ruling class. Based on the reactionary politics of the two governments a Palestinian state seems further away now than it did a few years ago.

I am not ashamed to say that I support the Palestinians' right to armed resistance, but not unconditionally. Throwing rockets over the border will not magically make a Palestinian state appear, and will push more Israeli workers to the right (as seems to have happened since 2005). I would argue for this resistance to be democratically organised along the lines of the First Intifada in its early days, rather than carried out by a handful of fighters from armed groups and manipulated by parties which represent reactionary interests.

Ideally this would be accompanied by a political programme which rallied as many Palestinians as possible behind it, but also appealed to Israeli workers rather than seeing them as the enemy. I believe a programme of socialism, of workers' unity, could achieve this. Workers on both sides of the border have taken strike action against their respective governments in recent years, both face a political class which is incredibly corrupt. Like during the recent construction workers' strikes in Britain, its a question of uniting people against their common enemy, the exploiting classes.

In the Socialist Party we call for two states, but on the basis of a mass movement of workers on both sides: a socialist Israel alongside a socialist Palestine. No one is naive enough to believe that this would solve all the problems - the territorial disputes, the right of return, Jesrualem etc - overnight, but workers acting in a common struggle will have built up a level of trust relatively quickly which would take decades, even centuries to achieve under divisive pro-capitalist political systems (see the debacle of Northern Ireland)

So that's an ideal solution, I could go into how I think it's achievable more but I'm sure people are bored of the length of this post already...

[xylokarabes]

Mar 17, 2009 17:29:11 GMT anarchistluke said:

So what ramifications does that have for a state, exactly, as opposed to an individual? Does a state have a way of deciding its own identity? It's not a sentient being, and nor is it made up of the individuals it governs - it is something above and beyond them. So how does a state come to have an identity, and specifically, how does it come to be 'Jewish'? (Other than being identified as such by others, which I would imagine would be of little comfort to hardcore zionists - "yes, here, you can share a state with loads of non-jews, but we'll think it's a jewish state for you")

My thoughts on nationalism are informed largely by Benedict Anderson's concept of "Imagined Communities", which you can read about here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_communities

and buy here:

www.amazon.co.uk/Imagined-Communities-Reflections-Origin-Nationalism/dp/0860915468

A state is just a group of people acting in an organised fashion, with occasional dalliances into physicality with municipal buildings such as hospitals, bureaus, police stations, etc. A nation is a perceived connection between a group of people who largely are unlikely to have ever met, yet still feel as if they are living within a community with each other. It's perfectly easy for that connection to be "We're all Jews", in fact some sort of identity like that distinctly helps in forming a stable nation.

The state isn't Jewish, although it largely consists of Jews The nation is.

"And what about the Arabs?" you might say, "20% of the nation is them". Well, you just have to ask them if they consider themselves Israelis or Palestinians to find out the answer to that. Opinion polls are noting a distinct swing towards the latter...

[ali]

Hi, I know this perhaps doesn't answer the initial question, but it is relevant:
Don't know how many of you have seen the Israel Eurovision entry for this year yet? (which by the way shouldn't be dismissed, shitloads of people watch it every year) (also, ever found it strange that Israel participates in eurovision and european football competitions? I always have, but maybe thats a separate thread)
It is by "Jewish Israeli" singer Noa and "Arab Israeli" Mira Awad. You can watch it on youtube here:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKZv3YofcFc

Mira Awad was talking today about why she did this song (she's had a lot of criticism for doing it) and stuff to do with her identity on woman's hour on radio 4, which you hopefully can listen to here (her interview starts after 35 mins 30 secs ish) :

www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/listenagain/2009_12_sat.shtml

[beccy]

Thanks for posting that, Ali, it's really interesting and, I think, relevant and important to think about. It took me ages to find the lyrics in English and the transliteration makes it a bit confusing, so here they are to save everyone else the hassle:

There must be another
Must be another way

Your eyes, sister
Say all that my heart desires
So far, we've gone
A long way, a very difficult way, hand in hand

And the tears fall, pour in vain
A pain with no name
We wait
Only for the next day to come

There must be another way
There must be another way There must be another way

Your eyes say
A day will come and all fear will disappear
In your eyes a determination
That there is a possibility
To carry on the way
As long as it may take

For there is no single address for sorrow
I call out to the horizons
To the stubborn heavens

There must be another way
There must be another way
There must be another
Must be another way

We will go a long way
A very difficult way
Together to the light
Your eyes say
All fear will disappear

And when I cry, I cry for both of us
My pain has no name
And when I cry, I cry
To the merciless sky and say
There must be another way

And the tears fall, pour in vain
A pain with no name
We wait
Only for the day to come

There must be another way
There must be another way
There must be another
Must be another way .

I think she's incredibly brave and strong, and I like the message that we can find a way through this, together, and it's going to be difficult, but it's not impossible - the bit about both sides being able to keep their identities but live together peacefully really speaks to me. But it's so hard to get through to people, and sometimes I feel like maybe we'd be better off shedding the identities alltogether and starting over completely, but then I don't know if that's possible. And Israel seems currently to be expecting all the sacrifices to come from Palestine, but then Palestine solidarity seems often to be about all the sacrifices coming from Israel, and Israel even being the sacrifice.

So the rather vague idea that there must be another way is really all there is left to hold onto.