May 15, 2007
From: John Spritzler
To: [Selected Correspondents]
May 14, 07
In response to my query about Norman Finkelstein, William Martin kindly forwarded me this email exchange (the relevant part is below, start from the bottom) between Finkelstein and himself regarding the One State solution. Finkelstein dismisses it as unrealistic, writing: "If there's a zero possibility that Israel will surrender land, there's a negative one hundred possibility that they will surrender Israel to a single state."
The problem with this view is that it ignores the class war going on inside Israel, between working class and ruling class Jews. Racist ideas about Palestinians weaken the former side and strengthen the latter side in this class war. This is why Zionist racism is no less likely to be rejected by working class Jews than poor white tenant famers in the American South (read about the Southern Tenant Farmers Union) were likely to reject KKK racism in the 1930s. The latter actually happened on a large scale. So why is the former so improbable?
Another key problem with Finkelstein's rejection of the One State solution on the grounds of improbability is that it focuses on what the elite rulers will do, not on what ordinary people will do. If one focuses on what ordinary people will do, and considers what persuades them to challenge elite policies, the focus shifts from what is possible to what is morally right.
When millions of ordinary people are persuaded that some elite policy is morally wrong, and when they become aware, as individuals, that they are joined by millions of others in thinking it is morally wrong, then what was previously improbable becomes quite probable, because mass movements emerge that are stronger than the elites.
The value of the One State solution is that in advocating it we focus on the fundamental moral question--that ethnic cleansing is wrong, that nothing done in its name is morally defensible, and that it is quite possible to visualize a solution that involves no ethnic cleansing. If, on the other hand, we talk about a Two State solution, then we end up focused on questions like where to draw the border between the ethnically cleansed and the ethnically un-cleansed, a question that evades the central moral issue, and a question that is easily portrayed by the elites as an extremely technical and complicated one that should be left to "the experts." This is a recipe for de-mobilizing ordinary people (which is why the elites love the Two State solution framework.)
--John
From: Norman Finkelstein
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 11:20 AM
To: martinw @ email.unc.edu
Subject: RE: FW: request for addition in Wikipedia
Sounds fine.
----- Original Message -----
From: "william j martin"
To: "'Norman Finkelstein'"
Subject: FW: request for addition in Wikipedia
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:14:57 -0800
I think maybe the difference in our perspectives is that you believe that the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians and their use of brutality and humiliation is incidental, whereas I believe it is intrinsic to Zionism.
As a practical matter though, there probably is little differences in our approaches since neither a withdrawal to the '67 borders nor the demise of the Zionist principle of a racially pure Jewish state is imminent. Both approaches involve focusing moral energy on the deprivation of rights of the Palestinians and education the American public.
This has been a fair discussion. Would you mind if I posted this to my list of friends interested in such things including Al-Awda?
Best regards,
Wm
From: william j martin
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:41 PM
To: 'Norman Finkelstein'
Subject: RE: request for addition in Wikipedia
That is correct. There is a 0 possibility that Israel will agree to the demise of its racially pure state and the end of Zionism.
However this is what must happen for peace to exist. Support for the state of Israel and for Zionism must be withdrawn in favor of a democratic egalitarian state which is non-discriminatory by race or ethnicity.
The Palestinians have an intrinsic
right to be free. They should not have to have Israel's
permission, nor should Israel be given a veto over the
Palestinian right to freedom. Israel's security must not
take precedent over the Palestinian right to freedom from
oppression.
From: Norman Finkelstein
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:11 AM
To: martinw @ email.unc.edu
Subject: RE: request for addition in Wikipedia
If there's a zero possibility that
Israel will surrender land, there's a negative one hundred
possibility that they will surrender Israel to a single
state.
From: "william j martin"
To: "'Norman Finkelstein'"
Subject: RE: request for addition in Wikipedia
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 03:05:48 -0800
Is there a 5% chance that that Israel will withdraw from the West Bank, dismantle the settlements, some of which contain 30,000 Jews with the settlement of Ariel containing its own university? They also involve massive financial investments by private investors. And of course, there is the Wall. Will Israel ever surrender any degree of independence, and thus power to a Palestinian state? I do not think so.
Virginia Tilley makes a very strong case that Israel surrendering land in its possession is a total impossibility with a 0% probability.
Taking over all of Palestine was the initial goal of the Zionists including David Gen-Gurion. They would have in 1948 had it not been for the Jordanian army which halted the Jewish advance. The relative strength of the Jordan Arab Legion declined relative to the IDF, so that by 1967, they were no long a significant impediment.
Capturing all of Palestine has been a constant and consistent goal of the Zionists since the 1890's.
There is also the matter of whether
is state based on racial exclusiveness is just. One
requirement of such a state is that it ethnically cleanse
the indigenous population, which it has done, another is
that it maintain 4 million people in outdoor prisons for 40
years, which it has also done. And this does not mention the
Arab citizens of Israel who are constantly threatened with
'transfer' and who face discrimination in employment,
housing, etc.
From: Norman Finkelstein
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:04 PM
To: martinw @ email.unc.edu
Subject: RE: request for addition in Wikipedia
These are obviously complicated
questions. In my opinion, if there's even a 5% possibility
of full Israeli withdrawal, we should work towards it,
because a single state is a very long-term project, with
dreadful consequences for Palestinians in the interim.
From: "william j martin"
To: "'Norman Finkelstein'"
Subject: RE: request for addition in Wikipedia
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:03:59 -0800
Yes, I am a pragmatist too.
The question is, however, what is it that will work, a two state solution or a one state solution? Which is the most likely to work?
Also, there is the matter or a
definition or a standard of what do we understand by
"works." Two possibilities are, the violence ends or justice
is created, and also there is the matter of justice for
whom?; does that include the Palestinians and those
ethnically cleansed?
From: Norman Finkelstein
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 9:10 PM
To: martinw @ email.unc.edu
Subject: RE: request for addition in Wikipedia
Whatever works.
From: "william j martin"
To: "'Norman Finkelstein'"
Subject: RE: request for addition in Wikipedia
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:51:25 -0800
I see.
Do you favor a one state solution
which includes universal rights without discrimination for
any citizen with the land of Palestine, that is, the British
Mandate Palestine, or a two state solution, probably
requiring an Israeli withdrawal from the settlements?
Editor's
note: Obviously, as the
publisher of this site, I agree with the one state argument.
But I'd like to comment on John's assertion that the
"working class" provides the ace in the hole. I am no more a
Marxist or Socialist than I am a Zoroastrian. I was born
Jewish (a choiceless condition), and became a student and
practitioner of the teachings of one of the universal wisdom
traditions (the buddhadharma in my case, although it could
just as well have been one of the others - they are all in
agreement).
As Gandhi put it, I am everything, whatever religious, spiritual or political category that people choose to pigeon-hole themselves or others into. I include myself in the set of "human beings," which is a subset of everything, from which we are not separate whatever we may think. Identity politics is the bane of current political discourse. It is the proximate cause of all international conflict, and is one of the bastard offspring of 20th century postmodernism which, hopefully, will soon be consigned to the dustbin of intellectual history, along with its 19th century forebears, "free-market" Capitalism and its antithesis, Marxism. To hell with all "isms!"
Things have a way of working themselves out. In the case of Israel, I have previously likened it to a malignant cancer. The prognosis, therefore, is either its death, simultaneously with its host (not just the Middle East, but the entire world is threatened), or a successful treatment. Surgery is an option, though I'm always suspicious of that approach. And I just don't believe that isolating it in the form of a truncated "Jewish State," no matter how circumscribed that might turn out to be, is a promising alternative - the danger of metastisizing is too likely.
No, it must disappear, becoming absorbed (and thereby detoxified) into a larger, pluralistic configuration that could then join the rest of the world as some sort of modern democratic, secular state. The resulting nation could then proudly (and at the same time, humbly) take its seat at the table with everyone else, rather than threaten the rest of the world with Armaggedon.
This prescription will remain impractical, idealistic, yea utopian, until that point when people begin to realize that the one state argument points to the only solution that is worthy of the term "solution." Once this little snowball is given a sufficient nudge, it will cease to be a fantasy and will, following the tipping point, become "obvious" to everybody. That is why we toil away in the wilderness, this little bunch of much reviled cranks and misfits, comprising at least a simulacrum of a "movement," one to which I proudly pay allegiance.