Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

One-State Illusion

On Israel’s left and right, calls for binationalism are gaining ground. But the idea is a betrayal of Zionism, and of Judaism.

Print Email
(Photoillustration: Tablet Magazine; photo: iStockphoto)
Related Content

Standard-Bearer

A liberal Jewish journalist in Israel wonders where her allegiance lies

Last summer, addressing a seminar attended by Israel’s political elite, one of the country’s most celebrated ideologues shared his vision for the future of the Jewish state. “The worst solution is probably the right one,” he said. “A bi-national state, full annexation, full citizenship.”

The idea itself—a heterogeneous and democratic nation of Israelis and Palestinians, Christians, Muslims, and Jews, stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River—was far from new. With Israel’s left-wing parties reduced to electoral rubble, the center of gravity among many committed progressives has shifted in recent years toward support for the so-called one-state solution. But the speaker wasn’t a radicalized leftist; he was Uri Elitzur, formerly the head of the settlement movement, Benjamin Netanyahu’s onetime chief of staff, and one of the most stringent thinkers of Israel’s religious right.

Anyone baffled by Elitzur’s speech didn’t have to wait long for clarifications. A few months later, writing in Nekuda, the official magazine of the settlement movement, Elitzur used an inflammatory term to describe the reality Israel would likely face if it prolongs its occupation of the West Bank: apartheid. If Israel wants to absolve itself of its sins and solve its problems, Elitzur argued, the only feasible option is absorbing the West Bank and making the 2.5 million people who live there full-fledged citizens of the state of Israel.

Among the right’s intellectuals, Elitzur is hardly alone in his beliefs. Earlier this year, Moshe Arens, Netanyahu’s political mentor and one of the Likud’s most hawkish elders, published an article in Haaretz supporting a similar position. Israel, he wrote, “should apply its laws on Judea and Samaria,” as the right calls the Occupied Territories. Reuven Rivlin, the current speaker of the Knesset, sounded a similar note when he told a reporter earlier this year that he “would rather have Palestinians as citizens of this country over dividing the land up.” Others—including Emily Amrousi, the settler movement’s former spokesperson—have expressed similar views.

Ironically, these same views were, until recently, considered as falling outside the realm of polite political conversation. When historian Tony Judt made a case for a binational state in a 2003 New York Review of Books essay, the outcry was considerable. Calling the essay “haughty and ugly,” Leon Wieseltier, writing in The New Republic, argued that “a bi-national state is not the alternative for Israel. It is the alternative to Israel.”

Yet the epithets that were readily hurled at Judt—anti-Semite, anti-Israeli, self-hating Jew—could not so easily be lobbed at Arens and Amrousi, at Rivlin and Elitzur. These new advocates of binationalism are enjoying an attentive audience. The idea they champion—the long-reviled one-state solution—now deserves serious examination.

***

From the narrow perspective of political science, bereft of ethnic and theological complications, the one-state solution is hard to beat. Having rejected, for the most part, the array of encompassing ideologies that roiled the 20th century—Communism, Totalitarianism, Imperialism—most of the world, with a few notable exceptions, now invests its political energies in the idea of the state as the stage on which we all play out our ambitions and aspirations and the entity to which we all turn for security, comfort, and, often, meaning. The citizens of a modern democratic state, say binationalism’s supporters, needn’t look for meaning anywhere outside the state itself; rather than see themselves as Jews or Muslims or Christians, they argue, Israelis of all ethnicities and religious beliefs need to learn to identify simply as Israeli. If they do so, say the idea’s proponents, they could slowly overcome ancient hatreds, learn to keep the peace and share the power, and build a brave new state that treats all of its citizens equally.

But if the state were to shed its Jewish skin, argue some of binationalism’s critics, wouldn’t bloodshed ensue? Not necessarily, argues Avrum Burg, formerly the chairman of the Jewish Agency and the speaker of the Knesset from 1999 to 2003. Announcing his return to politics last week after a six-year absence, Burg endorsed the one-state solution and advised skeptical Israelis to look to the European Union for inspiration. True, the Italians might still begrudge the French, the French might still suspect the Germans, and the Germans might still contemplate abandoning the union altogether, but these nations tolerate each other nonetheless and sustain their shared enterprise, a kind of collaboration that would have been unthinkable in the trenches of World War I. Just as the old continent learned to put aside animosities and mistrust and enter into a comity of nations, Burg argued, so could Israel eradicate its borders and let its barriers down.

Mention the European example to most Israelis, however, and they would likely scoff at the analogy: If Israel became a unified state—the Hebrew idiom is medinat kol ezracheya, or the state of all its citizens, in stark contrast to the Jewish state—wouldn’t swarms of Palestinians relocate from Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere and condemn the Jews to life as a negligible minority? It’s a terrifying scenario, but not an inevitable one: Were the one-state solution to come up for serious discussion, it would not be inconceivable to place strict limitations on immigration, as is the case with most western nations. Rather than allow an endless stream of newcomers, the binational state’s founding fathers could insist on quotas, as Palestine’s British overseers did throughout most of their mandatory rule. They could furthermore demand that anyone proven to partake in violent actions or advocate unrest would not be allowed to enter the state. If this were the case, the new nation could maintain a healthy balance between Arabs and Jews, each group separately administering its own municipalities and religious institutions, and both groups coming together to govern the nation at large.

Such an arrangement most likely would inspire a great deal of good will worldwide, which, in turn, might translate into unprecedented investment. Israel’s already strong industrial base could benefit from a cascade of regional markets opening up to its products. And security expenditure—currently standing at more than $14 billion, which represents 7 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, a grim ratio surpassed only by Oman, Eritrea, Georgia, and Saudi Arabia—would be greatly reduced, freeing up even more resources and flooding the economy with a soaring surplus. Seen through the narrow prism of finance, a binational state is a far more promising prospect than a Jewish one.

The bounties binationalism promises, then, are at least as numerous as the disasters it threatens to evoke. In every rational respect, it is, if not a ready solution, at least an alternative worthy of one’s careful consideration.

That is, unless one happens to be Jewish.

***

There are, of course, scores of interpretations of Judaism, but here is the one to which I subscribe: Judaism is a religion founded upon the notion that God commanded the ancestors of one particular man, Abraham, to inhabit one particular land, Canaan, and there, adhering to the Almighty’s divine laws, establish an independent nation-state that would serve as a shining light to a benighted world.

This may sound like a theological rant, but it makes perfect sense. Divine laws are ephemeral things, and they have little relevance to human existence unless they are somehow tried and proven here on earth. To that end, Judaism, from Abraham onward, promoted the centrality of the Jewish state, a holy kingdom that would be run in accordance with God’s decrees, an intricate series of regulations and prohibitions that govern every facet of life and that, in spirit if not always in practice, is an astonishing agenda of justice and compassion. The Jewish kingdom, at least ideally, would end indentured servitude and ban high-interest loans, protect the poor and care for the beasts, enshrine reason and pursue peace. In short, it would set an example that every other nation would wish to emulate. Take the independent state away from the Jews, and they become nothing but itinerant prophets, full of spirit but devoid of power, the kind of folks one admires but doesn’t necessarily wish to emulate.

A Jewish state, then, isn’t a byproduct of the religion but rather the other way around: the religion was set in place to serve the idea of the Jewish state. When exile brought Jewish sovereignty to an end, Jewish scholarship still concerned itself primarily with questions of statehood. Striking an eschatological note, the Talmud, for example, argued that “there is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah except [that in the latter there will be no] bondage of foreign powers.” In other words, the only thing the Messiah would do for God’s chosen children is reinstate their political independence. Throughout more than a millennium of exile, the homeland beckoned, giving us hope, keeping us alive.

The Emancipation, backlit by the radiance of the Enlightenment, threatened to extinguish the yearning for political independence for good—Moses Mendelssohn captured this spirit when he claimed that “the messiah, for whom we prayed these thousands of years, has appeared and our fatherland has been given to us. The messiah is freedom, our fatherland is Germany.” Zionism emerged as an inevitable response, recapturing all the spiritual energies that the Emancipation set loose. At its core, Zionism was nothing but the old dream stated anew: to establish once again the Jewish kingdom in the Promised Land. This is why Zionism was able to attract so many divergent thinkers, from the radically Marxist A.D. Gordon to the messianic Abraham Isaac Kook; however different their visions for the nature of the yearned-for Jewish state, they nonetheless all understood a Jewish state to be an instrument of salvation.

***

The proponents of binationalism, of course, would likely disagree with this interpretation. To them, Zionism’s very diversity is proof that one may advocate all sorts of solutions to the problems plaguing Israel and still remain firmly within its fold. Reuven Rivlin argues that Zionism is first and foremost interested in territory, while former Knesset Speaker Avrum Burg maintains that it is, at heart, a liberal movement that should give up its powers rather than compromise its progressive values. They are both wrong. If—as those who preach the one-state solution from the right argue—the unity of the land and access to its holiest places is key, there is no real reason to insist that the land’s governors be Jewish. One could imagine a wholly Palestinian state in which Jews have the right to settle wherever they pleased. And if—as binationalism’s leftist advocates claim—Zionism’s goal is to promote democracy, they needn’t insist on remaining in the ancient homeland; a vast stretch of Montana, one imagines, or some swath of the Andes, would provide just as good of a backdrop for Jews wishing to be free and just. Both of these solutions are acceptable, yet neither corresponds with the core principle on which Jewish history pivots: that of the Jewish state.

Anyone for whom Israel represents not an abstract political entity but a historical necessity and a spiritual foundation would do well to unequivocally reject the one-state solution. The alternative, granted, isn’t as exhilarating. The Jewish state, even given the possibility of successful peace talks in the near future, groans under the weight of unbearable burdens, not the least of which is the struggle to balance Judaism’s traditions and democracy’s dictates. But it’s this same struggle that has defined us for millennia. It’s the struggle that made us who we are. Abandoning it for whatever reason might sound temporarily tempting, but we can’t afford the cost.

Print Email
Joseph K. says:

The contradiction here is the phrase “shining light to a benighted world” which even as the author phrases it sounds a little sarcastic and half-hearted. If in order to maintain the current state, the actions of the state become morally indefensible, you have a problem here.

Today’s discourse about Israel comes down to, they kill our children on purpose and we kill theirs accidentally.
Not exactly a “shining light”.

Fivish says:

There are 57 Islamic states, so one Jewish state is no ‘big deal’!
Most of the Islamic states do not allow Jews to set foot in them.
Even the PA has stated that their new state of palestine will be a Jew free zone. So there is ample president for the only Jewish state to oust its Arabs.
The important point is that international law and treaty defines the Jewish state as from the Jordan river to the sea. It also decrees that Arabs will have no political rights there.
The UN has breached its charter many times by ignoring article 80 which forbids it to change or negate the international law and treaty that existed under the League of Nations.

Daniel says:

There’s nothing accidental about Israeli apartheid, and there’s nothing about Zionism that we as Jews need to cling to. I’m sorry, but “God commanded Abraham to inhabit Canaan”? Forget that theocratic noise, get rational and humane. The one-state democracy is the only just solution to the conflict and the occupation.

p.s. I like this flag.

Eileen P. says:

I would not compare a one-state solution to the European Union. I would compare it to the mix of religions and ethnicities in Lebanon and we know what happened there.

The author speaks of Zionism as if there hadn’t ever been an alternative to its recent statist form. But earlier ideologues who identified themselves as Zionist certainly embraced the one state solution which is the only one likely to overcome the injustices of the present.

‘… religion was set in place to serve the idea of the Jewish state. ”

That’s as good a definition of Jewish fascism as I have heard in a long while.

The point is not acting in kind (“if they don’t let jews in, we won’t let them in”) but to act kindly – as God would want: open hearted, open minded. This decision forces our most courageous act of humanity and spirituality.
A closed fist can neither give nor receive.

sharon rosen teig says:

josephk’s comments ring true in my heart..following god’s word has not promoted peace in the world, only divisiveness. until israel moves beyond “them” and “us” and embraces “we the people”, can there ever be hope of peace. I am interested, however, on the palestinian take on the one-state solution.

Actually, the majority of this article is one of the more persuasive arguments for a bi-national or (an interim) co-federated state. Set aside the religious nonsense in the second half of the piece and we have a practical and ethical way forward for Israeli Arabs and Jews, settlers and leftists.

Also, thank you for bringing up the phrase: “מדינה כל אזרחיה”

HaSoferet says:

<>

I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a moment. Let’s start with the assumption that your statement about where God commanded us to be is true. However that time might not be now; it might be some other time in the future. We really have no way of knowing that the political movement known as Zionism that started in the 19th century is what God has planned for us. Perhaps as our more extreme fellow Jews believe we must wait for Moshiach. If one believes God’s word perhaps he wants us to wait…that our time for returning to Eretz Yisrael is not now.

The best solution is to annex the territories and have the Arabs go somewhere else. No apartheid, no occupation, no problem.

If people would start applying their energies in the direction of making this work (generous grants to families who leave, taken out of the defense budget, diplomatic efforts to obtain visas and work permits, etc.) instead of treading the familiar old ground of either “a state of its citizens”, which means Israel won’t be Jewish, or “a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, which means that Israel will cease to exist at all shortly, we could make things a lot better for everyone concerned, Arabs included.

Gil Brodsky says:

It’s become a bit of a truism in recent years, but it bears repeating: Israel today can have any two of the three following items: Land (all of Israel, Judea, and Samaria), a Jewish state (a clear Jewish majority, with a dominant Jewish culture, along with protection of minority rights), and Democracy (full rights for all residents of the lands listed above).

Arguments about what to do all either directly or indirectly make choices about either trumping one of these three over the others or else demeaning the importance of one. Thus those favoring negotiating a two-state solution say give up some of the land. Those of the religious Right underplay the rights of the resident Palestinians (the approach of “They should just move to one of the other of the 30 or so Arab countries in the Middle East where they’ll be welcome; why should they even want to stay here?” belittles the Palestinians’ claims for citizenship in their own country). The uninationalists (including such international figures as Khaddafi, who wrote an NYT editorial in favor of “Isratine”–I’m surprised you didn’t mention him!) simply choose what’s behind Door #3, saying that the Jewishness does not need to be kept preeminent, and that the single country Israel/Palestine/Isratine can be successful as a bicultural society.

Take your pick…

Lisa and the likes of her are the people causing all this trouble (..a state claiming eternal victimhood while a large part of its citizens force the coun like giving “generous grants to families who leave, taken out of the defense budget” to the setllers themselves, to get them out of the occupied territories and back into israel.
After all, the truth is: – no occupied territories, no problem.
Then there won’t be a question over two-state or one-state either!
Lisas idea- the “transfer”, has to be outlawed once and for all.
It is not a peaceful idea as it amounts to ethnic cleansing in the end, with accompanying atrocities that always do happen in such cases.
And the right wing knows that. Whatever peaceful arguments they advance, the only logical outcome of the settlement policy is the final “transfer” of its inhabitants.
This is not only doing uncountable damage to the present political situation in the ME. It threatens to turn our own jewish inheritance to our children, tied indeed to the hope for an examplary future state, into a quasi-fascist dogma that only bigots can identify with. Quite the opposite of what the ultra-religious right imagines. It is as if one wants to shake these people and ask them, please, for the sake of our children, to come to their senses!

george says:
Aug 24, 2010 at 1:28 PM
Lisa and the likes of her are the people causing all this trouble (..a state claiming eternal victimhood while a large part of its citizens force the country to conduct an agressive land-grabbing policy). Some of her ideas, like giving “generous grants to families who leave, taken out of the defense budget” should be applied to the setllers themselves, to get them out of the occupied territories and back into israel.
After all, the truth is: – no occupied territories, no problem.
Then there won’t be a question over two-state or one-state either!
Lisas idea- the “transfer”, has to be outlawed once and for all.
It is not a peaceful idea as it amounts to ethnic cleansing in the end, with accompanying atrocities that always do happen in such cases.
And the right wing knows that. Whatever peaceful arguments they advance, the only logical outcome of the settlement policy is the final “transfer” of the west banks arab inhabitants.
This is not only doing uncountable damage to the present political situation in the ME. It threatens to turn our own jewish inheritance to our children, tied indeed to the hope for an examplary future state, into a quasi-fascist dogma that only bigots can identify with. Quite the opposite of what the ultra-religious right imagines. It is as if one wants to shake these people and ask them, please, for the sake of our children, to come to their senses!

allenby says:

just making this a topic for an article is dangerous by itself, regardless the point of it.
Arabs are happy to know that Jews now beginning to talk about “two-state” “state”.
It means that their agenda is taking grounds, that even Jews now thinking about their SUICIDE.

But it’s not because of arab yellings and screamings. Not at all.
It’s Israel’s FIFTH COLUMN, TheLeft, who is responsible for this kind of ideas. Their agenda is Peeeeeeeeeeece at any price. Peeeeeeeece for land.
Todays Israel’s Left is The Enemy Within.

Ken Besig Israel says:

The most disturbing aspect of this entire pile of badly thought out crap is that it fails to take into account the simple and obvious fact that the Palestinians will never under any circumstances settle peacefully with Israel.
The goal of the Palestinians is very clear and they have publicly spelled it out thousands of times. The Palestinians, both the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas, will settle for nothing less than the complete and absolute destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and the genocide of every Jew living here.
All the talk of two state solution or a one state solution is produced by delusional Left wing Israeli Jewish intellectuals and the so called Israeli elite who have more time on their hands than they can use, so they intellectually masturbate over ideas and plans that no one in their right mind would ever espouse.
Never once have the Palestinians ever stated that they would accept any agreement that leaves Israel intact or a single Jew living here.
This Tablet Magazine is so far out of touch with reality that I am beginning to wonder if the people producing and writing for it have any idea whatsoever about what they are talking about.

HaSoferet says:

So much for civil discourse.

Rivkah says:

Fivish is absolutely correct.

allenby says:

Rabi Meir Kahane was RIGHT when he proposed right after the SIX DAY WAR in 1967, to start transferring the arabs OUT, to mainly Jordan. If the idiotic leftist governments that until today control not only Israel, but also control Israelis brains, if these governments have listened to Kahane and began the transfer, Israel would have saved at least 3,500 lives of those Israelis who later either have been killed in 1973 Yom Kippur War or killed in “palestinian” terrorism.
Unfortunately Israel’s Left likes to please and appease enemies and not enemies alike. Israel’ Left likes to make everything out of its way to make the world LOVE Israel.
But the exact opposite happens. The world is not stupid, and nobody likes when Israel creating spectacles and plays, creating lies about its own history. And the history that Israel lies about together with “palestinians” is about so called “palestinians”, who created this lie about themselves.
Israel supports this lie.
Israel has never denied this lie.
WHY???
Is there a hidden agenda somewhere…???

George, the pre-1967 borders are not defensible. Period. What you’re talking about is also ethnic cleansing, but with the Arabs *doing* the cleansing. They have to go. That’s all there is to it. They’ll be happier that way as well.

While the thought of a single unified state is appealing to some, and the thought of a 2 state union is appealing to others, the plain truth is that the Palestinians wish only the distruction of Israel. They will settel for nothing less, Just look at their nagoiation starting points, 1. all of the west bank and 2.all of east Jeruslam. They have never had any legal right to any part of Jeruslam. Under the old UN Mandate for Israel, they were to have Gaza and the West Bank the Holy City was to be administred by the UN. This of course all changed in 1967, when we won the 6 day war. We now have the West Bank and the Holy City, which is ours by right. The arabs could have ended this long ago,(in 1948) by simply taking in the Palestinians and giving them back the citizenship which they had before 1948, in Egypt, Syaria, Jorden, Iran, and numerous other arab states. But they said no and put them in camps which have lasted for 60 years. So who’s fault is it that the so called Palestinians have no home land. NOT ISRAEL’S. There is no wrong to fight for what is yours, but there is wrong if you fight and hate when you had nothing to begin with such as the Palestinians.

LIEL LEIBOVITZ’ says Israel will be a shining light, based on Isaiah. The concept of a Jewish nation (and state) is inextricably bound up to the idea of our relationship with God. As eplained in Aish(http://www.aish.com/tp/i/oai/48949091.html):
The Netziv (R. Naftali Berlin) wrote (Ha’amek Davar to Numbers 14:21) that the goal of creation is that God’s glory fill the entire earth – i.e., that all human beings recognize Him.
“When God will be King over the whole world, on that day will He be One and His Name one.” (Zechariah 14 9)
We, the Nation of Priests, represent God to the world by our exemplary lifestyle, and imbue the world with knowledge of His existence:
Back to Isaiah. “We are a light unto the nations.” (Isaiah 42:6).
The Netziv explains that this function could have been achieved by the Jewish people settling in Israel and inspiring the entire world through an awareness of the miraculous Divine Providence that guides the Jew in his land. We did not merit this. As a consequence, it became necessary to spread the knowledge of God by living among the nations and causing them to witness how we sacrifice ourselves for God’s Name. Our survival as a solitary lamb among hungry wolves points to the existence of a Divine Creator, whose Divine Providence guides and protects His nation.
Jewish law consistently exhorts us to act in a way which will effect a sanctification of the Divine Name, and thereby bring us respect as a holy and upright people. We are forbidden to desecrate God’s Name by giving non-Jews reason to castigate us for conduct unbefitting a holy nation. Sanctification of God’s Name is a facet of the Mitzvah of love of God. The ideal is that mankind should unite in the service of God. As the prophet proclaims:
“Then will I return to the nations a clear language so that they can all call on the Name of God and serve Him in unison.” (Zephaniah 3:9).
May we merit, through our performance of the Mitzvot, the respect honor, and admiration of the whole world.

Well said (VERY well said) Lisa. It scares me that so many of us are so blind to what history has taught us: we will only be safe if we have a truly Jewish state. That state is Israel-our land-our home. The Arabs have a multitude of countries in which to live. Including the “poor” Palestinians who are culturally identical to the Jordanians.

Lisa Kaiser says:

A one-state solution has much to recommend it, sounds ideal. But I think that the reality would be the Jews would become a minority in Israel. That is unacceptable. Israel would become an Arab/Muslim nation. And the one-state solution does not address the ongoing hatred of Muslims for Jews. The one-state solution would bring about the destruction of Israel.

The better solution would be the formation of Palestine as a separate nation (with the PA hopefully bringing Hamas to heel).

Cheryl G says:

Liebovitz claims,”The Jewish kingdom, at least ideally, would end indentured servitude and ban high-interest loans, protect the poor and care for the beasts, enshrine reason and pursue peace. In short, it would set an example that every other nation would wish to emulate.” One can only say that this is EXTREMELY ideal and doesn’t account for the fact that the Jewish kingdom would stone adulteress women and execute homosexuals. Evoking biblical “ideals”in consideration of establishing a modern state is simply naive and undermines intellectual credibility. Neither the Bible nor modernity are that simple.

Simon says:

It’s pretty funny that you call the post “the one state illusion” and then go on to back up your point by bringing out your religious fantasies. There are lots of good reasons why a one state solution is foolish, but the “God says I win” argument is a self-serving delusion.

I am surprised that Mr. Leibovitz does not mention Noam Sheizaf’s article about one state. The article, “Endgame” was the 15 July 2010 cover story of the Haaretz weekend magazine in both Hebrew and English. It was widely read and quoted in the international media and provoked a great deal of discussion both in Israel and abroad.

Here is the article: http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/friday-supplement/endgame-1.302128

Researcher says:

It’s certainly not feasible at this point in history. Muslims’ mass murders of other Muslims in Kyrgystan just showed that in the last few months. Any little event can serve the Muslim hierarchy as a flashpoint for violence. (Danish cartoons, etc..)

If the Muslims in the West Bank and their families overseas were to convert to Bahai’i, that would be a difference kettle of fish altogether. Or maybe Buddhism? They make pretty good neighbors. :)

check out martin buber on bi national socialist state.

Larry says:

I feel that Buber is out of context in this discussion:
a) his passing was pre-1967
b) to me he was a prophet of the soul, not a political analyst; though, at the time he saw binationlism as an answer, historically it made sense
c) any political assessment by Buber would, in any event, be subjective
i) in one of his lectures which I read, he recounts the suicide of someone who had asked that Buber visit him to perhaps ease a despondency the person was experiencing. For a reason I cannot recall, Buber failed to respond as requested, and then learned of the person’s suicide. I feel the guilt Buber felt burdened him for the rest of his life and strongly influenced his focus on “the Other”
ii) speculation at this point in time by others would be, by definition, subjective and pointless

A Jewish problem requires a Jewish solution especially in light of the composition of the “settler movement.”
Disregarding time constraints, here comes outlandish:
Negotiate with that movement to find under what conditions the settlers would submit to a subpoena by an agreed upon Beis Din and all parties would agree to abide by a decision of the tribunal
Halacha rules, and I, myself, have no doubt about the outcome.
Then, and only then, would the primary obstacle to a two state solution be removed, literally and figuratively.
Binationalism? Pack your bags for Masada!

sharon rosen teig says:

for all the readers of this article..let’s remember to address the treatment of israeli arabs, or should I say mistreatment..if the palestinians were absorbed into Israel, you can be sure they would be treated like second class citizens, as most people who are non-jewish israelis are treated…Read The Other Side of Israel, by Susan Nathan, to fully understand Israel’s motivations.

Great article. But it doesn’t even mention that a vast number of the Palestinians living in current day Israel are of Jewish decent, converts into Islam.

bronso says:

It is time for the ‘One State Solution’ to the ‘One State Reality’ that Israel has created

DaBare2 says:

No Jesus? No Peace!
Know Jesus, know peace.

Dorothy Wachsstock says:

Israel’s left is Nevile Chamberlain all over again. We Jews never learn till we are almost extinguished.

How long do you think there would be the Star of David on that Flag?

A long told myth..Jews are smart. No. Jews have become so integrated in with other ethnics that they now can’t see the knife in their backs..like Arafat said, “Piece by Piece”. Ugh.

naturally like your web site but you need to check the spelling on several of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very bothersome to tell the truth nevertheless I will definitely come back again.

I’ve recently started a web site, the info you provide on this website has helped me greatly. Thanks for all of your time & work.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

One-State Illusion

On Israel’s left and right, calls for binationalism are gaining ground. But the idea is a betrayal of Zionism, and of Judaism.

More on Tablet:

To the Students for Justice in Palestine, a Letter From an Angry Black Woman

By Chloe Valdary — ‘You do not have the right to invoke my people’s struggle for your shoddy purposes’