Daniel Gordis’ latest article, provocatively titled “Occupation Über Alles,” quite correctly explains one of the main issues dividing Israel from progressive American Jews: the Americans’ obsessive preoccupation (so to speak) with “The Occupation.” But although he is skilled at dissecting the problem, he draws back from the inescapable conclusion.
He writes,
First, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is humiliating for the Palestinians and it is callousing of Israel’s soul. No matter what one’s theological viewpoint — God gave us the land, God did not give us the land, God is not part of this equation — there can be no doubt: the current situation demeans the Palestinians and challenges our morality. Just ask lots of the soldiers who have served there, even those who did not witness anything particularly terrible: you can smell the humiliation everywhere. Not a single one of Zionism’s great thinkers ever envisioned or sought anything like the situation in which we find ourselves. We should end this, and separate from the Palestinians, as soon as we can.
He goes on to argue that Israelis understand that the security consequences of withdrawing from Judea and Samaria – I wish nobody would use the expression “West Bank,” which the Jordanians invented in 1950 after their illegal annexation of the area – would be disastrous, another Gaza next-door to Tel Aviv. Even most left-of-center Israelis realize that the best they can do is to try to mitigate the security, moral, psychological, and economic problems that come from “The Occupation” until at some unspecified time in the far future the situation will change so that there can be a “separation” from the Palestinians. “End The Occupation” was not a slogan of the main opposition in recent Israeli elections, because only an extreme fringe think it’s a practical choice.
Progressive Americans, especially Jewish ones, don’t agree for a complex of political, psychological, and ideological reasons. In particular, they do not deeply feel the force of the security problem, the way Israelis who were putting their children to sleep in bomb shelters a few days ago do. For the folks in J Street, for example, it’s all about the occupation. And this is one of the reasons, Gordis thinks, that the dialogue between American and Israeli Jews is difficult.
But he misses the most important implication of the dilemma posed by the territories. He continues,
Second, we’re asking the wrong question about the occupation. “When will Israel end the occupation,” or more commonly among many American Jewish progressives, “What can we do to pressure Israel to end the occupation?” are the wrong questions. The right question lies emblazoned on the other side of that same coin: “When will the Palestinians declare an end to their desire to destroy Israel, so Israelis might be more willing to consider making territorial and security concessions?”
Well, we can try to answer that question, and probably the answer is “never.” But even if there were a chance that the Palestinians would give up what has become the central piece of their national identity and become more concerned with developing a Palestinian state than with getting their hands on ours, there is no guarantee that they would stay that way. And that illustrates the fundamental flaw in the idea that “separation,” conceived as withdrawal, can be consistent with security.
It’s not a question of whether today’s inhabitants of the territories can stop being enemies. Rather, it is a brute fact of topography. As Maj. Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan explains in detail here, if Israel were to give up control of the strategic highlands of Judea and Samaria and the western slope of the Jordan Valley, then she would be at the mercy of whoever did control that territory, as well as being open to invasion from the east (similar things can be said about the Golan Heights). Unless it can be established that someday Israel will have no more regional enemies, she cannot withdraw.
And therefore the argument for separation from the Palestinians does not imply that Israel must be “willing to consider making territorial and security concessions.” On the contrary, it implies that since Israel cannot make such concessions, there is only one way to “separate:” the Palestinians, or at least most of them, must leave!
The Left, and even centrists like Daniel Gordis, really ought to think more carefully about their insistence that separation is essential. If they are convinced that “The Occupation” is so bad that it must be ended posthaste, then they either need to give up the idea of a defensible Jewish state (in truth, the extreme Left does hate the state, so it might take that position) or consider the ideas presented (here and here) by Martin Sherman about incentivized emigration of the Arab population of Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.
Questions immediately arise about where they would go, where the money will come from, etc. Martin Sherman deals with these questions at length in his numerous articles about incentivized emigration, two of which are linked above. He calls it “The Humanitarian Paradigm” (a two-part article is here and here) to emphasize that he is not advocating forced ethnic cleansing, but rather providing the resources to permit Palestinians to leave the dysfunctional societies of Gaza and the Palestinian Authority, and to live independently, off the international dole. This would not only be a great benefit to the Palestinians themselves and to Israel, but would take an exponentially increasing financial burden off donor nations, allowing them to help the large and growing number of real refugees in the world.
Alternatively one might think that “The Occupation” could be turned into a benign coexistence of two peoples, such as has been achieved with the 20% of the citizens of the State of Israel that are Arabs. But that relationship is also somewhat fraught, and it is hard to tell if it is moving in the direction of better relations or a severe fracture. Time will tell, but the Arabs of Judea and Samaria – who have lived for more than a generation under the vicious “educational” system of Yasser Arafat which teaches children that murdering Jews is an honorable and praiseworthy act – are far less likely to want to coexist. When multi-ethnic states have been tried in the Middle East, they have not worked out well, and often have been mired in vicious conflicts. The sectarian wars in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq are examples.
The traditional “solutions” to the conflict with the Palestinians have almost always assumed that Jews would move to make way for Palestinian autonomy or sovereignty. But this ignores the geographic realities of the region. Instead of searching for ways to force Israel to tie the noose to hang herself with, or even, as Gordis seems to suggest, to wait for midnight when the Palestinians will turn into harmless pumpkins, an effort should be made now to begin developing a humane and effective program of financial incentives to encourage Palestinians to leave Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.
Gordis would do much toward improving Israel’s relationship with American Jews if he could convince them that a two-state solution isn’t in the cards in the near future. He would be doing even more if he could get them to understand that it will never be.
Where is Israel and the Jewish people going? if they cannot as a people ban this immediately then the answer is absolutely nowhere, but into oblivion. This is more important than any settlement building!
https://www.timesofisrael.com/tiny-samaritan-community-marks-passover-sacrifice-as-numbers-grow/?fb_action_ids=2753284154686850&fb_action_types=og.comments&fbclid=IwAR3HWPL-EprlId11A-LUE2O7PCbKcPKfZCDXHPEnNQPfa_WMXOBdXa1JUkw
In other Words Victor seeks to soften what Sherman is proposing. I seek to sharpen it. I seek to bring tot he fore with extreme focus that the root of the problem is Mohammedanism and that for Jews to have breathing space, and to play their full role in the future of life on earth, then they MUST win this by hook or by crook. i
I mean to declare war on Mohammedanism and THEN as a last resort give them a way out, which is what Leon Trotsky proposed in simple words for anybody interested in the truth to check … relocation.
No sooner do you seemingly get out of one trap that you fall into another. it is not a matter of building new jewish villages anywhere. it is far more important to get rid of the Mohammedan enemy within the Jewish state, specifically in Israel itself, in Judea Samaria and in Gaza. That is the number one.
the writer above seems to be dim, and has not absorbed AT All the essence of the suggestions of Martin Sherman.
It is not an offer of “peace” to the Arabs. It is to make life so horrible for the Mohammedans that they will want to leave. In that sense financial inducements may be used.
Different thing. Vic does not grasp this.
Stop the occupation..end the Arab occupation of Jewish land. They are the real occupiers who don’t belong in the Land of Israel. Jordan is Arab Palestine, Israel is Jewish Palestine.
@ Wooly Mammoth:Actually building is on going in Judea/Samaria. Needed is removal of illegal Arab structures.
Also now, Israel show apply its civil law to all Jewish Towns in Judea/Samaria, Jordan Valley, Dead Sea Area and any land needed for security in addition including roads, military bases and nature reserves as a first step.
@ Bear Klein:
Now this is good news. Start building in Judea and Samaria immediately.
I was speaking with an “orthodox American Jewish female yesterday, intelligent and she is a committed Democrat, hates Trump like poison and will not concede he did anything good Israel. She is not the only one.
I wonder what the breakdown on the two elections Obama won.
If anyone knows, what was the % of the Jewish female vote for Obama vs. Jewish male vote for Obama.
I always thought that if a secular Jewish guy went to the not insignificant aggravation and considerable trouble of becoming religious with all of it’s requirements, one could at least be guaranteed of a community which is 100% pro Israel. Obviously I was wrong.
I think anyone who proves their terrorist bonafides should be provided a one way ticket out and a box lunch.
The obvious misspellings are my computer programs, not mine.
Vic treats Daniel Gordis and his writings with far more respect than he deserves. If I said what I think of him, it would be unprintable. He holds nationwide “debates” in Reform synogues across the country with arch Israel-hater Peter Beinart, in which he disagrees only mildly with Beinart–essentially acting as “cover” for him. He is oppose to Jewish settlements inthe “West Bank,” and advocates Israeli withdrawal to something close to the May 1967 armistice lines. When Israel issued instructions to El Al to seve only kosher meals and avoid flying on the Sabbath, Gordis wrote advocating that everyone boycott El Al until these directives were revoked–in other words, “BDS.
I once wrote to another Jewish publication that “the solution to the Daniel Gordis broblem is to boycott him, sanction him, divest from him. Do not attend his children ‘s nieces, and nephews’ bar mitzvah parties. Do not publish his writings, if you meet him on the street, don’t greet him. If he greets you, cut him cold.” Or words to that effect.
We need to end the Arab occupation of Jewish land. They are the real occupiers who don’t belong in the Land of Israel.
US just came out with a new policy and legal opinion on Jewish Towns in Judea/Samaria they are no longer considered illegal.
@ Frank Adam:I understand your point about people who are not religious get turned off by saying the Land was Promised in the Torah to the Jews. Then the Christians who support Israel also believe this.
Then do you think if you talk about the British Mandate, the Balfour Declaration, UN Charter 80 upholding the Rights of the Jews to all the land until the River, or capture of land in a defensive war, or Gazans bombing Israel since it turned the land over the Pal-Arabs the Bernie Sanders and other far left wing Jews will change their tune?
This is what I explain to people and those who are open minded I have some success with but those who are open minded but those who are not you might as well talk to the wall.
A lot of trouble could be avoided if a certain type of Jewish nationalist both Yishuv and Golah were to be careful with their words.
Lay off the Bible and ask if the Arab or their friend is willing to accept a two state solution at all?
Lay off the Bible and ask if the Arab or their friend is so interested in an Arab Palestine state why did they repeatedly reject offers of one over Peel 1937, UN181 in 1947, Israel’s victory offer in 1967 and others under Sadat, Maadrid, Oslo, Barakk and Olmert etc???
Lay off the Bible and ask if the Arab or their friend is so sure about a democratic secular all citizens equal solution why is it no Arab state secular and equal let alone democratic? but is disturbed by Moslem sectarianism let alone different ethnicities?
According to Moshe Sharon
Islam and Territory
This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic.
Really good article Vic!