The two articles below are important reads if we are to understand the nature of the stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians, and what it will take to break free of it, if indeed there is political will on each side to do so.

As a Zionist, I continue to ask, as does Tobin, how there can be a final settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict if the leadership of Fatah won’t recognize Jewish historical claims to the land of Israel. As a universalist who supports the right of every nation, including the Palestinians, to national sovereignty, I believe it is reasonable to ask how those Palestinians who remain in Israel can identify as full citizens in a “Jewish state” even though, according to law, they are entitled to equal rights of citizenship.

There needs to be a way to break this logjam, and perhaps, Sari Nusseibeh has come up with it. There is much in his article that disturbs me, but his suggestion that Israel should be characterized as a democratic country with a Jewish majority and a Jewish state religion, and (I would add) as the “Homeland of the Jewish people” as opposed to a “Jewish State” can be a way to move forward.

Certainly, Israelis do not want to be told who they are and what Israel should be. No one has that right except the citizens of the State of Israel. However, what Nusseibeh describes is already, in effect, the case. Israel is a democracy. Jews are the majority. And Judaism is effectively the state religion, though Christianity and Islam have equal rights to practice their religions unimpeded. If the distinction that Nusseibeh suggests (above) allows the Palestinians to sit down with the Israelis and negotiate an end-of-conflict resolution, I say Dayeinu – that should be enough for anyone who wants a secure and lasting peace with two states for two peoples sitting side by side. Jews give up nothing. Israel is what it is and will be what the Jewish people determine it to be. We can call it the “Jewish State” and I see no need to have the Palestinians do so if it means ending this conflict once and for all.

Regardless of whether some Palestinians still hold onto the preposterous dream of destroying the State of Israel, the fact is that Israel is going nowhere. And regardless of whether Israeli extremists maintain their preposterous dream of not wanting a Palestinian state to emerge, Palestinians are also going nowhere and statehood is an inevitability.

Israel will always have her enemies, but a resolution of this conflict that assures Israel’s security behind defensible internationally recognized borders is no small thing. Indeed, it is what Israel’s founders dreamed about.  Should Israel and the Palestinians come to an agreement that ends the bloodshed and this conflict, everything in the Middle East will change, and (hopefully) for the better.

Sadly, history has shown this is more easily said than done (otherwise there would have been a settlement long ago), but I am an optimist. I recall President John Kennedy’s statement in 1962 relative to the former USSR and the threat of nuclear catastrophe with the United States; “These problems were created by human beings, and they can be solved by human beings.” Finding a way to peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not beyond the pale of solvable problems!

The first article is by Sari Nusseibeh of Al-Quds University, who discusses the question of Israel as a ‘Jewish state,’ suggesting an alternative stipulation for peace talks that would ask Palestinians to ‘recognize Israel (proper) as a civil, democratic, and pluralistic state whose official religion is Judaism, and whose majority is Jewish’:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201192614417586774.html

The second article is by Jonathan S. Tobin of Commentary Magazine, who responds to Sari Nusseibeh’s discussion of the phrase ‘Jewish state,’ asserting that ‘the fact that Israel will be the state of the Jewish people cannot be questioned without unleashing the dogs of war that have doomed the Palestinians to tragedy during the last century’:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/04/nusseibeh-jewish-state/

Bernard Avishai is an Israeli journalist and blogger who I highly recommend that you read and then subscribe to. He is an Israeli and critic of the extreme right-wing government of Israel. That what he describes below would take place at any time in the State of Israel, but especially now, during these Days of Awe, shows Israel’s underbelly in stark and shocking terms. When I hear stories like this I am ashamed for my people – and I hope you are as well. Here is his most recent blog in its entirety. If you choose to do so, you may subscribe at the end.

Days Of AwePosted: 05 Oct 2011 09:44 AM PDT It is hard to imagine a more vivid contrast between the Israels that Israelis must choose. This morning, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to Daniel Shechtman, 70, a professor of materials science at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. A professional in cosmopolitan Haifa, who also teaches in Iowa, Shechtman personifies the old Zionist dream of a Jewish modernity, taken in what is best in the larger world, and breathing out a creative newness–in this case, an ingenious proof that nature, the natural crystal, is capable of imitating of all things classical Islamic art, which might have also been Maimonides’ art, since its genius was delighting without “graven images.” Also this morning, I got this email from my friend Assaf Sharon, who along with other members of Solidarity was attacked near the settlement of Anatot on Rosh Hashana: “Perhaps you have already heard about the violent attack we experienced on Rosh Hashana. I paste below a description of the events and a video capturing some of what happened. Although I took quite a beating, I must confess that the pain of the blows and wounds dulls in comparison with the frustration from the silence and indifference with which this unprecedented event is being received.” I reproduce his report in full. Something to consider on Yom Kippur: For decades, the Israeli government and police force have passively allowed settlers to act violently against Palestinians and Israelis who protest the occupation. Last Friday, when a mob of settlers attacked a group of Palestinian farmers and Israeli solidarity activists outside the settlement of Anatot, a new level of collusion was reached: not only did the police not act to stop the mob of settlers, but indeed many of the settlers in the mob were themselves out-of-uniform policemen and state employees. The press was silent. The occupation has found a new way to silence non-violent resistance and dissent. At first glance, Anatot is a pastoral gated community close to Jerusalem, inhabited by law-abiding citizens, many of whom are employed by the Civil Administration and the police. But despite its benign appearance, Anatot is a settlement, located in Palestinian territory occupied in 1967. Anatot was built in 1982 on land allocated by the Israeli government, and inexpensive housing was offered to police officers and other government employees in order to encourage them to live and work in the otherwise unattractive area known by the Israeli government and settlers as “Judea and Samaria,” and by the rest of the world as the West Bank. Like many other settlements, Anatot is surrounded by a separation fence that envelops acres of privately-owned Palestinian land. Six years ago, the residents of Anatot decided to expand their settlement southward. They neither requested nor received government permits to expand. They simply rerouted the settlement’s fence to encompass additional private Palestinian land, including land owned by a farmer named Yassin el-Rafa’i and his family, who are citizens of Israel. For years, settlers from Anatot have regularly harassed el-Rafa’i. On multiple occasions, settlers have uprooted el-Rafa’i’s trees and otherwise damaged his property, including poisoning his well with animal carcasses. El-Rafa’i has filed numerous complaints with the local police, but to no avail. The police have consistently refused to address el-Rafa’i’s complaints, or to take any action whatsoever to restrain the settlers’ continued harassment. Last Friday (9/30/2011), a group of a dozen Israeli activists from The Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement, Ta’ayush, and other groups, went to visit Yassin el-Rafa’i and his wife Iman, in order to hear their story and to express friendship and solidarity. While the activists were getting ready to go home, a crowd of nearly a hundred settlers from Anatot surrounded the el-Rafa’i family and the Israeli activists. The mob of settlers quickly grew violent, and began to attack Iman, Yassin and the Israeli activists with fists, rocks and clubs. Three people were hospitalized, including Yassin and Iman, and several activists were detained for interrogation. During the entire incident, uniformed police officers were present, and did nothing to stop or restrain the mob, despite the activists’ repeated pleas for intervention. Not a single settler was detained or arrested. No journalists were present, and the majority of the evidence was destroyed by the attackers, who specifically targeted cameras, breaking or stealing them and beating the photographers. That evening, a group of about 40 Israeli activists returned to Anatot, to protest the brutalities committed earlier that day. The activists held a nonviolent demonstration in front of the settlement’s locked gate, while hundreds of settlers amassed on the other side. Some had participated in the afternoon’s violent attack, and some were soldiers and police officers in civilian dress: a horde of men seething with hatred and hungry for violence. The settlers demanded that the gates be opened, and charged at the activists, again with fists, rocks, and clubs. The police officers in uniform that were present did nothing to restrain the crowd. One of the attackers tried a number of times to stab activists with a knife. When we tried to get away from the place, the attackers chased us, chanting “Death to Arabs!” and “Death to leftists!” They were accompanied by a group of uniformed police officers. About 10 demonstrators were injured, three of whom were evacuated for medical treatment. Six cars were seriously damaged or destroyed. On one of them a Jewish star, a Magen David, was incised. Despite the attack, which was caught in stills and in video, the police did not arrest a single rioter. And despite the fact that the afternoon’s attack was known to the press, not a single journalist was present to witness the evening’s attack. The readiness with which the settlers turned to brutal violence – violence which in any other context would be called terror – exposes Anatot for what it is: an extremist ideological settlement. Furthermore, these attacks call into question the commonly held belief in Israel which posits a clear distinction between extremist, ideological settlements and moderate, ‘quality of life’ settlements. All settlements are based on expropriation and dispossession, and all are maintained by the same tools of the occupation. The fact that the police accommodated and enabled the rioters highlights the complete lack of both accountability and justice in the occupation .The police and security forces do not monitor the settlers; they work for the settlers. In many cases, including the case of Anatot, the police are the settlers, and the settlers are the police. Police out of uniform assaulted citizens while uniformed police looked on and did nothing. The press largely ignored the events, and only after considerable public pressure and the release of videos and photos did several newspapers cover Friday’s events. Even then, most of the coverage was tepid, equivocating, and biased towards the settlers and the police. With the Anatot events, political conflict in Israel has reached a watershed. In the light of day and under the supervision of the law enforcement, nonviolent dissent is being silenced with brutality. Dissidents are branded as traitors, and their physical safety and property are forfeit. Israelis and Palestinians alike were savaged by a mob of settlers, who acted with the complete confidence of those whose impunity is guaranteed. Decades of occupation and repression have made Israeli society largely callous to settler and state violence against Palestinians. In Anatot on Friday, this violence was extended to Israelis who arrived to show nonviolent solidarity with the struggle against injustice, discrimination, and occupation. •We demand an investigation of the events in Anatot, to be carried out by a special commission made of officials unrelated to the Judea and Samaria District. •We demand the immediate suspension of the law enforcement officers present, and the dismissal of the chief security officer of the settlement, Tomer Shapira. •We demand that the el-Rifa’i family be guaranteed full and uninhibited access to all of their land, including, if necessary, security escorts and protection. •We demand the dismantlement of the illegal separation fence that allows the settlers of Anatot to expropriate privately-owned Palestinian lands. We will not be silenced. We will continue to struggle against the occupation, violence, and repression. We will continue to stand up for justice, civil equality and democracy. Will you stand up with us? Share the story of the Anatot events and of the el-Rifa’i family. Share the videos of the attacks with your friends, family, classmates and colleagues. Bring these stories to the attention of your political representatives and community leaders. — Assaf Sharon

Gershom Baskin is an American-born Israeli having made aliyah in the 1970s, and is the co-founder of the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI), the only think tank in Israel devoted to the peace process that is run jointly by Israelis and Palestinians. He has extensive contacts in the PLO, including in Hamas, has been an advisor to Israeli Prime Ministers and Israeli security experts, and helped broker the latest cease-fire via cell phone between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

In reading his story (below in the Forward) I am reminded of what good one person can do when motivated by vision, passion, willfulness, commitment, chutzpah, courage, faith, and skill. Those committed to a two-states for two-peoples resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict need people like Gershom Baskin on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides more and more.

http://www.forward.com/articles/142048/

I have attached links below to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s and President Abbas’ speeches at the UN. Much commentary from the left and right has already been offered, so I will not add much to the cacophony except to say that each played effectively to his extremist base, and that is the rub. President Obama, for his part, had his eye more on presidential politics than he did on Middle East peace. Consequently, nothing seems to have been gained from this UN tumult confirming what an Israeli political scientist once told me in the early 1980s: “In the Middle East there is always a lot of motion without much movement!”

It is my sense that the light at the end of this tunnel is now a faint glimmer. To make matters worse, there is no serious leadership that can move the parties forward.

I was disappointed, but not surprised, with Bibi’s speech. He said nothing new, essentially rehashing his remarks delivered before the joint session of Congress in May. Nevertheless, I would have liked to hear some grand gesture that could have broken the log-jam and offered some hope for a renewal of negotiations towards a settlement. He might have made a commitment, for example, to stop all settlement construction provided that the Palestinians come back to negotiate and keep talking. Yes, Bibi did this for 10 months already and the PA didn’t respond until the last month, but Israel needs a public relations win and this might have been one. I also would have liked to hear him express sympathy for the sufferings of the Palestinian people and speak of the importance of both the Israelis understanding the Palestinian narrative and the Palestinians understanding the Israeli narrative.

The weaknesses of Obama’s and Netanyahu’s speeches, however, pale compared to how awful President Abbas’ speech was. The most revealing and disturbing few sentences were these:

“I come before you today from the Holy Land, the land of Palestine, the land of divine messages, ascension of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the birthplace of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people in the homeland and in the Diaspora, to say, after 63 years of suffering of the ongoing Nakba: Enough. It is time for the Palestinian people to gain their freedom and independence.”

Where is Abbas’ acknowledgment that Judaism’s birth was in the “Holy Land” (i.e. Land of Israel) 1500 years before Christianity and 2100 years before Islam? He mentioned Jesus Christ and Muhammad but ignored the Biblical patriarchs, matriarchs, King David, the Israelite prophets, and the Maccabees. His speech causes me to wonder whether Abbas accepts the Jews’ legitimately as a people with a national right to a state. If I am wondering this from my liberal-left position, Abbas may yet lose the good faith of most self-respecting Zionists.

Both Netanyahu’s and Abbas’ speeches are a recipe for war and blood-shed. I am no great defender of Benjamin Netanyahu. But in comparison, Abbas was the greatest offender because he couldn’t bring himself to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

As we enter the New Year, I continue to hope that something is going on that none of us knows about, that there was a quid pro quo between Obama and Netanyahu that could break this thing open.

Unfortunately, the situation seems to be worse today than it was only two weeks ago, and I am an optimist by nature, which recalls the difference between an optimist and a pessimist. The optimist says, “This is the best of all worlds.” The pessimist says, “I’m afraid you are right!”

Full transcript of PM Netanyahu’s speech:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/full-transcript-of-netanyahu-speech-at-un-general-assembly-1.386464

Full transcript of President Abbas’ speech:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/full-transcript-of-abbas-speech-at-un-general-assembly-1.386385

If Yossi Alpher is right, there may be a silver lining for Israel after a UN vote for a Palestinian State that actually frees PA President Mahmud Abbas to negotiate a final end-of-conflict and end-of-claims resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in a two-states for two-peoples agreement.

On Sunday, August 28 I posted a piece entitled Why the Palestinians Can’t Recognize the Jewish State? http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/why-the-palestinians-can%E2%80%99t-recognize-the-jewish-state.html This piece explains from a Palestinian perspective the principled problem they face in concluding any agreement with Israel for a two-states for two-peoples agreement. For the Palestinians to acknowledge a Jewish State of Israel means their having to negate their own claim that Palestine is Palestinian and that the refugees have the right to return to their homes they vacated in 1948 and 1967.

Yossi Alpher argues in this article (link below) that a UN vote relieves Abbas of this obstacle and enables him with international cover to conclude a two-state agreement with Israel. Why? Because the UN vote essentially sets the principle of two states, Palestine and Israel, separated by a border drawn roughly along the 1949 armistice lines with land swaps to be negotiated.

Why is Abbas not saying this out loud? There are two possibilities: [1] he is waiting for the new reality to be established by the UN, and only after that happens and after the Palestinian State is established can he legitimately say to the Palestinians that the resolution they themselves wanted effectively eliminated their claims to a greater Palestine, or [2] he is duplicitous and has no intention of giving up the dream of a “Greater Palestine” and regards a negotiated agreement with Israel as only the first part of a two-stage process leading to a greater Palestinian State.

Abbas is not stupid, nor is he blind to political reality. I believe, based on what Yossi Alpher is suggesting, that he is cunning and sees the UN move as the only way he can be relieved of the burden of worrying about the refugees’ claims to their right to return to the actual homes and/or land that they vacated.

Israel has always drawn a red line about this issue. There is consensus across the Israeli political spectrum that Palestinian refugees would have the right to return to Palestine and not to Israel, for to assert otherwise is to forfeit the Jewish character of the State and the raison d’etre of Zionism and Israel. Perhaps Israelis might be amenable to some symbolic Palestinian return as former PM Olmert agreed to do (5000 refugees in the first 10 years).

In 9 days the UN will take up this issue. The US has promised to veto the resolution in the Security Council. Such a resolution, however, is expected to pass in the General Assembly. (See the J Street resolution that I posted on Friday, September 9)

An Israeli Case for a Palestinian State – NY Times Op-ed by Yossi Alpher http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/12iht-edalpher12.html?_r=1&ref=global