Re: On the Responsibility of the Weak: Jeffrey Isaac

Thank you for your very intelligent comment.

I agree with you. I am an admirer of the 1940's writings of Martin Buber,
and also Judah Magnes and Hannah Arendt--on whom I have written a book--on
this topic. If I had been around in 1947-48 I would have agreed with them
and I would have supported a binational state (Arendt actually supported a
binational confederation).

The problem, which Arendt came to see perhaps even more clearly than
Buber, was that 1947-48 was not a propitious moment for this to happen,
because of the Jewish pressure to absorb many Jewish refugees/victims of
Hitler, the (understandable but also tragic) opposition to this of
indigenous Palestinians and Arabs more generally, and the fact that on
BOTH sides the supporters of binationalism were weak. Arendt, for example,
did not support a Jewish state in 1947-48, but she also saw the political
weakness of her position and came to believe that the 1948 Israeli
declaration of independent statehood, under the circumstances, was
unavoidable. She continued to criticize the state and its policies, but
the political agenda of binationalism faded. . . 

Now it's 2000. Today, alas--and this is tragic and regrettable, but also
true--the public call for "binationalism" does mean the destruction of the
existing Israeli state. This is its practical effect, and this is what
many of its proponents actually intend.

I agree with you that it is very important to try to recover historical
lost moments, to learn from them, and to take inspiration from what is
exemplary in them. My own commitments to a two-state solution based upon
mutual recognition and genuine peaceful coexistence, is rooted in part in
my reading of people like Buber. But Buber's specific political vision,
right now, is impractical.

But the values for which he stood are practical, including the value of a
basic humanism and a belief in the security and dignity of all people
regardless of ethnicity or religion. This is why I believe that peace is
important, and why even a flawed pecea process is better than no peace
process.

In my opinion the Occupation is the deplorable consequence of a truly
tragic political conflict. It ought to be brought to an end. Some modicum
of justice ought to be instituted. This is why I support peace, and
support those in Israel who support peace.

But the supporters of peace need interlocutors who also support peace and
are willing to say this.

 JI

On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Mohammed Bamyeh wrote:

> 
> it seems to me that there is a willful misunderstanding here. "Binational
> state" does not and has never meant "the destruction of Israel," even
> though that is how Israel's supporters habe always presented it. In fact
> there are Israeli and other Jewish supporters of this solution. Martin
> Buber was, if I am not mistaken, the first to support it, arguing that the
> two state solution envisioned by the UN in 1947 would lead to interminable
> wars and bloodshed, as the case has indeed proven itself. A binational
> state, by contrast, is not only the far more humane and democratic
> alternative. It is also in tune with contemporary global realities of
> interdependence and reduced sovereignty. The "disentanglement of nations"
> proposed around WW1 and the "separation" of the two peoples being proposed
> now by many Israeli liberals flow from similar wellsprings, and the cost
> of that solution will now be as it was then: ethnic cleansing and the
> creation of additional accounts to be settled.
> 
> It would be good, for a change, if words and terms are discussed first on
> the basis of what they actually say. No one has spoken of the
> "destruction" of anything, yet that is how you chose to understand the
> proposal, thus saving yourselves from having to actually consider its
> merits.
> 
> Yours,
> Mohammed Bamyeh
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Jeffrey C. Isaac wrote:
> 
> > because as I listened to her talk, she deployed those others who
> > supposedly support a "binational" state, i.e., the destruction of Israel,
> > as a veiled threat. Her own rhetoric in the talk that I heard was little
> > different from those who take a more emphatically maximalist position.
> > Further, there was nothing in the talk that I heard to indicate the kind
> > of political responsibility that I discuss in my essau. That is why
> > Ashrawi's talk troubled me.
> >
> > JI
> >
> 
> 
>