Must Palestine Be Judenrein?

One evident area of disagreement between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel is the “expansion” of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. The President reportedly insists that not another building be constructed; the Prime Minister wishes to allow new dwellings to accommodate “natural growth”, that is, to make it possible for settlers’ children to set up their own households when they reach adulthood.

To a man from Mars, the difference would seem petty, yet we all know what is behind it. In the absence of the Palestinian factions, who are too divided to enter into talks with Israel, President Obama is de facto negotiating on their behalf and making the demand that they would make: that any future Palestinian state be judenrein. Israel is 20 percent Arab, but it is intolerable that “Palestine” be so much as two percent Jewish. It must be like the other Arab lands, from which virtually all Jews were expelled after the refounding of Israel in 1948.

It’s strange that we don’t find the American stance on this point appalling. After all, a Presidential candidate who belonged to a social club that kept Jews out would be driven from public life. How is it that a President can, without rebuke, argue for an anti-Jewish policy abroad? Shouldn’t it be elementary that Jew-hatred is utterly repugnant to the United States, that we will neither promote nor acquiesce in it? And doubly not when the Jew haters hate us, too. Have we forgotten already the photos taken on 9/11, showing jubilant Palestinians dancing in the streets?

Leaving principles aside, from a purely prudential, “realist” perspective, doesn’t the Palestinians’ unwillingness to accept a small proportion of Jews in their midst tell us a great deal about whether they are willing and able to form a peaceable polity that will eschew continued violence against Israel? If a “settlement” will be merely a prelude to further warfare, what purpose will it serve?

Barack Obama did not, of course, invent this aberration from American ideals. He likes to repudiate his predecessors. Here’s his opportunity to do so with complete justification. Let him announce that the U.S. favors free Jewish emigration to the West Bank, with only the caveat that the settlers may someday have to live as good citizens of an Arab majority state. If that is too great an imposition for Palestinian sensibilities, they can have that state on the Greek Kalends.

Comments

[Rick Ficek]

http://www.slate.com/id/2220733/ Dear Mr.Veal,May I recommend this article to you?It offers what I believe to be a less dangerous course of action. Zionism has many streams;the one you champion(?) leads,in my opinion, to disaster for the state of Israel,With respect.Rick Ficek

[pbh]

"The PA imposes the death penalty on any Palestinian who sells land to a Jew"

"Sheikh Tamimi [your citation]. . . said that the ban was necessary to counter the Israeli government's efforts to change the Arab and Islamic culture of Jerusalem by expelling its Arab residents and turning it into a Jewish city."

Obviously, this debate cannot be maintained without context. In my view, you continue to frame all of your opinions on this issue from a single minded perspective. The Palestinians, on the other hand, often frame their side of the argument as defensive, a point of view that you appear to disdain.

So, let us go back to your original question: Must Palestine be "free" of Jews? Historically this has never been the case. Why, I wonder, has this become a consideration for the present?

pbh

[Tom Veal]

Peter Hodges sent the following response, which for unknown reasons he wasn’t able to post as a comment:

No.

It is not a question of whether or not Jews can live in Palestine. It is a question of sovereignty.

Let us suppose that the occupied territory that is Palestine is released from occupation. Must the Jews then depart? Not, I suggest, if they accept Palestinian sovereignty. Is this not what Palestinians must do when living in Israel?

Why isn't what is good for the goose good for the gander?

Mr Veal never offers this proposal. Instead, he characterizes what, from the Palestinian point of view is the Israeli land grab, in quaint Israeli partisan terms, ie: family expansion. I say, let the Jews who want to live in Palestine pay for their land and live under Palestinian rule, the same way they live in Brooklyn under US rule.

Meanwhile, Israel can remain safe for those who want to live in the homeland. What's wrong with that?

pbh

Me: The proposal that “Jews who want to live in Palestine pay for their land and live under Palestinian rule” is what the Palestinian Authority rejects. The PA imposes the death penalty on any Palestinian who sells land to a Jew, and it has unwaveringly insisted that the future Palestinian state must (like most of the Arab world) have no Jewish inhabitants whatsoever.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Guess we can take that as a "yes", then.

[pbh]

"make it possible for settlers’ children to set up their own households when they reach adulthood."

Putting aside the question of why it is so inconceivable that these second generation “settlers” cannot find other ground on which to raise their families, I find it extremely disingenuous that you attempt to frame the discussion in such benign terms. From the Palestinian perspective, the settlements are very simply a land grab. For you to assert that they are merely attempting to provide for natural growth is sophistry of the lowest order.