By: jim montel

jim montel — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:14:00 +0000

I believe David ben-gurion was himself in favour of a binational state at least through the 1920s and that far from being the invention of a small group this was the default position of the yishuv and of the British Christian supporters of the balfour declaration and indeed of herzl himself who imagined in his novel Altneuland that Arabs would welcome Jews. (any comments?)of course b-g and herzl may have had a secret position, but it seems the position changed because a. arabs themselves would not accept a binational state or any kind of coexistence with jews in their country as their numbers continued to increase and b.persecution of jews in germany (after 1933) and in poland (after 1935) created pressure for immigration when other countries like the U.S. would not increase their quota, established in 1924, beyond 40,000 per annum. this immigration spurred arab riots and then arabs stonewalled every attempt to resolve the problem including partition in 1937 with 20 pc to jews and 80 pc. to arabs. (the exact reverse of the pre-1967 borders and today’s peace proposals). As the persecution increased to its horrifying conclusion the urgency of free immigration and therefore jewish sovereignty took precedence over everything else. that demand was made in 1942 at the Biltmore conference in new york. it was the only sensible response to the gravest situation that ever befell a people, religion, ethnic group.the question is whether today, in somewhat calmer times when the yishuv is stronger it would be possible to achieve something like a federal state. probably not. the situation is that most jews want peace but dont trust arabs. most arabs dont trust jews. that does not make peace impossible. trust is not altogether a healthy sentiment in international affairs. trust may come in time, but only after a peace agreement. who after all would not welcome a larger, calmer, accepted country called Israel with happy muslims and Jews happily engaged in commercial and cultural and political exchange. But could it work? meanwhile what is wrong with two separate states and an exchange of territory to maintain the pre-’67 80-20 ratio, despite the fact that in all the world there is but one Jewish, Hebrew-speaking state with which other jews can identify or in the perverse way many jews have, can find their identity by refusing to set foot in it.

By: D. Tsernoglou

D. Tsernoglou — Thu, 31 May 2007 13:33:56 +0000

Tried to find a story I vaguely remember about MB but could not find anything in this or related
sites. Can somebody confirm or deny it. Here is what I remember. When Eichmann was condemned to
death in Israel, Martin Buber wrote to Ben Gurion that Israel had no right to execute Eichmann and
that he would like to go, see Ben Gurion and explain this to him. Ben Gurion replied ‘you need not
come to see me. I shall come to your place to discuss the matter with you, because you are older
and wiser than me’

Comments on: Martin Buber’s Utopian Israel

By: jim montel

By: D. Tsernoglou