The “Palestinian Question” and the “Jewish Question”

Israel unquestionably has a Palestinian question.  In fact, it has several; different but deeply connected. The Palestinians who are Israeli citizens; how equal should they be? (itself demeaning).  And what should be done with the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza; whom Israel rules as a conqueror, without their consent? (likewise demeaning).  It has never decided that, even now; though settlers have their own answers.

And indeed the Palestinians have a Jewish questions; lots of them, though they are impossible to address publicly for fear of incessant charges of anti-Semitism.  I plan to try to tackle some of those questions in the near future, but for the moment I want to consider some of the issues raised by Shaul Magid in a recent (free) substack, which I highly recommend to everyone.

In it, among other things, he compares Israel’s Palestinian question with Europe’s “Jewish question,”  which Theodore Herzl tried to solve through Zionism, the Bund through “doigkeit” and Hitler largely succeeded in solving through extermination, in the process also empowering Zionism, which achieved its primary goal of a Jewish state in 1948.  I’ve discussed Zionism’s career already, notably here, and will undoubtedly return to it.  But  for now, a brief look at some developments in the history of Europe’s Jewish Question.

Magid notes that Europe’s Jewish question was largely about rights, while Israel’s Palestinian  (or Arab) question is indeed about rights but also about land. I would add that Zionism brought to Palestine in its luggage a number of Europe’s fashionable fin de siècle ideas and  the Jewish state has been trying to apply them in a world that has moved on quite a bit in the last century and a quarter.  But – strangely and unexpectedly – we may be moving back to that era, also known as the Gilded Age (look at the number of our billionaires!).

That era in Europe was the heyday of social Darwinism, race theory, and nationalism, all of which we thought met their end with the Holocaust. Nevertheless, Israel’s conception of the Jewish people reframed Judaism and Israeli law in terms of 19th century nationalism, which now which now seems to be enjoying a comeback in both European and American rightwing politics, which is why the current Israeli government is so comfortable in their midst.

Virtually all the states  of Europe with significant Jewish populations (England perhaps excepted) had a  “Jewish question” in the decades leading up to World War I while only Israel has a Palestinian question. It had morphed from a religious issue in medieval times to a national question by the end of the 19^th  century.  Interestingly, Jewish nationalism is now transforming into a messianic religious form, while maintaining its national exclusivity. That is particularly difficult for Europeans to understand, where even the far right is often non-religious. Israel’s right has for decades received the fervent support of the American religious right, but even that is shifting. Evangelicals are applying their moral views to Israel instead of the  pre-millenarian diaspensationalism, which had for so long been fashionable,  and Israel is not faring well.  Support for Israel among American evangelicals has been dropping, while Christian nationalism, which views both Zionism and Judaism as alien, is taking hold.

What this may portend is a possible shift by both Europe and the  U.S. over the next few years, in their stance towards Israel. While the European far right,  which is generally pro-Israel (except for a fringe which just can’t give up old-style anti-Semitism) may actually come to power in France and  Germany (and conceivably the U.K.), the opposite is taking shape in the  U.S.  Due to Trump’s calamitously bad performance  in his second term and his now obvious mental decline, a Democratic victory in 2028 is probable.  Even Jewish and previously unquestionably pro-Israel Democrats are horrified by Gaza and the current Israeli government, and this is certain to be reflected in American policy by 2029, or even earlier, given Congress’s power over spending, which a partially or fully Democratic-controlled Congress is  certain to wield. Thus, before the end of the decade, it is not far-fetched to imagine a U.S. ready to clip Israel’s wings, while Europe may try to  protect it.  Given sharply diminished American influence in most spheres except economic (and perhaps military), thanks to misguided Trumpian policies, how this will play out is by no means clear.

The consequences for Palestinians are equally unforeseeable. While a possible new Israeli government (which seems less certain now than it did a few weeks ago-see Note below), will probably rein in settler outrages in the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanon may continue to fester,  and a Palestinian state will remain unreachable. The worldwide sympathy for Palestinians, which, thanks  to catastrophic lapses in judgment and policy by various Israeli governments, most especially the current one, seems unlikely to be  translated into tangible political help for them by the international  community. The stars are aligning against Israel  but not necessarily in ways that  will benefit Palestinians. Strong states do not easily succumb to international pressure in matters that seem existential to their populations.  That is why continued attempts to influence Israeli opinion remains important, as discouraging as that has been lately.

Note on the coming Israeli election:  Recent polls (non-paywalled here) show two far-right parties (Religious Zionism, led by Bezalel Smotrich, and Amcha Yisrael, a new part led by Reserve Col. Ofer Winter) fairly likely to pass the 3.25% threshold.  A third party, Miluimnikim (Reservists) is  mainstream right and likely to prefer a Bibi-led coalition, but stresses drafting Haredim.  If all 3 surmount the threshold (unlikely but possible) they could deny the Opposition a chance to form a new government, even if they agree to a coalition with Mansour Abbas’s extremely moderate Ra’am, (United Arab List), which many Opposition leaders are insisting they won’t do (and we know that politicians always keep their promises, right?).  This is what Bibi is praying for; a deadlock that enables him to remain as interim prime minister for up to a year, with a real  possibility of a repeat deadlocked election to follow.  I still think Eisenkot will be P.M. six months from now, but am less sure of it than a month ago.  I’ll post a full election analysis soon.

And a Note on the “genocide” debate, for which I again thank Shaul Magid for ideas in the substack linked above, though I don’t completely agree with him.  Despite the efforts of a close Palestinian-American friend to convince me of Israel’s commission of genocide, the numerous organizations I respect endorsing that view, and the words of the 1948 Genocide Convention (“genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”-emphasis added), I find that conclusion difficult to acknowledge. I finally do accept my gut feelings on the matter: “Genocide” for me, and probably most Jews, is indelibly tied to the Holocaust, despite the words of the Genocide Convention, itself written in the Holocaust’s aftermath  The legal definition may expand to encompass Israel’s actions in Gaza, but “genocide” is not  primarily a legal term.  It is shaped by historical experience, and  that can’t be changed in the space of a generation by any legal body.  Though I respect the International Court of Justice (which would have to handle a state-level charge of genocide), it cannot be the sole arbiter of history.  If it should eventually decide Israel is guilty of genocide (unlikely), so be it. Some genocideers are indeed anti-Semitic, just  as many of their opponents, as Magid points out, are clearly arguing Israel could never be guilty of genocide, and that any such charge must be motivated by anti-Semitism. I have no patience for that; too many people I know whom I highly respect, including a number of Jews, endorse the genocide claims.

I have little doubt that this Israeli government has countenanced, and even encouraged and perhaps directed war crimes, which I hope an impartial and official Israeli commission of inquiry will uncover and a future Israeli government will punish.  The deeds will speak for themselves, whatever I or others choose to call  them. They will indeed be and remain a Jewish question and problem, though , of course, not only a Jewish question, for centuries, and we will have to remember them, just as  we remember Haman, Chmelniecki and the Spanish Inquisition.