I remain a Zionist who believes that Jews deserve a national political entity and that such an entity must respect the rights of Palestinians to have one as well. That can be accomplished in many ways, whether two side by side states or two entities within a bi-national confederation or some new, unconventional solution that allows for the pursuit of communal interests on the part of each community while allowing for democratic free movement through and control of a shared land.
Marc Lamont Hill’s op-ed today says that he is inclined to some kind of bi-national confederation and that his use of the term “from the river to the sea” was not meant to call for the destruction of Israel but reform of its policies within a bi-national framework.
Especially since his speech—which I urge everyone to listen to—was focused on encouraging people to understand and stand up against the oppression of Palestinians not on proposing any political solution, I see no reason not to take him at his word.
And thus the notion that Marc Lamont Hill’s speech called for the destruction of Israel and the death of Jews, or that it was anti-Semitic, is simply a red herring that people with destructive political agendas, whether in the US or the Middle East, are exploiting to paint an utterly unfair and dishonest portrayal of him. Criticizing Israeli policies that oppress Palestinians and deny them their legitimate political rights is not anti-Semitic.
But let me go one step further—suppose Hill or someone else endorsed a single secular, democratic state in Palestine. Would that be anti-Semitic?
Here I would say it depends on the context. If someone were to make a general argument that the nation-state is likely or inherently incompatible with the protection of human rights of minorities within it, and was willing to apply it to France or Germany as well as Israel, then clearly not.
If someone were to say that Jews, unlike other people—say the French or Germans—do not under any circumstances deserve a nation-state or a political home of our own then, yes, that would be anti-Semitic.
If someone were to say that there is, at this point in history, no alternative to a secular democratic single state as a means of securing basic human and political rights for both the Jewish and Palestinian people, I would disagree but also say that that opinion is not anti-Semitic and, sadly, not obviously wrong.
For ask yourself this: how can you not say that, from a moral point of view, a single, secular democratic state between the river and the sea would be obviously superior to the circumstances that exist today? Israel is no longer a democracy. It discriminates against its Palestinian citizens and rules despotically over the West Bank and Gaza.
Given the difficulties of creating and securing such a state, I would understand someone saying that this might not lead to peace for either Jews or Palestinians. And because I partly share this view, my preferred solution is some sort of two-state / confederal settlement
But, again, the risks of a single secular democratic state have to be weighed against the moral disaster that is the current situation.
And that’s just another way of saying something that should go without saying but too many in the Jewish community will not say: The only way to morally defend the existence of Israel today is to, at the same time, be a powerful, radical critic of its denial of civil, human, and political rights to the Palestinian people, both within the Green Line and beyond.
Finally, that Hill lost his job at CNN is already appalling. That people are calling for him to lose his job at Temple is abominable. Anyone who suggests this has no understanding of what liberty or academic freedom means.