Last night (July 17), the Knesset voted overwhelmingly – just 9 votes opposed, mostly Palestinian – to pass a resolution opposing on principle the establishment of a Palestinian state. “Centrist” parties either voted outright in favor of the resolution (e.g., Gantz) or absented themselves from the Knesset (e.g. Lapid). This was not a surprise, except perhaps that at least Labor voted against it, since not a single Jewish party in Knesset today supports an end to the occupation. Meretz lost, and Labor supports permanent Israeli control over wide swaths of the West Bank.

Whatever this means for the future of Israel/Palestine, it seems to me that this is a moment that warrants consideration about what it means for our current discourse and politics. I offer a few suggestions:

1. Since they do not simultaneously support extending citizenship to Palestinians under occupation, this seems to be a vote for permanent apartheid. I don’t see how one avoids that conclusion. 

2. The argument that opposing a Jewish nation-state is antisemitic because *only* Jews are being denied national self-determination in their homeland – a problematic argument in lots of ways – is eviscerated here. Israel itself is openly denying that right to Palestinians, and thus openly rejecting the belief that every nation deserves self-determination in its homeland. This is besides the critical point of individual equality and oppression.

There are, of course, other reasons why that argument is problematic. For example, the issue for some is not Jewish national self-determination but rather the accomplishment of ethnocratic majority through demographic engineering (i.e., active or passive ethnic cleansing). 

In any event, any group that wants to call anti-Zionism “antisemitic” would be compelled to call Israel’s government racist. It’s a fairly clear parallelism.

3. I’m wondering what it will take for “liberal Zionists” – who NEED a two-state dream to exist – to admit that Israel is simply not interested, and therefore needs to be engaged with differently by Jews and by other states. The usual voices will probably explain it away with obfuscations or other fallacies, and perhaps personal attacks, but I’m genuinely curious how far the goalposts can be shifted, how much Israeli support for permanent apartheid can be minimized as the ramblings of extremists rather than the position of the overwhelming majority of the country and its government.  

In other words, it’s not just about opposing Ben Gvir or even Netanyahu. It is bigger than him, though his long reign is certainly relevant. 

4. The charge of utopianism against those who say “there is one state right now, and it should give equality to everyone whom it rules” is becoming more and more bizarre. One state is the reality both on the ground and in the political will of the country, as last night’s vote once against makes clear. What they seem to mean is that they fear giving equal rights and security to Palestinians but feel bad about it, and I sense this is only going to get easier to point out.

5. The older generation is probably unable to shift their paradigm, but I suspect non-Orthodox younger people will tend to see things more clearly. As a result, in the short term at least, the establishment will increase its wrath against them, both ideologically (calling them apostates or traitors) and professionally. In this regard, I note the recent story in St. Louis of a Jewish director of development with deep connections to Israel whose contract with a Jewish school was revoked by secret opposition because she had led a campaign calling for a ceasefire. There have been other such purges, of course, but this one was remarkable in part because of her deep connections to Israel and her heresy being a campaign simply to end the war.

Conclusion: No one knows what the future will bring, and theoretically any future remains possible. Perhaps the Israeli political culture will dramatically change. After all, l’havdil, Germany certainly underwent a dramatic transformation in its political culture over the course of the 20th century! But who should pay the price for Israeli Jews voting overwhelmingly for permanent occupation of a disenfranchised people: the occupier or the occupied? In other words, what should happen to the Palestinians while the world waits for Israeli Jews to change their mind from their current and deep consensus?  

Whatever we want for the future, understanding the current reality – and discourse – accurately will help us get to a better outcome.