[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. With us now, Jodi Rudoren, editor of The Forward, the big Jewish newspaper here in the United States that publishes primarily for a Jewish-American readership. Some of you know Jodi Rudoren's previous work as Jerusalem Bureau chief for The New York Times. Now, Jodi has written an article in The Guardian calling on the United States to recognize the state of Palestine as three European countries did last month. If that's surprising, coming from the editor-in-chief of a Jewish newspaper that tries to appeal to a broad Jewish audience, Jewish American audience, not just Jews on the left. Let's hear her argument. Jodi, always good to have you on. Welcome back to WNYC.

Jodi Rudoren: Thanks, Brian. Good to be on the show.

Brian Lehrer: The United States already calls for a two-state solution, which would recognize both in Israel and a Palestine. What are you calling for that's different from that?

Jodi Rudoren: That's exactly right, Brian. I think the only way forward to is to resolve the conflict and to acknowledge that the only way for Jews and Palestinians to have their full rights of self-determination is to have a two-state solution. I think my article it's less about calling on the US to recognize the state of Palestine than calling on the US, Israel, and American Jews to not freak out about the idea of Palestinians wanting recognition and of Europeans and others granting them recognition.

The argument is really about to reframe the conversation about this conflict, about ending this conflict as one about reconciling narratives of the past versus framing an agreement about how to go forward from today. It's very, very clear to me from my experience covering this conflict that whenever the parties talk about the past and about who did what to whom, when, or who stole what, or who has more rights, that it goes nowhere. We're talking about two indigenous peoples to a single piece of land.

The only way I can see this conflict being resolved is to find a reasonable way of dividing that land so these two groups of people can live separately together or separately separately but in peace and security. That's about recognizing both the Palestinian's right to a state and Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. What the main point of the article was for The Guardian, was to remind people of a very forgotten moment in the peace process in 2013 when Israel was asking for recognition as the Jewish homeland, the nation-state of the Jewish people.

Brian Lehrer: The US rejected the move by Norway, Ireland, and Spain last month to recognize the state of Palestine. The US position is, there is no Palestine to recognize until the Israelis and Palestinians negotiate that two-state solution recognition before that is merely a condemnation of Israel, the argument goes. As you note in the peace Israel's foreign minister called that recognition "Being complicit in inciting genocide against the Jews." That's a quote. Do you see what Spain, Ireland, and Norway did differently from that?

Jodi Rudoren: Yes, totally. I think, look, we get to decide, everybody gets to decide what things mean. Some politician can say this means they're complicit. Of course, the leaders of Ireland, Norway, and Spain had a very different explanation of what they were doing. In fact, they said what they're doing is trying to advance the two-state solution. It's really up to Joe Biden to other American politicians and to us as American individuals and to American Jewish leaders to decide how we want to see these moves. It's true that over the last number of years, the Palestinians have sought recognition from other member states of the UN as a unilateral declaration. We are a state just because you call us a state that doesn't bring the state into being. We could decide to stop seeing that as an aggressive act of anti-peace and instead see it as a necessary step on the way to peace.

Brian Lehrer: In fact, in your article, you say, "Not recognizing Palestine helps the river to the sea chanters whose goal is the destruction of Israel." Can you make that part of your case?

Jodi Rudoren: Yes. I think that most reasonable people, certainly in the West see the best path forward, the ending violence and to granting full human, political, and civil rights to all the people in that place as a two-state solution. That's certainly what I hope happens. I hope there remains a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state. I think that is the fairest way to work this out and the way to end the violence. There are a lot of people who don't want that. There are people who think there should be no Israel, there should only be a state of Palestine.

There are some Jews and others who think that there should only be a Jewish state from the river to the sea. Not recognizing a state of Palestine to me empowers people who want a one-state non-solution as far as I can see because it won't resolve the conflict, and it won't be a place that many people want to live if what would happen is just a demographic future reality in which there are more Palestinians than Jews and the state becomes a single state of Palestine. The past to that future, by the way, Brian is a bloody and ugly path. There is a lot more war between here and that end. I think the path toward a two-state solution can be less bloody, and in my finest hopes and dreams, faster.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, supporters of a Secure Israel or a Palestinian Secure State or anyone else who has a question for Jodi Rudoren, editor of The Forward on her argument that the United States should recognize a Palestinian state now, like those three European countries did last month even before negotiations for a ceasefire succeed. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text. President Biden, as you mentioned, has a ceasefire plan for the war in Gaza, which for the moment both sides are rejecting. Part of Israel's position on ceasefire talks is that it has to include meaningful release of hostages taken on October 7th. Would the US recognizing Palestine without at least hostages in return make it harder to achieve their return because the US would be giving something for nothing?

Jodi Rudoren: Look, I think getting the hostages returned is hugely important. There is no path forward. There is no peace. There is no end to the war until the hostages are released. The negotiations are all about give and take. One of the points of The Guardian article was to remind people that when Israel put forward this idea of Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish nation-state, the Palestinians rejected that without thinking about what could we get for that.

To me, recognition of both Palestine as a state and Israel as a nation-state of the Jewish people could absolutely be part of these negotiations. The real question is, what would doing that, what would US doing that, other places in the world doing that, what would that lead to in terms of what concessions or other provisions Israel and the Palestinians would be willing to bargain for that?

Whenever a party to a negotiation decides something is super important to them, the question is, okay, what can the other party get? Yes, release of hostages is essential, ending the war, the active fighting in Gaza is essential. Not having Hamas control Gaza in the future is essential. How the recognition of the Palestinian state plays into that, I think is the question for the negotiators.

Brian Lehrer: A couple of people writing text messages opposing the idea of a two-state solution from more of I think what we can call a pro-Palestinian position. One text says, Why should theocracies and ethnostates be the "fairest solution." Another writes, "Another plan that exists is called A Land For All, it acknowledges the imbalances in the two-state solution." What would you say to those listeners?

Jodi Rudoren: Look, the land for all proposal is a really interesting one. I've written about it before. I think it is coming from really good intentions. I don't think there are a lot of Israeli Jews or Palestinians who want to live in the state that is proposed or outlined by that vision. It's a really nice idea that doesn't have a lot of practical hope or practical path, in my view. I think talking about ethnostates and theocracies. First of all, there are plenty of examples of ethnostates. We don't live in one. We've all chosen to live in a pluralistic state that was founded and has flourished on the idea that ethnocracy is not what we want. We want to live in a place where lots of different kinds of people get to live together and their ethnicities help form our fabric, but are not part of our state mandate.

That's not what's happening in Israel. It's not what happened in Israel in 1948 and it's not what Palestinians aspire to either. There's a different question today about the Zionist idea of a Jewish state than there was in 1947, or 1919, or '18-whatever. There's been a Jewish state in Israel for 76 years and undoing that is a particular idea that I think has real problems to it. My hope is to have Palestinians have their right to self-determination and also to have Israel continue to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, something I didn't say earlier which I should have. I still think that's possible and I think the alternatives are much worse than that alternative.

Brian: To those who say, "It can't be both Jewish and democratic in the fullest sense, because what if the population becomes more non-Jewish"?

Jodi Rudoren: I feel like there's two parts to your question, Brian. The first question is, can it be both Jewish and democratic and preserve minority rights? Can there be a non-Jewish minority in the Jewish state that gets full democratic rights? I think that can be possible. That is what was promised by the Declaration of Independence that Israelis announced in 1948. It has not been fully realized lately.

That's the first question is, can Israel itself restore a full slate of democratic rights and principles to its existing minorities? The second part of the question of, well, what happens if there are more non-Jews who are citizens of a future Israel? Can it still be a Jewish democracy? I think the answer to that is no. It's not meaningful to have a Jewish state that is democratic if the Jews are a minority of that state. I think a democratic state has to be reflective of its majority.

That's the one state reality future. If there is no two-state solution, there would be more Palestinians and non-Jews between the river and the sea than Jews, and I think it would no longer be a Jewish state if it was a democracy.

Brian: Steven Queens, you're on WNYC with Jodi Rudoren, editor of The Forward. Hi, Steve.

Steven: Hi. I'm just curious about all this talk about recognizing Palestine. Who exactly are we recognizing? They don't even have a unified government, and from what I can see, it doesn't look like there's any possibility of them achieving a unified government within our lifetimes. Who exactly are we recognizing?

Brian: Jodi?

Jodi Rudoren: Steve, great point, and I hear the frustration in your voice. It's really, really frustrating to see the weakness of Palestinian civil society and Palestinian politics. Talk about democracy, this is a group of people who haven't had national elections in 18 years years, so it is distressing and depressing. I think two things. One is, we can recognize the right of Palestinians to have a state and recognize that there is essentially a state of Palestine that doesn't exist in any specific borders right now, but could and should, and hope that that will force growth in Palestinian civil society to create real leadership and real democracy there.

The other thing I just want to say again is that I was not surprised to see that The guardian picked up on the headline of, the US should recognize the Palestinian state. The real thrust of what I'm saying is that the only way forward is forward. We have to talk about what is going to happen tomorrow, and next year, and for the next hundred years rather than continuing to litigate what happened yesterday, and last fall, and 76 years ago.

Recognition could be part of that. The real important point of my argument is that the agreement has to begin from today and not try to redress the differences in narratives about the past. That includes questioning who's going to lead the Palestinians. We have to believe that the Palestinians will figure out who will lead the Palestinians.

Brian: Let's go next to Mahmoud in Brooklyn. You're on WNYC. Hi, Mahmoud.

Mahmoud: Hey. Happy to be with you, Brian.

Brian: Happy to have you.

Mahmoud: Actually as a Palestinian, I'm so happy to hear there is more, and more, and more, and more countries they recognize Palestine as state. My question is that, why it is too late? Why the Palestinians already recognized Israel as state 40 years ago? You know why they are now suddenly woke up for for Palestine to be safe, it's because the Palestinian losing more and more land. It is more time for the Israeli to take more land. It's more time for the Israeli radical government to apply their policy and to give take hope for the Palestinians.

It is the right way. It is not recognized Palestine as faith. It's make me pressure in the government of Pahlavi to change their policy and then to withdraw their forces from the West. Then this is the easy way. This is the pressure. To give, I think as a Palestinian, because we recognize Israel as a state 40 years ago. Nothing happened. We have 10,000 settlers when we signed the peace agreement. You know how much we have settlers in our land now? We have more than 700,000. When we sign agreements, we have 1,000 prisoners, now we have 12,000 prisoners.

It's like the hostages you guys you're asking to be out. Also, the Palestinians have 2,000 prisoners they taking from their bedrooms guys. They was not fighting or [unintelligible 00:17:22]. These people from their bedrooms, they taking out also. We need to look actually about it in different way. This is how I see it. I think the pressure, it is not to recognize Palestine, Palestine need to be existed there. By existing there how, it is by taking out the settlers out of these villages actually and taking out the settlers from it. You have a government, no one talking about Hamas shouldn't control Gaza, but no one saying that Ben-Gvir and the radicals, they shouldn't control Tel Aviv. It is supporting--

Brian: Mahmoud, thank you for putting all that on the table. Let me get you a response. Please call us again. Jodi, I think what a lot of that comes down to is calling for the United States to recognize the state of Palestine is just symbolic. What you really should be calling for as the more urgent issue is to end the occupation.

Jodi Rudoren: I agree with that, Brian, and I think the question is, what is the tactic for the United States to push forward its own stated policy goals? The United States has for years, Joe Biden himself was the spokesman of this for many years under the Obama administration, "No more settlement expansion. No more settlement expansion." The State Department has put out thousands of statements condemning settlement expansion, and it has not been an effective leadership allyship pressure tactic.

I think Joe Biden has laid out a very clear statement of principles of where he thinks things need to go in terms of both the two state solution and now this war needs to end. The question is, what are the pressure tactics that will work? One thing that has been dismissed is recognizing the state of Palestine. Maybe that would work more effectively, because maybe it could move the government of Israel to actually do the things that the United States has been calling on it to do for a very long time.

I think what Mahmoud also said about Palestinians having recognized the state of Israel 40 years ago is really instructive and important. That's what I was saying when I was covering this in 2013, and when Israel decided to move up in its list of demands recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, or as the nation state of the Jewish people, is the way they like to phrase it. The Palestinians very easily in that moment could have said, "Of course we already recognized you 40 years ago. Sure. Fine." That's not what they said. They said "We could never do that, it would deny our narrative and our history." That's the problem. Let's look for ways to move the ball forward. That's what Joe Biden needs to be doing, and that's also what's Israel and the Palestinians need to be doing.

Brian Lehrer: Further to Mahmoud's argument, did this not already happened in the 1990s Oslo Peace Process, but it failed to result in a deal? There was the theoretical recognition by both sides of a two-state solution, but then they couldn't work out the details because the differences were just too big on borders and security, and right of return for Palestinians, and the status of Jerusalem, all those things. If you agree that that's what happened, why would starting with the concept of recognition and better this time?

Jodi Rudoren: I'm not sure it would, I'm pretty sure that doing the same thing over and over again that didn't work, and hasn't worked, and has not worked 70 different ways is also not a good idea. I think we know, certainly Joe Biden has laid out clearly, and I think many of us agree on where we would like to go. Where we think this could possibly go that would feel better than the horrible status quo, pre-October 7th and the even worse status quo now.

The question is how do you get there? I'm going to throw out maybe a strange analogy, but when I worked at The New York Times, a guy from Instagram came and spoke to the board and talked about the difference between a legacy publication trying to reinvent itself digitally and a startup publication. He said, "Both of them try to think about where do we want to be in 10 years or 50 years."

That the startup mentality is, "Okay, what do we have to do now? What's to build now to get us there?" That the legacy publication is like, "What can we keep that we already have and start to change a little bit to get us there?" Maybe we just need more of let's startup mentality about really wiping off the whiteboard, starting afresh with ideas of like, "What can we do to get us where we know we need to go?"

We know we need to end this war. We know we need to end the occupation. We know the only solution that will work for both Palestinians and Israeli Jews is a two-state solution. We know that that's the best idea for US interests in the Middle East. What could we possibly do today that would help to bring that out?

Brian Lehrer: Spoken like the editor-in-chief of a news organization that has moved from print to digital. Ha-ha-ha. Last question. Biden has the cease fire and exchange of hostages and prisoners plan which for the moment, as I mentioned earlier, both Israel and Hamas are rejecting, but why wouldn't that be the higher priority right now with so many people dying and the hostage is still being held?

I want to get your reaction to something in the Biden Peace Plan speech, which seems to place the onus more on Israel, even according to him. The President said, "The people of Israel should know they can make this offer without any further risk to their own security because they've devastated Hamas forces over the past eight months. At this point, Hamas no longer is capable of carrying out another October 7th, and that has been Israel's main objective in this war."

I don't know if you as an opinion writer agree with Biden on that, but if you do, then theoretically Israel should do a lot more unilaterally right now to slow or pause the war in the name of civilian life. Because they've already destroyed Hamas enough to make them no longer vulnerable to another October 7th. Again, that's what Biden said.

Jodi Rudoren: Yes. I agree 100%. Brian, I wrote a column on April 6th, essentially saying the same thing that it was time for the war to end that Israel should declare victory. That Israel had degraded Hamas significantly, that there was no ability for Israel to destroy Hamas. That stated goal was always an impossibility, and that for actually about two months at that point and now two months more. The marginal difference in the degradation of Hamas was not at all worth the extreme suffering that was happening in Gaza and the extension of the hostages detention. I think that Biden is totally right. It is time for this war to end.

It is not necessarily fair or right that Israel's dealing with Hamas as a terrorist organization on the other side of whatever theoretical table there is. Israel needs this conflict to be resolved, or Israel's future as a Jewish democratic state is in doubt. Israel should act unilaterally to end the war. Absolutely.

Brian Lehrer: Well, as I often say at the end of these segments, we know a lot of people will disagree and we won't solve the Middle East today, but thank you for talking about your article with us. Jodi Rudoren is editor-in-chief of the Jewish newspaper, The Forward, and her article in The Guardian is called The US Must Recognize Palestine As A State. It's Time To Look To The Future, Not The Past.

Thank you very much for discussing it with us and taking calls who were, in some cases, critics from both sides. Thank you very much.

Jodi Rudoren: Thank you, Brian. It's always great to talk with you.

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.