In March 2001 I was interviewed on Israeli TV, on a prime-time talk show, which had the interviewer, Dov Elboim, talking leisurely and deeply with the interviewee for half-an-hour. Lots can be said in half-an-hour. Those were the early days of the second Intifada, a few months after the dismal failure of Camp David II, when Israelis of the Liberal Zionist badge retreated into their shells, went underground, or, most crudely, moved to the right. Those were the days when several mantras were established -- by Ehud Barak, among other manipulators of public opinion -- such as "we offered them generous concessions and they retorted with violence" or "there is no partner for peace." Only a few of us held our ground, insisting that the offers at Camp David had not been generous at all (as several reports subsequently attested) and that the Palestinians were equally justified in claiming they had no partner for peace. Those of us who refused to be swept into the general right-swing that, as we now know, demolished the Israeli left were labeled "radical left."
One of the first questions that Elboim posed, wanting to clear up the terms of debate, was, "What does it mean to be a radical leftist today in Israel?" I recall answering in three parts. First, I said, a real Israeli leftist believes that Israel is unequivocally in the wrong in holding on to any of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (the OPT) and must therefore vacate all those lands unilaterally. Secondly, a real Israeli leftist recognizes the Palestinian right of return. (Rights, as we know, can be realized in various ways; and when there is a clash between rights, solutions have to be worked out. But before any realizations and solutions can come about, the rights must be recognized.) And finally, a real Israeli leftist puts the democratic values that Israel purports to ascribe to before the Jewish values that it insists on ascribing to when these are in conflict.
Within the hour phone calls started streaming in -- to the TV station, to my home and to my mother, who is of that unique generation, the Palmach generation, credited with bringing the Jewish State into existence. The consensual attack was based on stupefaction: How could I deny Zionism? As a matter of fact, I do not remember having used the word Zionism, or, for that matter having talked about Zionism in the interview. This was an immediate inference made by listeners: one could not say what I had said and remain a Zionist. So unspeakable was my transgression that a few days later, at a family event, then Minister of Finance, Avraham (Baiga) Shochat, came up to me with a derisive smile and said: "Would you really want an Arab living next door to you?" The stupefaction was then -- and still is -- on my part. That a serving government minister could so bluntly voice such a racist comment is something that any person with democratic proclivities shudders at. That far more racist epitaphs are now regularly expressed by Israeli officials, and that the possibility of refusing Arab citizens residence in certain communities has now passed into law in Israel, is a sign of where we've come since then, and where we're headed.
It's been over a decade since those opening, unsettling times of the second Intifada. It has been over a decade that those of us who are accused of being post-Zionist or, god forbid, anti-Zionist have been working out the implications of our deeply held democratic convictions. Things have become clearer (though they are muddied up viciously by those who equate either post- or anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism). Although many would like to redefine Zionism, there is no getting away from the fact that Zionism was and is the articulated project of creating and buttressing a Jewish state for the Jewish people. So contrary to what Michael Walzer claims, that this being a project based on Jewishness (peoplehood) rather than Judaism (religion) makes it different, the insistence on a Jewish state makes it impossible for those who are not of that people, not to mention that religion, to be equal citizens. Minority groups in Norway can be Norwegian; minority groups in England can be English; even minority groups in Israel can be Israeli, but they can't be Jewish! And if Jewishness is a matter of peoplehood rather than religion, then we are indeed saddled with a formal ethnocracy, not much better than a theocracy. (It is poignant to see that Walzer begins his thoughts by connecting to his Bar Mitzvah, an explicitly religious ceremony. Not for naught is this whole series taking place on the Religion page of the Huffington Post...)
More significantly, it seems that liberal Zionists will never forsake the Jewish majority as the essence of the State of Israel since precisely that majority is what -- they think - makes the state a democracy. But no democracy should determine or foretell the identity of its citizenry. What shall we do in a century or two from now if or when Israeli Arabs, i.e., Palestinian citizens of Israel, just naturally become a majority (through natural reproduction rates, or Jewish emigration, or any other unforeseeable vagary of history)? Shall we cast all Arab sons born into the sea?
So, beyond all the casuistic debates and long-winded conceptual to-and-fros, the impossibility of being a consistent liberal Zionist derives, as I realized in that interview long ago, from the dead-end one reaches with the conflict between values. If Zionism has been based on a set of values -- any values -- that "override whatever injustices statehood has brought" (Walzer), then it has taken us as far as one can get from the set of values that undergird liberal democracy. Holding on to those values means cherishing the option of a Palestinian living next door, and rejecting Jews who refuse the Palestinian next door. I would rather be righteous than self-righteous.
Peace/Salaams/Shalom
If I try to take your land without your consent, it is quite forseeable that you might resist, perhaps even violently. To say this doesn’t mean I “justify” or “approve” of your violence, but simply recognizes that violence is a forseeable consequence of such act. Perhaps I shouldn’t take the land. But when I decide to do so, for me to focus solely on your violent reaction (ignoring what I did to cause it) is intellectually dishonest.
This historical amnesia is a major theme of the Zionist narrative (and understandably so) for to accept that they might actually have forcibly imposed upon a people against their will seriously undermines the “righteousness” of such narrative.
And from this "amnesia" springs a wealth of frustration upon the victims of the injustices / actions.
The frustration evolves into hatred which leads to violence.
America and the world can't afford to allow our politicians to only support one side, per their wallets, anymore. The ramifications are too expensive, to all of us.”
The antisemites are OK with Muslim countries, OK with Arab countries, yet a Jewish country existing is (insert all sorts of bad things here).
Fortunately, nobody that matters listens to the very extreme-left.
And NO, it is not OK by ANYONE.
Israel was the last colony established in the age of European colonialism
Judaism, like Christianity and Islam is based on ancient myths and legends that never happened
Israel continues to exist because of the protection and support of the United States and some European States.
As oil becomes scarcer and American and European power declines Israeli intransigence towards the native inhabitants of Israel becomes more untenable
Israel will become a secular, multicultural democracy or perish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUmgZMYzQBo&feature=related
People who ascribed to that 19th century concept of race were very much a threat to European Jews in the first half of the last century. Many of the people living in the middle east still ascribe to that philosophy even though they are part of the same "race" as most Israeli Jews. So I can see why Zionists declare people to be their enemies based upon "race."
Of course none of that excuses Israel's behavior toward the occupied territories. The idea that Israel is a democracy has been laughable for quite some time.
We can all see why. But recognizing a cause is not the same thing as justifying a position -- not that I'm implying that you are justifying it.
We should be careful to keep a clear line between explanations and justifications. For example, I and most people understand the REASON why some radical groups in Gaza fire low-tech rockets into Southern Israel, but despite recognizing the reason, I cannot justify that behavior.
It is the same thing with the racism in Israeli society. I can recognize the reason people feel the way they do, but that does no mean the actions based on those feelings are justified.
Facts--
Arab population of Israel-- 20%
Jewish population of Gaza-0%
Jewish population of Jordan--0%
Jewish population in Arab-controlled areas of W. Bank--0%
Those incapable of incorporating these facts into their narrative are not interested in a rational debate.
Thank you for this article. Liberal democracy and a Jewish state are incompatible. It has to be one or the other. .
This point drives it home: "But no democracy should determine or foretell the identity of its citizenry."
It doesn't quite make up for the dozen articles advocating racism but its a start I guess
And if you disagree with him, he will yell that you "hate justice."
How about that being related to being an AMERICAN?
In America, where Arabs and Jews do co-exist peacefully because of Justice for ALL and equailty under the law, nobody is slaughtering anyone.
AND, if you want to acquire some land you use your CHECK BOOK, instead of your rifle.
See any differences there?
Are you willing to bet the life of every Jew in Israel on that?
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=269051
NGO Monitor is a project with the stated aim of monitoring non-governmental organisations operating in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza..... According to Israeli journalist Didi Remez, the organization works closely with the Institute for Zionist Strategies, led by Israel Harel, a founder of the far right Gush Emunim settler movement, and Ron Dermer, chief of policy planning in Benjamin Netanyahu's Office.....
..... At Political Research Associates, Jean Hardisty and Elizabeth Furdon describe it as a "conservative NGO watchdog group, NGO Monitor, which focuses on perceived threats to Israeli interests", adding that "The ideological slant of NGO Monitor's work is unabashedly pro-Israeli. It does not claim to be a politically neutral examination of NGO activities and practices."...the Union of Arab Community Based Organisations in Israel, labels NGO Monitor as "an organ of the American pro-Israel lobby."
According to Israeli human rights activist, Didi Remez:
NGO Monitor is not an objective watchdog: It is a partisan operation that suppresses its perceived ideological adversaries through the sophisticated use of McCarthyite techniques - blacklisting, guilt by association and selective filtering of facts."
As the author of this article astutely pointed out: "...If Zionism has been based on a set of values -- any values -- that "override whatever injustices statehood has brought", then it has taken us as far as one can get from the set of values that undergird liberal democracy. Holding on to those values means cherishing the option of a Palestinian living next door, and rejecting Jews who refuse the Palestinian next door."
Israel needs more wisdom in order to choose less bullets toward a resolution of the never ending vicious cycle of violence there. And the roadmap for that is well documented in American laws.
Israel would be very wise to accept those as quickly as she accepts dollars and military arms.
So thank you for your concern about our well being, but don't you worry, we're all right, never had it so good.
The danger is to my waistline, as they are friendly, generous people who keep bringing over wonderful, fattening food. It was the same when I lived in NY.
Are all citizens in those countries are well to do and have equal quality of life – NO!
Are all citizens in those countries are getting equal treatment by society at large – NO!
Are all citizens in those countries are have equal opportunities services – NO!
Yet, you and your ilk at TLV University and many so-called socialist elitists elect to ignore these inequalities and disparities while keep dreaming and believing in your illusion of utopian equality. Defined as progressive liberalism hence all other views or positions by that definition are racist and promote inequality.
Suit yourself to the greatest Fallacy and Hypocrisy on the liberal Media and Universities faculty.
The socialists built and defended the country - a bit more respect please
Our motto was and will always be Zionism, Socialism and the Brotherhood of man.
( I am very comfortable with this ilk and we will get back soon I promise)