The following column is part of a series. For more, go to Liberal Zionists Speak Out.
Is liberal Zionism an oxymoron? These days, it's easy to think it is. Many people on the left have, reluctantly, accepted that right-wing extremists are today's true Zionists, and have, therefore, dropped away from Zionism, or have styled themselves "post-Zionists," or have come to regard Israel as irrevocably tainted by its Zionist identity.
But: Liberal Zionism, authentic heir to classic pragmatic Zionism, though overshadowed by Israel's pro-settler right wing camp, is alive and -- as we set out here to demonstrate over the next few days -- kicking.
In the essays that will that will be published over the next few days, liberal Zionists from both Israel and the United States explain their commitment. Almost all explicitly express their disappointment with Israel's current direction, yet make clear that that direction, in which exclusion and expansion are central themes, is not at all what Zionism implies.
Some of the statements that follow are highly personal; others are more analytical, some -- most, I think -- combine the personal and the analytical. Each adds its own twist to the conversation.
I have long since learned (the hard way) not to put words into the mouths of others. Yet I am confident that all the participants in this endeavor would agree to the following three paragraphs:
According to Israel's pro-settler right-wing camp, there is no moral difference between post-1967 settlement in and control over the West Bank territory on the one hand, and the pre-1948 settlement of the territory that has become the sovereign State of Israel, on the other. Both are equally valid expressions of Zionist determination.
Alas, that argument cuts both ways: While right-wingers think its logic irrefutable and its conclusion -- a Jewish state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River -- perfectly obvious, they fail to note that the very same logic can be used to derive precisely the opposite conclusion. As Hagit Ofran points out in her essay below, "by invoking Zionism in support of the settlements and the occupation, the right wing is joining the biggest opponents of Israel, who argue that if, as they believe, Israel's occupation of the Palestinian people in the territories is illegitimate, then, by logical extension, so is the entire Zionist enterprise." Goodbye Tel Aviv, farewell Haifa, adieu Israel.
The right-wing "solution" to the chronic conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is no solution at all. It violates Israel's stated determination (and classic Zionism's resolve) to be both Jewish and democratic; it ensures that the more than 2.6 million West Bank Palestinians (that does not include the Palestinians of the Gaza District or of the Golan Heights) are either left stateless, or, as some Israelis have suggested, penned into a series of unconnected Bantustans (apartheid) or "encouraged" to leave (ethnically cleansed). The alternative -- keeping the territories and giving the residents therein citizenship in Israel -- means, in the foreseeable future, an end to the Jewish majority in Israel, which almost surely means an end to the Jewish State.
The question, then, insistently comes back to the moral logic of the Jewish State. One might be excused for asserting that in the second decade of the 21st century, with more than 60 years of independence behind it, Israel's legitimacy should no longer be at issue. Moral logic? Israel is home to nearly 8 million people; 95 member states of the United Nations have smaller populations. Why should the determined enmity of others place a question mark after the word "Israel"?
Perhaps it shouldn't, but in the current political and intellectual climate, it does. So there is reason to go back to the beginning, to restate the beliefs and assumptions that gave rise to the national liberation movement called "Zionism." And here they are: Theodore Herzl and his colleagues, founders of modern political Zionism back in 1897, had given up on Europe. They were persuaded that Europe would never absorb its 9 million Jews -- and, as history would show a scant 40 years later, they were not wrong.
If you couldn't take the anti-Semitism out of Europe, then best take the Jews out of Europe. So the Zionists, though they were coming late to nationalism, sought a national home for the Jews. Why, after all, should there be no place where the Jews would be free to chart their own path?
And if the Jews were entitled to a national home, how could it be elsewhere than in what was then called Palestine, the historic homeland of the Jewish people?
That is not a rhetorical question, for Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire, was in 1900 home to nearly 600,000 Arabs. (Palestine's Arabs did not view themselves as Palestinians until some decades later.) To the degree to which the early Zionists thought about the matter -- and many of them tried to avoid thinking about it -- they assumed that there was sufficient land to accommodate both Jews and Arabs.
As, indeed, there was -- and is.
History can be a cruel trickster. No one foresaw either the depth or the durability of the conflict. It's conventional, these days, to talk about the "competing narratives" that inform the ongoing debate, but the problem is neither choosing the "right" narrative nor, for that matter, reconciling the two. The Palestinians narrative is right. The Israeli narrative is right. History plays differently for the two peoples, now both stuck in a status quo that satisfies no one. Right against right; a recipe for tragedy.
No, the problem is how to grab hold of history and turn it in a direction that offers both peoples life, security, hope -- an end to the debilitating animosity, an end to the bloodshed, a new day.
That day will not dawn with the Israelis saying, "Oops, we made a mistake, give us a week to pack and we will leave quietly." Nor will the Palestinians say, "Well, Bantustans are better than nothing, we'll settle for that." No, the new day will dawn if and only if a viable Palestinian state is created next door to the Israeli state -- that is, only if the hoary principle of partitioning the land is, at last, implemented.
Let there be no mistake: Two states for two peoples is not an easy solution. It is fraught with complexity. Where, exactly, shall the borders be, and what, exactly, will be the regulations covering access from one of the two states to the other, and what about Jerusalem, and what about security, and what happens if and as the opponents of partition, from whichever side, act out, seek to subvert the arrangement?
But the search for such an arrangement (and its implementation) is exactly what we mean), here and now, by liberal Zionism. That, and a Jewish state that more honorably addresses its own Palestinian population, that more effectively reforms its educational system, that more energetically pursues social justice and that more urgently addresses the vexing relationship between religion and state. All that and more is part of the Zionist endeavor, the Zionist challenge.
Welcome to the conversation.
Huffingtonpost Religion will publish 18 essays leading up to Israel Independence Day on the subject of Liberal Zionism.
Leonard Fein, whose first trip to Israel was for a nine-month stint in 1953, is a veteran Zionist, a writer, teacher and social activist. He was the founding editor/publisher of Moment magazine, which he served for 12 years and he is the founder of Mazon: A Jewish Response to Hunger. Fein, who lives in Boston, is editor of this series of essays, working together with Steven M. Cohen and Steven J. Zipperstein.
Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Liberal Zionism”: A Contradiction in Terms - The Daily Beast
« Peter Beinart and the Destruction of Liberal Zionism Commentary ...
Is archliberal Peter Beinart good for the Jews? - Haaretz Daily ...
Liberal Zionism on the March « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the ...
The Crisis of Liberal Zionism - NYTimes.com
Can Peter Beinart Save Liberal Zionism? - Jacob Heilbrunn ...
Mean while Israel will just be a Religious tourist attraction and a Theological battle ground.
And for those of us who want to praise and worship him; we will keep doing it in spirit and in truth in our respective geographical regions.
Peace to Israel and Come oh Lord Come !!!!!!!!
It can be proud of many accomplishments, and with a
great deal of American and others money of course.
But the repression on the West Bank by the IDF
and settler's is a PR disaster.
There's enough land for everyone there, a Peace deal
is not as difficult as many think [ or wish ?]
State of Israel Does Not Appear on a UN Map of the Holy Land
Yaffa Goldstein HaTzofeh
The UN financed a Palestinian tourist map of the Holy Land that does not name the State of Israel, and the entire center of the country, excepting Gaza and Samaria, is represented as being unsettled.
The only Jewish communities that appear on this map are cited with their Arabic names, such as el-Hadarat (Hadera), Ramle, Askelan (Ashkelon), Ashdout (Ashdod) and Tal Arabe (Tel Aviv).
The map was discovered by a journalist, David Bedein, from the Israel Resource News Agency. The bottom of the map notes that its production was financed by the UN's Development Department, whose offices are located on Yaakobi Street, West Jerusalem. One of the UN officials in the office confirmed to Bedein that the map's production had been financed by his department. But the official and his secretary later denied they had had any knowledge of the project.
Emanuel Nahshon, a deputy-spokesman in the Foreign Ministry, told Hatzofe yesterday that this map was part of the Palestinian propaganda that was geared to eradicate the State of Israel and delegitimize it.
He said the Foreign Ministry could only express regret that the UN had financed a project whose goal it was to turn the State of Israel into a white blotch on the map. [...]
Just why did they want to put it THERE?
=============================
That, of course, involves the rights of the Palestinians, the UN resolutions declaring the West Bank settlements to be illegal and the entire world being on one side of the issue, and only the right wingers in Israel and the USA on the other side.
Your formulation is like one side being in favor of teaching evolution in public schools and the other side teaching creationism.
Or perhaps, the PLO and Fatah recognizing Israel's right to exist, on one side, and Hamas refusing to recognize Israel on the other side.
Who knows, maybe little old goy me is more Jewish than many Jews!
Good for Israel!
Good for Apartheid!!
Hmm, wait a minute now … until I figure this out...
This series of articles is based on the false premises that the Arabs would accept Israel within any borders. Very generous offers have been made by various Israeli governments. Arab rejection is the problem.
Today hatred of Jews combines hatred of the "fascist Israeli government's oppressive rule over the Palestinians" with the fact that Israel is "the Jewish state" into a broad anti-Semitism.
I suspect “Liberal Zionism” (a new moniker) is an attempt to avoid psychological dissidence while maintaining “far left ” credentials.
The solution is for Israel to put in place a system like ours in the US.
Equal rights for all and drop the fantasy from the iron age.
Separate religion from politics.
Israel is doing the opposite equating Israeli with Jewish while having millions of citizens that are not Jewish. This is a insult to these citizens and makes them potential enemies.
Is the existence of peoples in the world simply a fantasy? Are you prepared to take that position as to all peoples, or is this yet another "special rule" for Israel/Jews?
2. Far left? Hardly.
3. Does anyone in this series even come close to your "fascist Israel . . ." Have you in fact ready the essays?
Leonard Fein
Huh? I don't know how he's able to drink that Koolaid, much less make it, given then the statements are as incompatible as oil and water. "Norwegianess" does not imply a religion. "Jewishness", however, does imply Judaism, no matter how much it's coated with the semantics of "secularized" special sauce.
A "Jewish state" obliterates the identity of it's Christian and Muslim citizens. It's just like when politicions here in the United States speak of us being a "Christian nation" rather than an "American nation". It makes my hair stand on end. The difference, is that at least in the United Sates, those statements are still only rhetoric, as there is still seperation of church ands state. In Israel, the combination of faith and statehood is the foundation of it's national charter.
The only way I can ever fathom there being any substative peace is for Israel to:
1.) Formally annex the occupied territories. Let's face it, it's been almost 45 years now. Since it's founding in 1948, Isreal has "occupied" Palastinean land for over 70% of the time it's existed. It's action's (e.g. building settlements) have always spoke greater than any half-measured gestures towards agreeing to a seperate Palestinean state.
2.) Give all resident's of the occupied terretories full Israeli citizenship/voting rights.
Anything less is apartheid.
My hair does the same thing when they speak of a Christian nation.
Some by Christian mean a "good nation". Ignoring the fact that in America we have good people of all religions.
Our ethnic and religious diversity is what i love the most about America.
That is simply because you don't understand that the Jewish people, although they are a people with a national religion, aren't the same thing as Judaism.
If this didn't involve Jews, people would be screaming "ethnocentrism!" at that kind of comment, which demands that others understand their identities in just the same way Americans think they should.
Despite your confusion over the names, they needn't and don't.
In July 1948, the Israelis launched the Operation Danny to conquer the cities of Lydda and Ramle. The first attack on Lydda occurred on the afternoon of 11 July when the 89th battalion mounted on armoured cars and jeeps raided the city "spraying machine-gun fire at anything that moved". "Dozens of Arabs (perhaps as many as 200)" were killed. According to Benny Morris, the description of this raid written by one of the soldiers "combine[s] elements of a battle and a massacre".
When a Palestinian father pulls the shrapnel out of his dead child's stomach and it has "Made in the USA" written all over it, don't expect him, his immediate family, his friends, his village or his society to be sympathetic toward US interests. Its that simple.
Iran? No.
North Korea? No.
Pakistan? Nuh, uh.
Russia? Niet.
China? Wong.
Israel? Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!!
Maybe the UN is doing its duty to hold Israel to task for its wrongdoings.