As his article in the May/June issue of Tikkun magazine (“Are Israeli Policies Entrenching Anti-Semitism Worldwide”) attests, Tony Klug is part of that broad camp for Israel’s security and a two-state solution with the Palestinians that I also inhabit. He also shares with me an iconoclastic idea that I posed in an op-ed in The Forward seven years ago, following a conference at New York’s YIVO about the “New Anti-Semitism”: that today’s Jew-hatred is more about the televised and Webcast views of Arab suffering at the hands of Israeli power than traditional anti-Jewish prejudices. To be sure, classic hate imagery (previously dormant) underlines the situation, but recent acts against non-Israeli Jews are a spillover from the Mideast conflict.
Where I depart from Dr. Klug is in his apparent conviction that this is entirely the fault of Jews---of the narrow “tribalistic” bond of Jews with their Israeli brethren on the one hand, and of the unconscionable policies of settlement expansion, military brutality, and discriminatory practices of the State of Israel on the other. I don’t deny that these play a role, but nowhere does Klug attach any responsibility to violence by Arab terror groups or the Palestinian Authority’s failure to accommodate to moderate Israeli peace offers and concessions (I hasten to add that the PA's negotiating failure is also Israel's).
Israel's move to the right can be attributed to the awful fact that the Oslo peace process collapsed into the second intifada, costing 1,000 Israeli lives, and then Israel's unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza resulted in more attacks. Causation is not as simple as most Israelis and Jews believe, but the coincidence of events persuaded them of direct cause & effect and of total Arab culpability.
Klug’s indignation seems especially overwrought in a section asserting that if Israel’s harsh deeds were committed by a government of Buddhists or Hindus, the world would similarly denounce them, and there would be repercussions for diaspora Buddhists and Hindus who show solidarity with their kin (an especially nasty speculation on the part of Klug). One wonders if Klug’s been following events in Sri Lanka and Kashmir.
Sri Lanka in particular is a close parallel, where a separate ethnic and religious group supported a terrorist movement that fought for independence and was mercilessly pounded into submission last year, almost exactly at the same time that Israel hit back at Gaza with somewhat less violence, inflicting far fewer casualties. (I did not support the Gaza offensive.) We have yet to see indignant reactions by the world against the Sinhalese (Buddhist) majority government, not to mention against India’s violent occupation over restive Muslims in Kashmir, nor (God forbid) against their respective diasporas.
A more effective and radical peace posture is not to cast blame on one side, as Klug does, but to patiently unpack historical details as completely and fairly as possible. Israelis and Palestinians together killed the peace process of the 1990s, in a tragic and fateful unfolding of events.
Baruch Goldstein committed the first mass murder incident of the Oslo years and Israel failed to react against the settler community from whence he came; this constituted a huge provocation for Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorism. Secondly, an Israeli murdered Yitzhak Rabin, who would likely have been reelected in 1996, instead of leaving Peres (a serial loser of elections) to fall to Netanyahu and the anti-Oslo right; Peres made the colossal error of killing the Hamas master bomber, Ayyash, during the election campaign--which led directly to a wave of reprisal terrorist attacks that erased his 20-point lead over Netanyahu.
Four years later, Barak rejected the phased withdrawal that was an obligation under Oslo, and this led to his mad dash/last ditch effort at Camp David that was too fevered and high pressured to succeed. Barak also allowed Sharon to promenade on the Temple Mount with hundreds of security personnel---a direct trigger for the beginning of the second intifada.
But I also know that Arafat thought he could manipulate the violence of the second intifada to advance his bargaining position. This represented a total misunderstanding of Israelis and their electoral system; it was Arafat who elected Sharon in 2001 as surely as if he had stuffed the ballot boxes. Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, has admitted that the second intifada was a terrible mistake for the Palestinians. And it was the rise of Hamas to power after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, and the former's on-again/ off-again use of violence against southern Israel (events ignored by Klug), which led to Netanyahu's return to power---along with his racist/ buffoon allies in Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu party.
VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT partners4israel.org .
The Partners for Progressive Israel Blog (formerly Meretz USA Blog) is a platform for open discussion of issues related to Israel and the American Jewish community. The views expressed in its posts, and the comments on them, do not necessarily reflect the organization's official position.
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Films and boycotts
My celebratory overview of Israeli films, "Israeli Cinema Continues to Shine," published in the May/June issue of Tikkun, is now available on its website. This article focuses upon the recent feature films, "Ajami" and "For My Father," and concludes with the following plea against boycotting Israeli cultural products:
Recent protests in the United States against the Israel Ballet Company (and last year against the Batsheva Dance Company), as well as the brouhaha at last year's Toronto Film Festival over its spotlight on the city of Tel Aviv in its centennial year, raise the prospect that BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) activists may target Israeli films. Those who support BDS need to consider whether attacking this film industry, boldly liberal in its exposure of current and historic flaws in Israeli society, is the way to go. Moreover, the targeting of cultural entities in general (including universities) comes across as an attack on Israelis as a people, and not just against the often repressive policies of the government of the State of Israel.In the meantime, last weekend's Haaretz magazine has published a long analysis of the effectiveness of economic boycotts as an international strategy. It recounts a profoundly mixed record, which usually boomerangs against the intended impact. For example, while the South African example was something of a success, the Arab boycott against the pre-state Yishuv and then the State of Israel, was begun for protectionist reasons and in the long run helped bolster Israel into an economic powerhouse. This is a complex subject matter, treated intelligently and in depth.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Liberal Zionism
This is what Meretz stands for. Carlo Strenger articulates the progressive Zionists' creed.
Until a few decades ago, discussion between the different streams of Zionism was still possible. Now, alas, the self-appointed representatives of the Zionist cause - primarily from the right - make it seem as if Zionism requires blind allegiance to Israeli governments; that a Zionist is someone who admires Jewish power, whatever form it takes; and that Zionism requires shutting off your critical faculties. They have made a habit of calling all those who disagree with them 'post-Zionists' and accusing them of disloyalty.
Well, that makes Herzl and Ahad Ha'am post-Zionists avant la lettre.
Read the rest of this column at the Haaretz website.
Liberal Zionism - by Carlo Strenger, Haaretz
Zionism didn't begin as a unitary ideology. There was Theodor Herzl's liberal Zionism; Ahad Ha'am's and Judah Magnes' cultural Zionism. Socialist Zionism initially carried the day, dominating Israeli politics for the country's first three decades. In the remaining decades revisionist Zionism took over, fused with the messianic Zionism that gave religious significance to land and none to human rights.Until a few decades ago, discussion between the different streams of Zionism was still possible. Now, alas, the self-appointed representatives of the Zionist cause - primarily from the right - make it seem as if Zionism requires blind allegiance to Israeli governments; that a Zionist is someone who admires Jewish power, whatever form it takes; and that Zionism requires shutting off your critical faculties. They have made a habit of calling all those who disagree with them 'post-Zionists' and accusing them of disloyalty.
Well, that makes Herzl and Ahad Ha'am post-Zionists avant la lettre.
Read the rest of this column at the Haaretz website.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Endorsing Beinart's Biting Critique
Welcome to seventh grade Hebrew School class: the unit is Israel awareness. The teacher stands at the front of the room, and stresses the purity of Israel’s cause, the danger of our enemies – Nazis and Palestinians alike – and the need to support Israel unquestioningly. We are young, and we believe everything we are told. But Hebrew School is not our only source of information, especially once we go on to college. Maybe we take a course on the Politics of the Middle East, maybe we meet Palestinians who do not hate Jews or want to blow up buses, maybe we start reading news analyses and opinions, or maybe we go and see for ourselves. Our thoughts then turn back to our formal education about Israel, and something seems off:
We were told that Arabs living in Israel are granted full and equal rights, but we hear bills proposed suggesting that Arabs undergo loyalty tests or be stripped of their citizenship, and we see Arabs being evicted from their houses in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan to make room for Jews. We were raised to be proud of the prominent Jewish role in the Civil Rights movement, but we are called traitors and self-haters when we protest the same type of racism within Israel.
We were told that Israel wants peace, and that it is the Palestinians who oppose it, but we see Netanyahu and Lieberman dragging their feet, and haughtily scorning our President, who we helped bring into office and continue to stand behind because we, too, believe in change. We were raised to believe in the values of liberalism, humanism and of progress: perhaps we missed the disclaimer which stated that the same values do not apply in the land of Zion.
We were told that Israel supports freedom of speech, but see the 81 year-old Noam Chomsky barred from entry into Israel and the Occupied Territories, simply because the Israeli government “does not like what he has to say.” Neither do many of us like what Chomsky has to say, but we are far more afraid of a Jewish state that decides arbitrarily what can or cannot be said than we are of the words of any knee-jerk professor of linguistics.
We were told that Israel’s army is the most ethical army in the world, but we see Israel’s army, especially in Gaza 2009, behaving in the same brutal and bellicose manner as the armies of other powerful states. And when we turn to our parents’ generation, whom we so admire for their brave and unwavering protests against the American war in Vietnam, we are met with silence, with archaic interpretations of Islam and Arab culture or with muttered proclamations of “necessary for security.” Such contradictions-- between what we were told and what is-- abound. Perhaps, then, were we also lied to about the validity of the Jewish state, about Zionism, about Israel’s right to exist?
Peter Beinart, in his stunning and devastating piece, “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” argues that an increasing number of liberal Jewish students are becoming alienated from Israel and from Zionism, largely due to the way in which the American Jewish Establishment has asked them – us – to view Israel and to be Zionists.
I believe that what conventional Jewish organizations are ultimately trying to do is both necessary and good. At the core of their agenda, I believe they are truly trying to work to ensure that the Jewish state of Israel is safe and supported, for the sake of the entire Jewish people. However, it is in their messaging and their methodologies that they go wrong, in large part due their simplistic nature, and to their black-and-white formulations. We are told: Israel is good, and thus all of its actions and policies are good, defensive and moral, with perhaps a few unfortunate side effects here and there. But for those of us who have come of age knowing only a post-Oslo Israel that embraces retributive violence and hardline, nationalist politics, such statements are next to impossible to believe and reconcile with reality. When the agenda reads as follows: “Israel’s war on Gaza was just, Israel’s settlement policy is just, Israel’s Jerusalem policy is just, Israel’s existence is just,” those of us whose liberalism, humanism, and Jewish moral values do not allow us to swallow, at least in such uncompromising terms, the first three statements may very well, as Beinart warned, be inclined to disregard also the fourth.
Ross Douthat challenges Beinart on his assertion that we, the American Jewish youth, are distancing ourselves from Zionism because of Israeli policy, asserting instead that chances are, it has nothing to do with Israeli policy or actions, but rather is because we are “simply less Jewish.” Maybe indeed there are some young Jews who are less connected to Zionism because they are less connected to Judaism, but to dismiss Beinart’s argument, and thus all of the Jewish youth who are finding themselves alienated by Zionism, is fallacious and wrongheaded. I will answer Douthat’s challenge by challenging the concluding point made by Beinart himself.
In the final paragraph of his piece, Beinart writes that “comfortable Zionism has become a moral abdication” and that what we need is an “uncomfortable Zionism, a Zionism angry at what Israel risks becoming, and in love with what it could still be.” Here, in responding to both, I take issue with the words “has become.” To write that comfortable Zionism “has become” a moral abdication implies that there was once a point in history in which it was not, in which it was fully moral to embrace a Zionism that saw everything done by Israel as good. While there may indeed have been times in which unquestioning support of certain elements Zionist project was necessary, there was never a point in which we could truly, in line with our Jewish values, from “treat thy neighbor as thyself” to “tzedek, tzedek, tirdof”, be fully comfortable with what Zionism was, nor will there be such a point, until the day in which Zionism no longer comes at the expense of the Palestinians, and on that day, “Zion shall be redeemed in justice.” Perhaps it is the relative security Israel is experiencing, coupled with its reactionary governing coalition and heavy-handed, settler-friendly military policies that has awakened us, the liberal, American Jewish youth to the fact that comfortable Zionism, the Zionism that has been fed to us by the American Jewish establishment, is a moral abdication.
But we Jews, all of us, being a people of complexity, of challenges and of questions, must know that there can be no comfortable Zionism until there is peace. And to the American Jewish Establishment, Beinart is correct in warning that unless you start speaking to us in ways that recognize that, we are liable to stop listening.
Moriel Rothman was born in Jerusalem, Israel, is a rising senior at Middlebury College in Vermont and is a candidate for President of the J Street U National Student Board.
We were told that Arabs living in Israel are granted full and equal rights, but we hear bills proposed suggesting that Arabs undergo loyalty tests or be stripped of their citizenship, and we see Arabs being evicted from their houses in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan to make room for Jews. We were raised to be proud of the prominent Jewish role in the Civil Rights movement, but we are called traitors and self-haters when we protest the same type of racism within Israel.
We were told that Israel wants peace, and that it is the Palestinians who oppose it, but we see Netanyahu and Lieberman dragging their feet, and haughtily scorning our President, who we helped bring into office and continue to stand behind because we, too, believe in change. We were raised to believe in the values of liberalism, humanism and of progress: perhaps we missed the disclaimer which stated that the same values do not apply in the land of Zion.
We were told that Israel supports freedom of speech, but see the 81 year-old Noam Chomsky barred from entry into Israel and the Occupied Territories, simply because the Israeli government “does not like what he has to say.” Neither do many of us like what Chomsky has to say, but we are far more afraid of a Jewish state that decides arbitrarily what can or cannot be said than we are of the words of any knee-jerk professor of linguistics.
We were told that Israel’s army is the most ethical army in the world, but we see Israel’s army, especially in Gaza 2009, behaving in the same brutal and bellicose manner as the armies of other powerful states. And when we turn to our parents’ generation, whom we so admire for their brave and unwavering protests against the American war in Vietnam, we are met with silence, with archaic interpretations of Islam and Arab culture or with muttered proclamations of “necessary for security.” Such contradictions-- between what we were told and what is-- abound. Perhaps, then, were we also lied to about the validity of the Jewish state, about Zionism, about Israel’s right to exist?
Peter Beinart, in his stunning and devastating piece, “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” argues that an increasing number of liberal Jewish students are becoming alienated from Israel and from Zionism, largely due to the way in which the American Jewish Establishment has asked them – us – to view Israel and to be Zionists.
I believe that what conventional Jewish organizations are ultimately trying to do is both necessary and good. At the core of their agenda, I believe they are truly trying to work to ensure that the Jewish state of Israel is safe and supported, for the sake of the entire Jewish people. However, it is in their messaging and their methodologies that they go wrong, in large part due their simplistic nature, and to their black-and-white formulations. We are told: Israel is good, and thus all of its actions and policies are good, defensive and moral, with perhaps a few unfortunate side effects here and there. But for those of us who have come of age knowing only a post-Oslo Israel that embraces retributive violence and hardline, nationalist politics, such statements are next to impossible to believe and reconcile with reality. When the agenda reads as follows: “Israel’s war on Gaza was just, Israel’s settlement policy is just, Israel’s Jerusalem policy is just, Israel’s existence is just,” those of us whose liberalism, humanism, and Jewish moral values do not allow us to swallow, at least in such uncompromising terms, the first three statements may very well, as Beinart warned, be inclined to disregard also the fourth.
Ross Douthat challenges Beinart on his assertion that we, the American Jewish youth, are distancing ourselves from Zionism because of Israeli policy, asserting instead that chances are, it has nothing to do with Israeli policy or actions, but rather is because we are “simply less Jewish.” Maybe indeed there are some young Jews who are less connected to Zionism because they are less connected to Judaism, but to dismiss Beinart’s argument, and thus all of the Jewish youth who are finding themselves alienated by Zionism, is fallacious and wrongheaded. I will answer Douthat’s challenge by challenging the concluding point made by Beinart himself.
In the final paragraph of his piece, Beinart writes that “comfortable Zionism has become a moral abdication” and that what we need is an “uncomfortable Zionism, a Zionism angry at what Israel risks becoming, and in love with what it could still be.” Here, in responding to both, I take issue with the words “has become.” To write that comfortable Zionism “has become” a moral abdication implies that there was once a point in history in which it was not, in which it was fully moral to embrace a Zionism that saw everything done by Israel as good. While there may indeed have been times in which unquestioning support of certain elements Zionist project was necessary, there was never a point in which we could truly, in line with our Jewish values, from “treat thy neighbor as thyself” to “tzedek, tzedek, tirdof”, be fully comfortable with what Zionism was, nor will there be such a point, until the day in which Zionism no longer comes at the expense of the Palestinians, and on that day, “Zion shall be redeemed in justice.” Perhaps it is the relative security Israel is experiencing, coupled with its reactionary governing coalition and heavy-handed, settler-friendly military policies that has awakened us, the liberal, American Jewish youth to the fact that comfortable Zionism, the Zionism that has been fed to us by the American Jewish establishment, is a moral abdication.
But we Jews, all of us, being a people of complexity, of challenges and of questions, must know that there can be no comfortable Zionism until there is peace. And to the American Jewish Establishment, Beinart is correct in warning that unless you start speaking to us in ways that recognize that, we are liable to stop listening.
Moriel Rothman was born in Jerusalem, Israel, is a rising senior at Middlebury College in Vermont and is a candidate for President of the J Street U National Student Board.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Amb. Oren: Obama ranks with Truman for Israel
By J. Zel Lurie
His Excellency Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, hosted a dinner recently for leaders of the Democratic Party. Guest of honor was Governor Tim Kaine, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Among the Democratic big shots attending was Marc R. Stanley, a Texas attorney and founding chairman of the Democratic Jewish Council.
We are indebted to Mr. Stanley for his report in the Huffington Post of Ambassador Oren’s remarks at the dinner.
The ambassador could not sing praise for Obama any higher. He ranked Obama with President Harry Truman, who overrode his Secretary of State in 1948 to recognize the newly born Israel, and with President Richard Nixon, who instituted an airlift to supply Israel during the Yom Kippur war.
Ambassador Oren blasted those who have been falsely attacking Obama for partisan advantage. His message has slowed the barrage of anti-Obama diatribes which have filled the internet lately, including Alan Dershowitz, Ronald Lauder and Ed Koch.
The ambassador told a shocking story of an imagined snub of Netanyahu by Obama which many Israelis believe. Here is what really happened.
When Netanyahu was in Washington in March, he and Ambassador Oren and an entourage of experts called on Obama for a business meeting which lasted into the night. At a business meeting, the ambassador related, the visiting head of state is not ceremoniously met under the portico. Reporters are not called out of the press room and there are no photo-ops.
Netanyahu and his party entered the White House through the business entrance. They talked with Obama and other officials for several hours and after the president had retired they were given the rare privilege, the ambassador reported, of staying in the White House to finish their work.
Ambassador Oren described how shocked he was when he woke the next morning to find the Israel press had large headlines on the “vicious snub” that their prime minister had suffered at the White House, how he had been snuck in via a back door and how reporters and photographers had been forbidden.
Meanwhile, concludes the Israeli envoy, “President Obama is working relentlessly to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and to promote peace in Israel.”
Peace in Israel, as most Israelis have recognized, depends on achieving a two-state solution. And a two-state solution depends on the success of the proximity talks that have begun under the aegis of George Mitchell.
Most Israelis believe that proximity talks are second best to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians. As sop to the Israelis, the State Department, in its May 9 announcement of the beginning of the proximity talks said that they would lead to direct talks.
Peace between Israel and Palestine will not happen without deep sacrifices by both parties. These difficult compromises will come easier in three-way proximity talks than in face-to-face direct talks.
Direct talks, which have always been Israel’s preference, will come eventually but not for many many months. Not until George Mitchell and his boss, Hillary Clinton, and her boss, Barack Obama, are convinced that Mitchell and Netanyahu and Mitchell and Abbas, have solved all the insoluble core issues, borders, Jerusalem and refugees.
Mitchell will not be just shuttling between the parties as the New York Times put it. Mitchell will be discussing, arguing, putting forth new ideas and bridging proposals to both parties.
The talks will continue into 2011 and possibly into 2012. Success will help elect Obama to a second term.
But success will depend on both parties refraining from what the State Department called “significant actions” that would seriously undermine trust and endanger the talks.
Palestine Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has already said that he will refrain from announcing a Palestine State in August of next year as he had planned. But Netanyahu has not as yet announced that the ten month freeze will be extended.
It will come. Meanwhile Obama has asked Congress for another $200 million for Israel to help them deploy the Iron Dome anti-missile system. Israel’s security depends on averting possible missiles from Iran and its agents, Hezbollah and Hamas.
As Mr. Anthony quoted Ambassador Oren: “The friendship between the United States and Israel remains rock solid.”
His Excellency Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, hosted a dinner recently for leaders of the Democratic Party. Guest of honor was Governor Tim Kaine, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Among the Democratic big shots attending was Marc R. Stanley, a Texas attorney and founding chairman of the Democratic Jewish Council.
We are indebted to Mr. Stanley for his report in the Huffington Post of Ambassador Oren’s remarks at the dinner.
The ambassador could not sing praise for Obama any higher. He ranked Obama with President Harry Truman, who overrode his Secretary of State in 1948 to recognize the newly born Israel, and with President Richard Nixon, who instituted an airlift to supply Israel during the Yom Kippur war.
Ambassador Oren blasted those who have been falsely attacking Obama for partisan advantage. His message has slowed the barrage of anti-Obama diatribes which have filled the internet lately, including Alan Dershowitz, Ronald Lauder and Ed Koch.
The ambassador told a shocking story of an imagined snub of Netanyahu by Obama which many Israelis believe. Here is what really happened.
When Netanyahu was in Washington in March, he and Ambassador Oren and an entourage of experts called on Obama for a business meeting which lasted into the night. At a business meeting, the ambassador related, the visiting head of state is not ceremoniously met under the portico. Reporters are not called out of the press room and there are no photo-ops.
Netanyahu and his party entered the White House through the business entrance. They talked with Obama and other officials for several hours and after the president had retired they were given the rare privilege, the ambassador reported, of staying in the White House to finish their work.
Ambassador Oren described how shocked he was when he woke the next morning to find the Israel press had large headlines on the “vicious snub” that their prime minister had suffered at the White House, how he had been snuck in via a back door and how reporters and photographers had been forbidden.
Meanwhile, concludes the Israeli envoy, “President Obama is working relentlessly to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and to promote peace in Israel.”
Peace in Israel, as most Israelis have recognized, depends on achieving a two-state solution. And a two-state solution depends on the success of the proximity talks that have begun under the aegis of George Mitchell.
Most Israelis believe that proximity talks are second best to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians. As sop to the Israelis, the State Department, in its May 9 announcement of the beginning of the proximity talks said that they would lead to direct talks.
Peace between Israel and Palestine will not happen without deep sacrifices by both parties. These difficult compromises will come easier in three-way proximity talks than in face-to-face direct talks.
Direct talks, which have always been Israel’s preference, will come eventually but not for many many months. Not until George Mitchell and his boss, Hillary Clinton, and her boss, Barack Obama, are convinced that Mitchell and Netanyahu and Mitchell and Abbas, have solved all the insoluble core issues, borders, Jerusalem and refugees.
Mitchell will not be just shuttling between the parties as the New York Times put it. Mitchell will be discussing, arguing, putting forth new ideas and bridging proposals to both parties.
The talks will continue into 2011 and possibly into 2012. Success will help elect Obama to a second term.
But success will depend on both parties refraining from what the State Department called “significant actions” that would seriously undermine trust and endanger the talks.
Palestine Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has already said that he will refrain from announcing a Palestine State in August of next year as he had planned. But Netanyahu has not as yet announced that the ten month freeze will be extended.
It will come. Meanwhile Obama has asked Congress for another $200 million for Israel to help them deploy the Iron Dome anti-missile system. Israel’s security depends on averting possible missiles from Iran and its agents, Hezbollah and Hamas.
As Mr. Anthony quoted Ambassador Oren: “The friendship between the United States and Israel remains rock solid.”
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Amazon.com and Antisemitism
The satirical writer, Shalom Auslander, has written a witty and infuriating essay in Tablet, which compares the writing process to potty training and also snipes venomously at the Jewish obsession with the Holocaust and antisemitism. He's largely right, many if not most of us--certainly those of a certain age--are obsessed with the dangers of Jew hatred. Still, we might recall the old maxim that even paranoids have enemies.
I was greeted on the morning of my birthday no less (May 7) with an email from Amazon.com recommending three books, two of which are notorious antisemitic tracts: "The International Jew: The World's Most Foremost Problem" by Henry Ford and "The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion." Why? Because Amazon accurately reminds me that I had purchased the 25th anniversary paperback edition of "The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine" by Edwin Black.
This was a legitimate study of an actual agreement between the mainstream Zionist movement and the Nazi regime which allowed tens of thousands of German Jews to flee to Palestine in the 1930s. Black is neither anti-Zionist nor antisemitic. But anti-Zionists hyperventilate on this difficult decision by Zionist authorities to ransom Jewish lives and thereby undermine an international boycott against the Nazi economy; anti-Zionists see this as a smoking gun on the evils of Zionism. Not all, but many anti-Zionists also hate Jews. Based on its online algorithms, Amazon knows that my interest in this book correlates with what interests such haters.
I don't necessarily disagree with Amazon's practice of selling antisemitic material, but I wonder if it should be marketed in the same way as most anything else, or without a warning as to its toxicity, as Amazon does for "The Protocols...." (Amazon sites that peddle such antisemitic literature include the publishers' promotional messages, rave reviews by enthusiastic readers and cross references to other such noxious works.) Still, I understand the risk of a slippery slope: where do you draw the line in labeling some books as toxic and others as fair expression?
Nevertheless, we owe it to ourselves in the Jewish and liberal communities to monitor Amazon's voluminous sites and nudge the company to do the right thing by applying appropriate advisories. Notwithstanding the brilliant and cantankerous Mr. Auslander, antisemitism remains a problem, and it's a conundrum as to how best to deal with it.
A longer discussion of this matter (minus references to Auslander) is currently online as an opinion piece at the NY Jewish Week's website.
I was greeted on the morning of my birthday no less (May 7) with an email from Amazon.com recommending three books, two of which are notorious antisemitic tracts: "The International Jew: The World's Most Foremost Problem" by Henry Ford and "The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion." Why? Because Amazon accurately reminds me that I had purchased the 25th anniversary paperback edition of "The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine" by Edwin Black.
This was a legitimate study of an actual agreement between the mainstream Zionist movement and the Nazi regime which allowed tens of thousands of German Jews to flee to Palestine in the 1930s. Black is neither anti-Zionist nor antisemitic. But anti-Zionists hyperventilate on this difficult decision by Zionist authorities to ransom Jewish lives and thereby undermine an international boycott against the Nazi economy; anti-Zionists see this as a smoking gun on the evils of Zionism. Not all, but many anti-Zionists also hate Jews. Based on its online algorithms, Amazon knows that my interest in this book correlates with what interests such haters.
I don't necessarily disagree with Amazon's practice of selling antisemitic material, but I wonder if it should be marketed in the same way as most anything else, or without a warning as to its toxicity, as Amazon does for "The Protocols...." (Amazon sites that peddle such antisemitic literature include the publishers' promotional messages, rave reviews by enthusiastic readers and cross references to other such noxious works.) Still, I understand the risk of a slippery slope: where do you draw the line in labeling some books as toxic and others as fair expression?
Nevertheless, we owe it to ourselves in the Jewish and liberal communities to monitor Amazon's voluminous sites and nudge the company to do the right thing by applying appropriate advisories. Notwithstanding the brilliant and cantankerous Mr. Auslander, antisemitism remains a problem, and it's a conundrum as to how best to deal with it.
A longer discussion of this matter (minus references to Auslander) is currently online as an opinion piece at the NY Jewish Week's website.
Monday, May 17, 2010
War Cannot Be Waged in a Democratic Way
Effective military conflict, because by its nature, requires of secrecy and deception, misdirection, intelligence gathered in unsavory ways, and concealed decisions made by a few but that will affect the many. This is a paradox that affects every Western democracy engaged in war, because all of these are antithetical to the principles of democracy: Freedom of speech, openness, participatory government, human rights.
That is why, in a democracy, war is a last resort. Smart leaders understand that war is a temporary suspension of democracy that can happen only because there is no alternative to protect the lives and livelihoods of its citizens, and therefore every other possible effort must be done before beating the drums of war.
What, however, happens in the case of Israel, when a democracy is engaged in a protracted conflict? When it has been in a constant stage of conflict for several decades, and therefore “war” can no longer be considered a temporary suspension of democracy. I submit that at that point, democracy takes a back seat to “security,” and therefore its principles get eroded, to the point in which the citizens might eventually forsake them all together.
We have been able to clearly see that erosion in recent weeks. One example is the Anat Kamm affair: Anat, a former soldier and journalist for the newspaper Haaretz, was arrested because she leaked classified military documents that contained proof of extra judicial assassinations in the West Bank by the Israeli Defense Forces. Journalist Uri Blau published an article based on those documents, and the security services also issued an arrest warrant against him (fortunately, he was in London at the time). While most democracies would have been outraged both by the fact that the IDF was conducting killings against an order of the Israeli Supreme Court, and that a journalist that exposed these assassinations was under threat of arrest, in Israel, by enlarge, people were critical of the journalists and saw their arrest as justified.
More than a few other examples can be found: A recent proposal by several members of the board of governors of Tel Aviv University, which was fortunately defeated, to change its statutes to allow the university to censor or even fire professors “involved in activity perceived as harming Israel” such as criticizing Israeli policies or the defense establishment. That would have made Israel the only developed country without an affirmative defense of academic freedom. Or a poll by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University that found that the vast majority of Israeli Jews believe that there is too much freedom of expression in Israel, that human rights organizations that expose immoral conduct by Israel should be penalized, and support tough penalties for people who leak classified information exposing immoral conduct by the army. Finally, these views were further reflected in a recent bill proposed, not by the extreme right wing, but by members of the centrist Kadima faction, outlawing any Israeli NGOs that provide information to foreign bodies that result in the prosecution of Israelis for war crimes.
I don’t blame Israeli citizens for holding those views. It is a natural reaction to living in a state of protracted conflict that is diametrically opposed to the values of a democratic society. However, it is clear that unless Israel does everything in their power to take advantage of even the most miniscule opportunity to advance peace, the wearing away of these values will continue unhindered. In my opinion, the current government, far from taking advantage of every peace overture, seems intent in maintaining the status quo. They live under some naïve illusion that the current situation can continue ad infinitum without destroying the core of the Zionist values and ideals that the founding fathers of Zionism held dear.
As a committed life-long Zionist, this erosion of democratic values in Israel is particularly troubling for me. I am truly and completely committed to Herzl’s Zionist ideal of a Jewish and Democratic state as an exemplary, pluralistic society that would serve as a model for the rest of the world. In that sense, there is nothing more anti-Zionist than the failing to seek every opportunity for peace and the resulting erosion of democratic values in our little, visionary state that was suppose to be a light unto the nations.
That is why, in a democracy, war is a last resort. Smart leaders understand that war is a temporary suspension of democracy that can happen only because there is no alternative to protect the lives and livelihoods of its citizens, and therefore every other possible effort must be done before beating the drums of war.
What, however, happens in the case of Israel, when a democracy is engaged in a protracted conflict? When it has been in a constant stage of conflict for several decades, and therefore “war” can no longer be considered a temporary suspension of democracy. I submit that at that point, democracy takes a back seat to “security,” and therefore its principles get eroded, to the point in which the citizens might eventually forsake them all together.
We have been able to clearly see that erosion in recent weeks. One example is the Anat Kamm affair: Anat, a former soldier and journalist for the newspaper Haaretz, was arrested because she leaked classified military documents that contained proof of extra judicial assassinations in the West Bank by the Israeli Defense Forces. Journalist Uri Blau published an article based on those documents, and the security services also issued an arrest warrant against him (fortunately, he was in London at the time). While most democracies would have been outraged both by the fact that the IDF was conducting killings against an order of the Israeli Supreme Court, and that a journalist that exposed these assassinations was under threat of arrest, in Israel, by enlarge, people were critical of the journalists and saw their arrest as justified.
More than a few other examples can be found: A recent proposal by several members of the board of governors of Tel Aviv University, which was fortunately defeated, to change its statutes to allow the university to censor or even fire professors “involved in activity perceived as harming Israel” such as criticizing Israeli policies or the defense establishment. That would have made Israel the only developed country without an affirmative defense of academic freedom. Or a poll by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University that found that the vast majority of Israeli Jews believe that there is too much freedom of expression in Israel, that human rights organizations that expose immoral conduct by Israel should be penalized, and support tough penalties for people who leak classified information exposing immoral conduct by the army. Finally, these views were further reflected in a recent bill proposed, not by the extreme right wing, but by members of the centrist Kadima faction, outlawing any Israeli NGOs that provide information to foreign bodies that result in the prosecution of Israelis for war crimes.
I don’t blame Israeli citizens for holding those views. It is a natural reaction to living in a state of protracted conflict that is diametrically opposed to the values of a democratic society. However, it is clear that unless Israel does everything in their power to take advantage of even the most miniscule opportunity to advance peace, the wearing away of these values will continue unhindered. In my opinion, the current government, far from taking advantage of every peace overture, seems intent in maintaining the status quo. They live under some naïve illusion that the current situation can continue ad infinitum without destroying the core of the Zionist values and ideals that the founding fathers of Zionism held dear.
As a committed life-long Zionist, this erosion of democratic values in Israel is particularly troubling for me. I am truly and completely committed to Herzl’s Zionist ideal of a Jewish and Democratic state as an exemplary, pluralistic society that would serve as a model for the rest of the world. In that sense, there is nothing more anti-Zionist than the failing to seek every opportunity for peace and the resulting erosion of democratic values in our little, visionary state that was suppose to be a light unto the nations.
Gaza doctor's humanity amid tragedy
Our friend, Stephen Scheinberg, emeritus professor of history at Montreal's Concordia University and co-chair of Canadian Friends of Peace Now, is now a regular contributor to the Canadian publication, The Mark. The following is his latest piece (on the Gaza-based physician and peace activist who lost three children and a niece to Israeli fire during Operation Cast Lead):
A Prescription for the Heart by Stephen Scheinberg
Many Canadians have now become well acquainted with Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish. The Canadian publication of his book, I Shall Not Hate: A Gaza Doctor's Journey, prompted a broad flurry of recent radio and TV interviews and published reviews. The depths of his personal tragedy – three of his daughters and a niece died during the Israeli assault on Gaza in January 2009 – have moved many of us to tears. Yet it is his courage, in his refusal to embrace hatred, that is most impressive.
Recently, the doctor addressed an overflow McGill University audience composed of Jews, Arabs, and gentiles, who gave him a standing ovation at the end of his presentation – a response usually reserved for the partisan champions of either side in the Middle East conflict by similarly inclined crowds. Dr. Abuelaish had not come to talk of politics, of solutions to the vexing problems of the Palestinian refugees, of the ultimate disposition of the Temple Mount, or even of secure borders. Certainly he did not come to apportion blame, nor does he do so in his book.
This distinguished Palestinian spoke of the Jewish family whose farm he had worked on, who treated him fairly and even gave him a gift when he left their employ. He spoke also of the Jewish doctors and medical staff he worked with at Israeli hospitals, those islands of sanity and equality, amidst a sea of turbulence and conflict. There, Israeli doctors dispensed care, as he did himself, without regard for national distinctions or political grievances; Dr. Abuelaish recognizes people based not on their tribal affiliations but on their merits as human beings.
Read the rest online at The Mark.
A Prescription for the Heart by Stephen Scheinberg
Many Canadians have now become well acquainted with Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish. The Canadian publication of his book, I Shall Not Hate: A Gaza Doctor's Journey, prompted a broad flurry of recent radio and TV interviews and published reviews. The depths of his personal tragedy – three of his daughters and a niece died during the Israeli assault on Gaza in January 2009 – have moved many of us to tears. Yet it is his courage, in his refusal to embrace hatred, that is most impressive.
Recently, the doctor addressed an overflow McGill University audience composed of Jews, Arabs, and gentiles, who gave him a standing ovation at the end of his presentation – a response usually reserved for the partisan champions of either side in the Middle East conflict by similarly inclined crowds. Dr. Abuelaish had not come to talk of politics, of solutions to the vexing problems of the Palestinian refugees, of the ultimate disposition of the Temple Mount, or even of secure borders. Certainly he did not come to apportion blame, nor does he do so in his book.
This distinguished Palestinian spoke of the Jewish family whose farm he had worked on, who treated him fairly and even gave him a gift when he left their employ. He spoke also of the Jewish doctors and medical staff he worked with at Israeli hospitals, those islands of sanity and equality, amidst a sea of turbulence and conflict. There, Israeli doctors dispensed care, as he did himself, without regard for national distinctions or political grievances; Dr. Abuelaish recognizes people based not on their tribal affiliations but on their merits as human beings.
Read the rest online at The Mark.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Avnery admires & disagrees with Mearsheimer
The radical peace activist, Uri Avnery, indicates that he admires Prof. John Mearsheimer, the University of Chicago political scientist of fame and infamy for his "Israel Lobby" writings. I do not share Avnery's high opinion of Mearsheimer, but I am heartened by his disagreement with the professor's recent overly definitive pronouncement that:
This is the key passage in Avnery's article, "A Fantasy":
... Israel is not going to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state ... in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably, the two-state solution is now a fantasy. Instead, those territories will be incorporated into a “Greater Israel,” which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Nevertheless, a Jewish apartheid state is not politically viable over the long term. In the end, it will become a democratic bi-national state, whose politics will be dominated by its Palestinian citizens. In other words, it will cease being a Jewish state....It's not that Mearsheimer is wrong in outlining the danger that this will happen, but that he's so sure of it, and that he thinks this result would be Israel's fault alone.
This is the key passage in Avnery's article, "A Fantasy":
I do not accept the professor’s judgment that “most Israelis are opposed to making the sacrifices that would be necessary to create a viable Palestinian state.” As an Israeli living and fighting in Israel, I am convinced that the great majority of Israelis are ready to accept the necessary conditions, which are well-know to all: a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem, the 1967 borders with minimal land swaps, a mutually acceptable solution for the refugee problem.
The real problem is that most Israelis do not believe that peace is possible. Dozens of years of propaganda have convinced them that “we have no partner for peace”. Events on the ground (as seen through Israeli eyes) have confirmed this view. If this perception is dissolved, everything is possible.
In this, President Obama could play a big role. I believe that this is his real mission: to prove that it is possible. That there is a partner out there. That there is a guarantee for the security of Israel. And – yes – that the alternative is frightening.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Not a star, but I'm on TV
You can catch me on TV through Saturday night, May 22. At the end of April, I was recorded on cable television's Shalom TV network, debating Jerusalem Post columnist and former World Jewish Congress bigwig Isi Liebler about "whether President Obama has done damage to the U.S.-Israel relationship, and what realistic expectations for peace exist with the Palestinians today." Often against both Mr. Liebler and the moderator, I defended a more assertive US stance toward peacemaking.
But more photogenic talking heads have nothing to fear from me. If nothing else should inspire me to lose weight, seeing my double chin and expansive midriff on the small screen ought to. Also, seeing an errant lone hair emanating from the front of my bald pate was maddening.
As for the discussion, I held up reasonably well for a novice TV performer against Mr. Liebler's practiced arguments and despite being double-teamed by moderator Mark Golub, who leans in Liebler's direction but not quite as far. Rabbi Golub regards himself as a liberal, but like many moderate and liberal-minded American Jews, the intifada and the elevation of Hamas in recent years has completely turned him off to the Palestinian side and to seeing prospects for peace. Still, at a certain point he pivoted to put Liebler on the hot seat regarding the need for the Palestinians to have a measure of sovereignty in East Jerusalem, should a peace agreement--which Golub's dubious about ever happening--come to fruition.
It came as something of a surprise to them that I see a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel as a non-starter incompatible with a realistic peace agreement. Both came away with respect for me as a pro-Israel voice, albeit to their left.
If I had not been filibustered, or if I were less polite, I might have interjected to correct a couple of Mr. Liebler's more egregious assertions: one smearing J Street as being anti-Israel (I failed to make him aware that I support J Street) and another lauding the Netanyahu government as moderate, with the extremes of both right and left allegedly marginalized by the electorate (I wish I had said something on the shenanigans of Avigdor Lieberman and Yisrael Beitenu).
If you're in New York and have Time-Warner cable service, you can find this program on channel 1012, where you'd select Shalom TV, the category "News and Israel," and the program title, "Obama and Israel." Otherwise, you go online to www.shalomtv.com and click "Find Us" on the menu to learn how to access it with your cable provider.
But more photogenic talking heads have nothing to fear from me. If nothing else should inspire me to lose weight, seeing my double chin and expansive midriff on the small screen ought to. Also, seeing an errant lone hair emanating from the front of my bald pate was maddening.
As for the discussion, I held up reasonably well for a novice TV performer against Mr. Liebler's practiced arguments and despite being double-teamed by moderator Mark Golub, who leans in Liebler's direction but not quite as far. Rabbi Golub regards himself as a liberal, but like many moderate and liberal-minded American Jews, the intifada and the elevation of Hamas in recent years has completely turned him off to the Palestinian side and to seeing prospects for peace. Still, at a certain point he pivoted to put Liebler on the hot seat regarding the need for the Palestinians to have a measure of sovereignty in East Jerusalem, should a peace agreement--which Golub's dubious about ever happening--come to fruition.
It came as something of a surprise to them that I see a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel as a non-starter incompatible with a realistic peace agreement. Both came away with respect for me as a pro-Israel voice, albeit to their left.
If I had not been filibustered, or if I were less polite, I might have interjected to correct a couple of Mr. Liebler's more egregious assertions: one smearing J Street as being anti-Israel (I failed to make him aware that I support J Street) and another lauding the Netanyahu government as moderate, with the extremes of both right and left allegedly marginalized by the electorate (I wish I had said something on the shenanigans of Avigdor Lieberman and Yisrael Beitenu).
If you're in New York and have Time-Warner cable service, you can find this program on channel 1012, where you'd select Shalom TV, the category "News and Israel," and the program title, "Obama and Israel." Otherwise, you go online to www.shalomtv.com and click "Find Us" on the menu to learn how to access it with your cable provider.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Aviva Cantor argues against one-state solution
Journalist and author Aviva Cantor has been an advocate of the two-state solution ever since becoming a socialist Zionist and feminist in 1968.
The One-State Solution is attractive to many people motivated by ethical issues and about ending the Occupation, and/or an abhorrence of nationalism and religious intolerance/coercion, and/or who champion democratic (“one person, one vote”) values. It must be rejected both because it denies the legitimacy of the State of Israel and because its implementation would be bad for Israelis and Palestinians and any possibility of peace between them.
I shall not address the legitimacy issue because the existence of the State of Israel is indisputable and its continued existence non-negotiable. Those who deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state will not be convinced by ideological or ethical polemic. I shall focus on two implementational reasons why the One-State Solution is not viable: 1) it does not address the psychological and socio-cultural needs of either Israeli Jews* or Palestinians; and 2) it is impractical and even dangerous.
1. Psychological and socio-cultural needs
History, especially the disastrous events of the 20th century, has clearly demonstrated that Jews all over the world are still in need of an inalienable right of asylum that can never be denied or restricted as it was before and during the Holocaust. They also need one place on earth where it is possible to organize successful self-defense should this prove necessary as it was during the Holocaust. Living as a minority made such self-defense impossible at that time and for millennia before.
The Jews who live in Israel* have decided that they wish to continue to live in their own country, and have the opportunity for developing and expressing their own values, traditions, customs, political and artistic cultures and zeitgeist and shaping a society in accordance with these, and in response to their concerns, and their perceived interests. They have done so in the framework of a state since 1948. Israel meets Jews’ both needs of shelter/refuge and of cultural expression.
The Palestinians also require one place on earth where they are not denied shelter and citizenship – which have been denied them in various places and times. They also need a place where they can develop their culture, politics, art, and ways of life in accordance with their values, traditions, customs and viewpoints, without outside interference and without the need to constantly look over their shoulder and respond to others’ wishes, demands and values.
In our nationalism-driven age, it is not possible to do this as a minority under a majority government whose values and operational strategies are not necessarily in the minority’s interests and require constant monitoring and struggle. To be able to determine their destiny and their future by themselves they require the framework of a state.
2. Practical Considerations
Twentieth-century events have shown that even nations whose different ethnic groups have not experienced active enmity often endure hostility between them because of differences in language and culture. Examples are Belgium, where the Francophone and Flemish-speaking groups are at odds, and Canada, where French residents of Quebec feel alienated by/from the Anglophone culture and political system.
In many countries where hostility and feelings of vengeance have simmered for years and were suppressed by the government, unscrupulous politicians have raised these feelings to fever pitch and launched genocidal atrocities. Ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda easily come to mind.
Israelis and Palestinians have long endured great tensions, which often flared into violence. Such tensions and violence antedated the establishment of the State of Israel. Even under the domination of the British Mandate (1920’s-1948), Arab mobs massacred innocent civilians (pious Jews) in Jerusalem and Hebron. After the establishment of Israel, its Arab citizens were relegated to second-class citizenship. As a result of the Six-Day War, and the subsequent short-sighted – and later, imperialist -- policies of Israeli governments, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank has been and continues to be oppressive. Vigilante actions by settlers have exacerbated the Palestinians’ feelings of persecution. Terrorist action by Palestinians under the Occupation and/or by those who claim to support them and by Gazans have generated feelings of hostility and hopelessness on the part of Jewish Israelis. The fact that the unilateral evacuation of Gaza led to attacks by Hamas (not to speak of their vindictive and malicious destruction of greenhouses left them) has exacerbated their mistrust. Operation Cast Lead increased the hatred.
Under such conditions, to believe that Israelis and Palestinians could forge a state in which they could relinquish their feelings of enmity and distrust in favor of instant convivencia (living together in peace, a term from medieval Islamic Spain) -- when nationalities that have not experienced mutual violence have not been able to attain this enviable condition -- is a naïve and dangerous fantasy.
Mistrust, enmity and hatred do not disappear automatically just because authorities and outside parties want them to. Overcoming these feelings requires a willingness to work very hard at doing this without needing to worry about possible bad consequences that could ensue if a group lets its guard down.. A prerequisite to overcoming the negative feelings, therefore, is the consciousness that a group’s members need no longer worry about being endangered, either physically or culturally, and the recognition that they are in control of their destiny as much as is possible in our era. That is not possible if they are still a minority, even one with “guaranteed rights” (we all remember what happened with the “guaranteed rights” given Jews in post-World War I Eastern Europe under/by the League of Nations).
Only when warring groups have recovered psychologically from the century-long war can they venture forth to deal with difficult relationships with former enemies. And this recovery can only be done under conditions of separation because it is impossible to deal honestly and openly with overcoming feelings of negativity when the recent enemy is listening in and considering consequences.
In other words, what is required now is not a shotgun marriage between Israelis and Palestinians but a dignified divorce, i.e., separation.
Forcing Israeli and Palestinians to live together "happily ever after" in one country before each has recovered from the war between them is not going to work. Moreover, it could prove dangerous. The extremists in both camps, fearful of their group’s being or becoming a minority, might reignite the war and carry it to genocidal proportions. Slaughter, rape, mutilations, pogroms are evils which are hard to bring to an end and usually accelerate once they get started, as the horrific situations in Congo and Darfur demonstrate.
Genocide, then, is a possible outcome of forcing two nations who have not recovered from their mutual enmity to merge into one nation. Such a disaster is a distinct realistic possibility in the case of Israelis and Palestinians. So is foreign invasion and an international conflagration which could ensue.
A one-state solution is unrealistic. And various polls have recorded that the majority of Israelis and West Bank Palestinians** still favor the Two-State Solution. Considering the dangerous One-State Solution is also unnecessary when the Two-State Solution could, albeit with a great amount of willingness and work, be successful. It is not too late to strive to bring it about.
_______
* The attitudes of Israeli Arabs, of course, is very different and cannot be dealt with here except to point out that their second-class citizenship must be brought to an end. In this article, we are considering the attitudes of the Jews in Israel, the dominant majority, who established the Jewish State and sustain it.
** The situation in Gaza, which is under the rule of a rejectionist movement, is a separate case that, of course, complicates the situation.
The One-State Solution is attractive to many people motivated by ethical issues and about ending the Occupation, and/or an abhorrence of nationalism and religious intolerance/coercion, and/or who champion democratic (“one person, one vote”) values. It must be rejected both because it denies the legitimacy of the State of Israel and because its implementation would be bad for Israelis and Palestinians and any possibility of peace between them.
I shall not address the legitimacy issue because the existence of the State of Israel is indisputable and its continued existence non-negotiable. Those who deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state will not be convinced by ideological or ethical polemic. I shall focus on two implementational reasons why the One-State Solution is not viable: 1) it does not address the psychological and socio-cultural needs of either Israeli Jews* or Palestinians; and 2) it is impractical and even dangerous.
1. Psychological and socio-cultural needs
History, especially the disastrous events of the 20th century, has clearly demonstrated that Jews all over the world are still in need of an inalienable right of asylum that can never be denied or restricted as it was before and during the Holocaust. They also need one place on earth where it is possible to organize successful self-defense should this prove necessary as it was during the Holocaust. Living as a minority made such self-defense impossible at that time and for millennia before.
The Jews who live in Israel* have decided that they wish to continue to live in their own country, and have the opportunity for developing and expressing their own values, traditions, customs, political and artistic cultures and zeitgeist and shaping a society in accordance with these, and in response to their concerns, and their perceived interests. They have done so in the framework of a state since 1948. Israel meets Jews’ both needs of shelter/refuge and of cultural expression.
The Palestinians also require one place on earth where they are not denied shelter and citizenship – which have been denied them in various places and times. They also need a place where they can develop their culture, politics, art, and ways of life in accordance with their values, traditions, customs and viewpoints, without outside interference and without the need to constantly look over their shoulder and respond to others’ wishes, demands and values.
In our nationalism-driven age, it is not possible to do this as a minority under a majority government whose values and operational strategies are not necessarily in the minority’s interests and require constant monitoring and struggle. To be able to determine their destiny and their future by themselves they require the framework of a state.
2. Practical Considerations
Twentieth-century events have shown that even nations whose different ethnic groups have not experienced active enmity often endure hostility between them because of differences in language and culture. Examples are Belgium, where the Francophone and Flemish-speaking groups are at odds, and Canada, where French residents of Quebec feel alienated by/from the Anglophone culture and political system.
In many countries where hostility and feelings of vengeance have simmered for years and were suppressed by the government, unscrupulous politicians have raised these feelings to fever pitch and launched genocidal atrocities. Ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda easily come to mind.
Israelis and Palestinians have long endured great tensions, which often flared into violence. Such tensions and violence antedated the establishment of the State of Israel. Even under the domination of the British Mandate (1920’s-1948), Arab mobs massacred innocent civilians (pious Jews) in Jerusalem and Hebron. After the establishment of Israel, its Arab citizens were relegated to second-class citizenship. As a result of the Six-Day War, and the subsequent short-sighted – and later, imperialist -- policies of Israeli governments, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank has been and continues to be oppressive. Vigilante actions by settlers have exacerbated the Palestinians’ feelings of persecution. Terrorist action by Palestinians under the Occupation and/or by those who claim to support them and by Gazans have generated feelings of hostility and hopelessness on the part of Jewish Israelis. The fact that the unilateral evacuation of Gaza led to attacks by Hamas (not to speak of their vindictive and malicious destruction of greenhouses left them) has exacerbated their mistrust. Operation Cast Lead increased the hatred.
Under such conditions, to believe that Israelis and Palestinians could forge a state in which they could relinquish their feelings of enmity and distrust in favor of instant convivencia (living together in peace, a term from medieval Islamic Spain) -- when nationalities that have not experienced mutual violence have not been able to attain this enviable condition -- is a naïve and dangerous fantasy.
Mistrust, enmity and hatred do not disappear automatically just because authorities and outside parties want them to. Overcoming these feelings requires a willingness to work very hard at doing this without needing to worry about possible bad consequences that could ensue if a group lets its guard down.. A prerequisite to overcoming the negative feelings, therefore, is the consciousness that a group’s members need no longer worry about being endangered, either physically or culturally, and the recognition that they are in control of their destiny as much as is possible in our era. That is not possible if they are still a minority, even one with “guaranteed rights” (we all remember what happened with the “guaranteed rights” given Jews in post-World War I Eastern Europe under/by the League of Nations).
Only when warring groups have recovered psychologically from the century-long war can they venture forth to deal with difficult relationships with former enemies. And this recovery can only be done under conditions of separation because it is impossible to deal honestly and openly with overcoming feelings of negativity when the recent enemy is listening in and considering consequences.
In other words, what is required now is not a shotgun marriage between Israelis and Palestinians but a dignified divorce, i.e., separation.
Forcing Israeli and Palestinians to live together "happily ever after" in one country before each has recovered from the war between them is not going to work. Moreover, it could prove dangerous. The extremists in both camps, fearful of their group’s being or becoming a minority, might reignite the war and carry it to genocidal proportions. Slaughter, rape, mutilations, pogroms are evils which are hard to bring to an end and usually accelerate once they get started, as the horrific situations in Congo and Darfur demonstrate.
Genocide, then, is a possible outcome of forcing two nations who have not recovered from their mutual enmity to merge into one nation. Such a disaster is a distinct realistic possibility in the case of Israelis and Palestinians. So is foreign invasion and an international conflagration which could ensue.
A one-state solution is unrealistic. And various polls have recorded that the majority of Israelis and West Bank Palestinians** still favor the Two-State Solution. Considering the dangerous One-State Solution is also unnecessary when the Two-State Solution could, albeit with a great amount of willingness and work, be successful. It is not too late to strive to bring it about.
_______
* The attitudes of Israeli Arabs, of course, is very different and cannot be dealt with here except to point out that their second-class citizenship must be brought to an end. In this article, we are considering the attitudes of the Jews in Israel, the dominant majority, who established the Jewish State and sustain it.
** The situation in Gaza, which is under the rule of a rejectionist movement, is a separate case that, of course, complicates the situation.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Extremists rally against Obama
On April 25th, a rainy Sunday in New York, about 1,000 stalwarts of an extreme right-wing agenda for a Greater Israel, rallied against Pres. Obama's call for a settlements freeze in East Jerusalem. As observed by Doug Chandler in his report for the NY Jewish Week, the organizers kept U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, a potential New York mayoral contender and a figure of growing stature among House Democrats, waiting in his car while they mulled over his request to address the rally. They apparently would only allow him to speak if he completely broke with Pres. Obama on Israel, something he evidently was unwilling to do.
The rally was so extreme that speakers denounced Senator Chuck Schumer, the ADL's Abe Foxman and even the Conference of President's Malcolm Hoenlein---all figures who are prominent defenders of Israel (and too often, perhaps, apologists for Israeli policies that should not be defended).
The anti-Israel blogger, Max Blumenthal (in my view, an extremist at the other end), had a field day documenting on YouTube the views of some participants he interviewed at the event. My thanks to Prof. Stephen Sheinberg of Canadian Friends of Peace Now for the heads up on the video.
The rally was so extreme that speakers denounced Senator Chuck Schumer, the ADL's Abe Foxman and even the Conference of President's Malcolm Hoenlein---all figures who are prominent defenders of Israel (and too often, perhaps, apologists for Israeli policies that should not be defended).
The anti-Israel blogger, Max Blumenthal (in my view, an extremist at the other end), had a field day documenting on YouTube the views of some participants he interviewed at the event. My thanks to Prof. Stephen Sheinberg of Canadian Friends of Peace Now for the heads up on the video.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)