Theodor Herzl: 'This can only end with tears'
About two months ago, Larry Derfner came to me with an intriguing proposition. He’ll describe it, no doubt, in his own words in his own post here. But he said to me that he’d grown tired of hearing the same-old arguments from the right-wing that he heard virtually every day through his columns in the Jerusalem Post and the Talkbacks. He felt he had little left to learn from them. But that he wanted to join with me in a freewheeling debate about what a left vision for Israel would be. That, he thought, was where the challenge lay for him, where he hoped there might be new things to learn.
I’ve known Larry’s work for a long time and always admired it (which is saying a lot considering how many authors, analysts and bloggers I read on this subject). Though I’ve always worked solo in my blog, Tikun Olam, I’ve always believed that we are nothing as bloggers if we don’t engage with fellow-bloggers who share our political vision and readers and the overall progressive community. So, Larry’s invitation was compelling.
But at first I naively thought we wouldn’t have anything to debate because we’d agree on everything. After a few weeks of back and forth discussion, I see there are many important issues which we see differently. The give and take and debate will, we hope, shed more light than heat. This is meant to be a strong, perhaps sharp debate. But one among writers who respect each other and the philosophy and traditions we critique.
While we are progressive Jews, we are different. Larry made aliyah. I did not. Larry is a secular atheist. I am a Conservative Jew with a strong sense of Jewish spirituality. Though we both originally come from a liberal Zionist tradition, Larry calls himself post-Zionist. I call myself progressive Zionist.
We thought long and hard about the title for our new venture. Larry had ideas. I had ideas. Somehow none clicked. We wanted a name that conveyed the nature of our blog as a political debate, plus one that conveyed that ours would be a progressive vision of Israel. The problem is that every title that conveyed some of these ideas didn’t convey others. The nature of language is that can’t possibly convey the essence of the thing it describes. It describes one or two vital qualities, but leaves out others.
So today, we thought of Israel Reconsidered, which connotes that we’re trying to approach our subject in a new way, trying to bring a new vision and new ideas to a very old subject. We hope our title conveys that we hope to be bold, to spare few including, sometimes, our own allies on the left when necessary. There is a Talmudic saying that spirit of studying Torah should be: “turn it over and over, because everything is in it.” That’s the spirit with which I approach this venture and our engagement with Israel.
Larry and I will debate from a left-Zionist perspective the Israeli-Arab conflict. Larry is one of the few remaining progressive commentators at Jerusalem Post and has written very courageously in an Israeli context about the evils of Israeli policy concerning Occupation and the wrongheadedness of Israel’s approach to the Palestinian people. He made the commitment to live the Zionist dream in Israel. Though he has seen the dream sour, he still maintains a strong commitment to Israel and trying to be a voice of sanity in the English language media there.
There is a difference in our voices and that is where we hope the richness of a possible debate/dialogue will make itself felt. Though Larry calls himself a post-Zionist, I think he retains some of vestiges of the attitudes and approaches of liberal Zionism (maybe we both do). He seems to be to my right on some aspects of the Israel debate while still remaining progressive. While Larry and I are probably both critical of the Israeli left and liberal Zionism, we think there is much that may be gained by turning over these issues to ensure that the left stays relevant to Israel and Israel stays relevant to the world (both phenomena that seem increasingly unlikely). We also hope to debate issues from a left point of view to determine whether there is a way that this perspective can reach outside itself to impact the broader debate and dialogue.
I’m not just thinking here of the debate within Israel or the Jewish community. I’m also thinking of the growing number of progressive non-Jews who understand the centrality of the resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict to overall stability in the region and to world peace. How will such readers react to the clash of our ideas.
I’m flattered that Larry thinks that despite my sharp debating style in my blog comment threads, that I’m a principled, decent representative of my brand of political discourse. We hope to incorporate that principle in our new blog. It will be a strong, sharp debate, but one between two individuals who respect each other even when they disagree. I should also note here that this is my own articulation of our joint project and Larry may describe himself or our project differently.
We have general ideas of subjects we’d like to debate: some historical questions like Nakba/1948; the Jewish nature of the State vs. democracy; Right of Return vs. Law of Return. We’ll probably take one idea or issue (or perhaps two) every week and write a post about it and then allow readers to weigh in. In this way, we hope it will become a running diary of our concerns and interests.
Comments will be open and we invite your perspective. But depending on the response we may review our comments policy. We invite you to join the debate, subscribe to the blog and invite those you know to join us. Please share us through your social networking platforms and get the word out.
I’d offer the traditional Shehecheyanu blessing offered when you begin a new project, buy a new item, or eat a first fruit of the season, but Larry’s an atheist! Anyway, L’Chaim!
Larry Derfner
Dimi
I get the first comment.
“While we are progressive Jews, we are different. Larry made aliyah. I did not. Larry is a secular atheist. I am a Conservative Jew with a strong sense of Jewish spirituality. Though we both originally come from a liberal Zionist tradition, Larry calls himself post-Zionist. I call myself progressive Zionist.”
This looks as though it’s going to be a really interesting project to read. Good luck with it, both of you.
Pingback: May 12, 2011 PALESTINE NEWS | Occupied Palestine | فلسطين
Look forward… mazel tov!
This is going to be interesting. The way the debate is divided — 1948 v 1967 — really gets at the root of the “problem.” I’m with Richard on this, but then I don’t live in Israel, and I’m not even a Jew. I’m a Canadian and live in a bi-national, multicultural country — and it’s always a work in progress. When Frankophone Canada gets restless, it’s good for Anglophone Canada: we get a refresher course in how important Quebec culture is to Canada; we’d be pretty boring without it. There is a minority of Frankophones who are permanently restless and are always threatening separation. They should continue doing that, because every day is a new day, and maybe separation will look good to a majority of Canadians sometime in the future. Until then, we just have to keep working at our relationship.
I think Israelis need to look around at other countries similar to Canada in this respect. Problem is, most Israelis who are against a bi-national state always look at the failed or troubled ones. How about Switzerland?
Congratulations for establishing a much needed forum for progressive views on the future of Israel in the global community. My hope and expectation is that Israeli leadership will seriously consider the views expressed in “Israel Reconsidered” to gain for Israel recognition as a true democracy with a post- Zionist character and the respect of all members of the United Nations. All the best, KL Ching
You have another interested reader. I look forward to the debate and discussion.
richard and larry, congratulations on beginning your new blog “israel reconsidered”. i have a suggestion to help make larry’s wise statement against confusion more effective. he says: “And I think that if Israel ends its tyranny over the Palestinians (I refer to Arab citizens of Israel as Israeli Arabs, not Palestinians, just to avoid confusion), … ” so to avoid confusion, i suggest that whenever possible both richard and larry consider dropping the term “anti-semitism” or “antisemitism” for the more clear term “anti-judaism”. by 1879, the term “anti-judaism” became too controversial, offensive and threatening (though for different reasons) to both european christians and european jews, and as a consequence and by general silent consensus , the term “anti-judaism” was replaced in european discourses against the jews by the more hazy and confusingly foggy term “antisemitism”, (i have the reference for this but have to dig it out). the discourse on your blog (israel reconsidered) will deal with the subject of israel and palestine in the middle east where mostly arabic and hebrew are natively spoken. please observe that in any discourse held in arabic the european invented term “antisemitism” is very confusing and is almost never used. the most clearer term “anti-judaism” (ddiddd al-yahood or ddidd al-yahoodiyyah) is the one that is used and the one that you will agree carries the really differentiating meanings that the europeans tried to avoid in 1879 when they chose to adopt the term “antisemitism” instead. so, i want to suggest that instead of using the term “antisemitism”, both of you consider using terms like “anti-judaism”, “anti-zionism,” and “anti-israel” which will dissipate the fog generated by the use of the term “antisemitism”, unless contrary to larry’s statement on wanting to avoid confusion, fog and confusion serve some ulterior purpose of yours (i think and hope not however). after all, among the discussants you want to win to your blog will be many arabs, arab-americans, and generally arabic-speaking thinkers who like myself will shy away and avoid fog and self-generated confusion. i will follow your blog and try to pinpoint grave inconsistencies i observe in your shared thinking about palestine-israel and the possible solutions to this intractable conflict toward which you appear to be leaning. thank you both for trying your best. i wish you well. shalom v’salamaat w’l'chaim.
“The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves …”
There is too much abstraction attaching to methods aimed at finalising the matter; everything is far too tentative and, even then, it all hangs by the slenderest of threads, the ones that invariably break.
No one, it seems, is seriously prepared to grab hold of this 63 year old conflict and finish it off in a quick and decent manner. Maybe it still holds some strange fascination for certain people and they feel compelled to keep it in being through steadfast conviction or, as is more than likely, sheer inaction on their part.
I, for one, can see no good reason in why the whole thing has not been rolled up long ago and consigned to the dustbin of world history.
I suppose it’s the rolling up process that eludes most people. And yet, just how difficult can that really be?
http://yorketowers.blogspot.com
There! It’s virtually over. All done and dusted. And if anyone else knows of a quicker or an easier way to do it, then that person should let us all in on the secret as soon as humanly possible.