Although I don’t use the term because its meaning has been so hopelessly distorted, I am a “post-Zionist” – I think Israel must be a Jewish and democratic state, and what it’s become is plenty Jewish but not nearly democratic enough. I understand that the principles of a “Jewish state” and a “democratic state” inherently clash – in a democracy, all citizens have equal standing regardless of their religion or ethnicity; in a Jewish state, a gentile has a lesser standing, a lesser share in the state, than a Jew. I DON’T LIKE THIS, and I think the business of Israel is to first recognize this inherent problem in Zionism and do everything possible, short of erasing the Jewish character of the state, to equalize Jews and gentiles; one obvious way would be to allow gentiles to become citizens without having to marry Jews, a hideous law if there ever was one.
And I think it’s possible for the country’s gentiles – virtually all of them Israeli Arabs, who are 20% of the population – to be about as equal as they’d want to be in a country where 80% of the people are Jews. I don’t think Israeli Arabs would like to be called up to the IDF like Israeli Jews are – mainly because the potential enemies they’d be training to fight are all Arabs, or at least Muslims. I wouldn’t want Arabs to be drafted either, for their sake and the army’s. We in Israel can cancel the law of return and all other official Zionist practices and legally turn the country into a non-sectarian “state of all its citizens.” What we can’t do is change the geography and demography of the Middle East, just like we can’t change the history of Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine.
So no matter what the public decides Israel should be, the Arab minority can never become “fully Israeli”; since this is the Middle East and they are Arabs, they can never have the same, single national identity and feeling of national loyalty that the Jewish majority has. Unlike Jews, the Arabs here will always be divided between their state and their people. Even if we suddenly change the state’s name from Israel to Ecumenica, will Ecumenican Arabs suddenly want to serve alongside Ecumenican Jews as commandos in the Ecumenican Defense Forces? Will the newly-named country’s Arab minority be any less at odds with the Jewish majority over immigration policy, foreign policy or where Ecumenica’s borders should lie? So I think the idea of changing Israel into a state of all its citizens is an illusion.
But more importantly, I think it’s wrong because I believe the Jews have a right to a Jewish state, and the reason for this right is historic anti-Semitism, which is what engendered Zionism. My father, who grew up in a Polish shtetl (and whose views on Israel were fairly similar to Richard’s, interestingly enough), once told me that “in Poland, a Jew was finished by the time he reached 30. He was worn out.” So Jews had the right to seek the power that would allow them to defend themselves and ensure their freedom and dignity, without having to rely on anybody else’s good will, and they could only do this with a Jewish state. To have that state, they needed a country where they could be the majority – and in 1947, when the UN offered it to them, they accepted.
Like I said, a Jewish state could never be fully democratic for a non-Jewish minority, but if I think of the world during the first half of the 20th century and ask myself: Which was more undemocratic, Zionism to the Arabs of Palestine or anti-Semitism to the Jews of Europe and Russia and, to a lesser extent, the Middle East, then the answer is easy: anti-Semitism. And this, finally, is how I, as a democrat, justify the creation of the Jewish state – because it was more democratic than what it came to replace, which was anti-Semitism.
Larry Derfner
Dimi
Israel’s survival depends on America including $billions of US tax payers money so why not take a page from the American example? Let an Israel born Arab decide if he or she wants to prove his or her patriotism by volunteering for military duty. In America, there were those of us who fought for the right of Nisei (AJA – American born of Japanese descent) to form military units and enter combat in WW II to prove their loyalty. The 100th/442nd was the most decorated (21 Medals of Honor), 6 Presidential Unit Citations in the US Armed Forces. They fought in both Europe and the Pacific and were the first to liberate Dachau. Regards, KL Ching
Larry and Richard, first of all, thanks a lot for this blog and this opportunity to discuss these sensitive and often extremely polarizing issues in the spirit of searching for truth.
Larry, I understand the points you make when advocating for a Jewish state. You’re writing about the Jewish character of the state. Would it be possible for you to define what that means?
For the past 2000 years (and in some parts of the world for much longer), Jewishness has been characterized by and rooted in the life in diaspora. We’ve been strangers in strange lands, yet we’ve become deeply connected to those strange lands and their people.
In my opinion, there are probably as many Jewish characters as cultures where Jews come from. I guess an American Jew has a lot more in common with other Americans of his/her own social class than with Jews coming from the USSR, Morocco, Yemen, Ethiopia, etc. The same would probably hold for other Jewish communities. I guess what’s happening in Israel is that an attempt is being made to forge a single Jewish identity, so that in a couple of generations Israel will become a homogeneous Jewish society. This will probably drive the rich Jewish cultures of Europe, North Africa and Middle East into oblivion. My point is that, for better or worse, Israel is not about preserving a Jewish character, but about creating a totally new Jewish character.
My question to you is this: What is the Jewish character Israel should aspire to? What core Jewish values, if any, distinguish us from the rest of the world and are worth preserving?
My opinion is that Jewish suffering and lack of secular power gave rise to two major trends in Jewish thinking: that of national resentment, clannishness and arrogance, and that of humanism and universalism. I choose for the latter trend, which is inherently incompatible with any nationalism, including the Jewish one.
Leonid, the state of Israel was created to provide a safe place for Jews. not to preserve a culture. As such place Jews – even those who may think like you – would always get a priority when applying for citizenship, why ? because of 2000 years of prosecution around the world.
I think that the moment Israel will not be controlled by a Jewish majority, the Jews will loose the only safe place in the world. You may want to experiment with that, you’re decision, i doubt your relatives in Israel would give that right away.
Leonid, the Jewish character of israel is pretty well defined in its law, and national symbols: We speak Hebrew, most of our holidays are based on judaism. Even the judges here quote the old testatment quiet often at their verdicts. Of course there are differences between Polish Jews and Yemenite ones, but theres a common ground we all share, and this doesnt mean anyone here is giving up on his culture for something newer.
Also, as Elad has already stated, Israel wasnt created to preserve a culture, and this is most certnaly not the main reason people decided to move here.
Yes, it is something of a dilemma and a very tricky one at that. To fully democratise or not, to be or not to be. That, as ever, still remains the question.
Well, tricky or not, the overall situation in Israel/Palestine needs to be examined carefully. Perhaps, it’s time to view it as objectively as we can, seeing it not so much as a problem but more of a test of our determination to resolve it.
Can all the disparate forces and opposing agendas that seek to dominate this small but much disputed land ever be dispensed with and put to one side? Nothing of note indicates that possibility at present. Indeed, generations are likely to pass before such a thing could come about. Even though some of the world’s cleverest people, Jew and Arab, inhabit this region, a formula has yet to emerge that absolutely guarantees the cessation of violence, let alone a lasting peace.
So, back to the drawing-board.
Let us reduce the entire problem to its most basic form.
Side A wants certain things. These are a universally acknowledged Jewish state, free of anti-Semitism and all that goes with it, secure borders and normal relationships with its Arab neighbours.
Side B wants certain things also. An equally recognised Palestinian state with a viable area of commercial and sovereign integrity, secure borders and normal relationships with its Jewish neighbours.
And, well in excess of sixty years later, these two sides have never once looked likely to deliver on any of these needs, needs that many nations the world over take for granted. Instead, they have fought, schemed and generally made matters so much worse that salvaging the situation now seems almost impossible.
Is a solution, therefore, so implausible that it must exceed the bounds of possibility before any semblance of success can be discovered hiding within it?
Maybe so. Then a little lateral thinking would useful at this juncture.
Any combatant, it will be admitted, continues to fight, kill or be killed if, for whatever reason, he believes his cause to be just. So, it may be asked, under what circumstances will a combatant desist from battle and cease in such activities?
A. When he can physically fight no more and the enemy has gained the upper hand; a not uncommon occurrence in warfare down the ages.
B. When he realises that any further carrying of the fight to the enemy only strengthens the position of that enemy and weakens his own considerably. In other words, when he finds himself, in effect, fighting on behalf of the other side. Such a situation can dampen the spirit of even the most ardent militant around.
In general terms, scenario A is probably a long way off in relation to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
However, scenario B has some precedent within living memory but its application then was unintentional and subject to the many vagaries of war itself.
What if scenario B could be generated artificially, inserted into the present dispute and then left to work its magic on all concerned?
End of violence. End of conflict. End of anything that might be construed as offensive in military or even civilian terms. Such a marked change of fortune would bode well for any peace process that might then emerge.
It may be that the test can be passed after all. But only if all of us are prepared to invest in and accept as appropriate that very special scenario B.
Too much soul-searching here. The answer lies not in our souls but in our minds.
This conflict between Arabs and Israelis continues because the rest of us have been willing to accommodate it for far too long. A time must come when our almost casual indifference to the fate of so many in the region gives way to some purposeful resolve. The matter needs to be ended one way or another.
Let’s try that other way.
We do neither side any favours by allowing things to drift, to plod on from one moribund peace initiative to the next. Even the indefatigable Mr.Mitchell seems, finally, to have grasped that conclusion.
So, let us all, just for once, become totally unreasonable about the subject, much less accommodating of a situation that has troubled mankind for generations past and present.
After so much misplaced forbearance by the world community, the occasion must surely arise when it becomes imperative to kick some serious ass and bring this whole cosy, costly arrangement crashing to the ground.
http://yorketowers.blogsot.com
Larry, first, tithadshu to you and Richard on your new blog. Now the gripes.
You say
“I think the business of Israel is to first recognize this inherent problem in Zionism and do everything possible, short of erasing the Jewish character of the state, to equalize Jews and gentiles; ”
And then
“I think it’s possible for the country’s gentiles – virtually all of them Israeli Arabs, who are 20% of the population – to be about as equal as they’d want to be in a country where 80% of the people are Jews.”
You follow that by conjecturing that Arabs would not wish to be called up to the IDF because you think they would not want to train for combat against Arabs or Muslims. This in spite of the fact that a) Muslims seem to have no problem fighting against each other the world over, and b) Druze (who are Arab) and Bedouin (who are both Arab and Muslim) have been doing army service in Israel for decades without problem. And you add that you would not want our Arab citizens to be drafted not only for their sakes but also for the army’s, concluding that no matter what the public decides, the Arab minority could never become fully Israeli. The former sounds like vested interest rather than concern for fragile sensibilities and the latter is reminiscent of the dreaded “undeutsch”. In Germany Jews joined the army after emancipation and loyally fought wars against countries in which there were Jews. Despite fighting in the trenches during WWI, they were blocked from advancing in the military hierarchy because they were, well, not quite German. Even conversion didn’t change that. (But those who had been “frontkaempfer” were allowed the privileges that non-Jewish frontline troops enjoyed even under the Nazis at first.) I mention this because your suppositions about what Arabs really want sound like they might be mistaken. If a Jew can fight loyally with the British, French or US armies, why would an Arab not be able to fight as the citizen of a country that considers him or her equal before the law?
I can’t agree with you about Jews being somehow immune to the feeling of being divided between their state and their people either. Many amongst the haredim are thus divided and for a long time the modern Orthodox also struggled greatly with the clashes between state and religious life. Many among the secular are deeply divided between what their state has become and their principles. Are these to be treated the same way as the Arabs? Also, what about the considerable number of non-Jews from the ex-USSR, reputed to add another 5% to the total number of non-Jews here? A full quarter of our population is not Jewish, i.e. max 75% of the population is Jewish. As for Ecumenica, if there is peace between it and its neighbours, why does the way its army is structured need to be the state’s only (thus far) defining feature?
What I hope to see here is an exploration of the space between a state of all its citizens and a Jewish State and this can only be done by first defining what exactly a Jewish State is, especially if it’s democratic as you say you want it to be. Would an Arab be able to claim back pre-1948 property or would that possibility continue to be reserved only for Jews (who have already received state compensation for the loss of their properties)? Would a conventional immigration policy replace the Law of Return or not? Would public holidays be interchangeable to reflect the feast times and rest days of the three religions? Would the citizens practicing the three faiths that happen to have been born in this part of the world be working in conjunction with each other or continue to operate separately? Etc.
Lastly, if anti-Semitism is the only reason there is for why we have our state, why should the people who committed the crimes against us not have given us a Jewish State in the place where the anti-Semitism happened? Or at least compensated those it deprived of their homes by giving us land on which they were living and thought they owned. There is nothing in your piece that hints at why it is here that we live. That would mean defining what Jewish is, the role that Jewishness plays in our presence here and the twists and turns that led to the scapegoating of people who had nothing to do with anti-Semitism (rather like Jews became scapegoats for the murder of Jesus).
In the context of Israël and the arab israeli war, the state cannot be neutral between jewish community and arab community. By example, the IDF is not an UN force which “will have to separe the jewish civilians and the arabs armies waiting for a negociation between the two parties”. The IDF would not be “neutral” but against jews. I unterstand that some leftists have the nostalgia of the time of the british mandate but this mandate has not been a success… The leftists have to known if they defend arab nationalism or jewish nationalism because arab jewish or “israpalestine” nationalism doesn t exist… What i see is a small number of influent jews who doesn t see vey well who they are. It is vey worrying that in Israël there is three camps, the jewish camp, the arab camp and the british mandate like camp. I m afraid that Larry Derfner like people will have the same future than the british mandate : the return to Europe… At least Ben Gourion knew which camp he belongs to. In the context of war between Arabs and Jews, Jews who are neutrals are suicidals.