Larry first proposed we take on some significant and pressing current issue, like the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. While such matters need to and will be addressed in our future debates, I thought it would be prudent to begin by marking out our first and possibly most fundamental line of disagreement: Zionism. Or, in other words, why Larry describes himself as a member of the Zionist left, while I commit to debate him from the non-Zionist perspective; and why , despite sharing many positions with the broad post/anti-Zionist movement and often being described as a member of the same, I insist to describe myself as precisely that – non-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist.
I should note that throughout this post, by Zionism I mean the kind of Zionism that has dominated Israel since the foundation of the state – the hegemonic-Jewish and democratic, not the bi-national Zionism of Buber and revisionist nationalism of Jabotinsky, both of which are enjoying a recent revival. I suppose some of my positions might come close to at least one shade of either approach; but for the moment, I mean the most common version of Zionism, which today defines Israeli policies, and, consequently, the anti-Zionist opposition.
This Zionism is understood differently by different people. Many Zionists see a simple and linear narrative of exile and return, disregarding or dismissing the damage and suffering caused to non-Jews and Jews in the process; they justify Israel’s current political system in terms of rigid spring-of-nations nationalism, not taking into account that the European ethno-cultural nationalism adapted wholesale by the early hardline Zionist is by now 100 years of political history out of date. They see Zionism as the Jewish liberation movement not from the presence or dominion of Palestinians, but from the presence of the world-at-large, all the non-Jews who did persecute, did not protect from persecution, or potentially can persecute Jews in the future.
To anti-Zionists, first and foremost the Palestinians among them, Zionism is a remarkably heartless venture, an ideological movement that cynically and systematically unleashed itself upon an inhabited land and destroyed, and still destroys, towns, villages, identities and cultures. To reinforce their case as one of absolute morality and to try and confront the fundamental arguments of Zionism, many have insisted that Zionism is overwhelmingly or totally colonial in ideology and practice, with Jewish history and historical trauma serving as merely ideological fuel for ongoing oppression maintained out of local and/or foreign-imperialist self-interest.
When asked about the future, many anti-Zionists present a curiously frank mirror image of Zionist Israel: A democratic state called Palestine in which the rights of the Jews will “obviously” be preserved. Most Israeli Jews would be honest enough to know just what such promises are worth, having made and broken them themselves for the past sixty years or so. A broader stratum of the movement sees Zionism as an unjust and unsustainable system of governance operating on ethno-cultural privilege; they argue it should simply be dismantled and replaced with a “secular, democratic state with equal rights to all its citizens.”
But for Israelis, Zionism runs much deeper than system of governance. They know, and they are right, that neither they nor their parents and grandparents would have been here if it wasn’t for the Zionist enterprise. To a non-Israeli and any Israelis who have transcended their Zionist upbringing (not just family, but kindergarden, school, media, army, friends), anti-Zionism may mean opposition to an ideology complicit of ethnic cleansing, military occupation and wanton discrimination; they may (or may not) have nothing against the actual Israeli Jews going on to live here, so long as the latter forsake their claim to hegemony. But to most if not all Israeli ears, anti-Zionism is something monolithic absolute. To them, it sounds not like a proposal for a different and more equitable future, but as mocking, taunting and jarring denial of everything that they are: Their present, their language, their fears and their love for the only land they ever knew; the future they imagine for themselves and for their children, their past, their parents’ love, their grandparents arrival to, adoption of and construction of a new homeland. Tell an Israeli you’re an anti-Zionist, and he’ll hear: “You are a liar; your parents are liars; your grandparents are liars; and I don’t stop you from lying, you’ll produce lying children who’ll continue to lie. I don’t care if you’re afraid – your fear is also a lie; I want you to go away, or at least to shut up and be grateful you’re allowed to stay here, preferably while paying penance for your parents’ and grandparents’ sins.”
The manifold wrongs of Zionism, with the Nakba most prominent among them, urgently and vitally need to be identified, acknowledged and processed; the damage they already caused cannot be changed, but they can be stopped from continuing. The real question now being posed to our generation is how to allow the two national collectives of Israel-Palestine to shift from the pursuit of hegemony over society and territory and toward mutually supportive interdependence. The largest stumbling block for this is the center-Zionist conflation of hegemony and survival, adopted, in a paler and as yet unsuccessful version, by Palestinian nationalism. Its more elaborate version goes: Unless Israeli Jews control every power institution in Israel – government, major private companies, the military, the land administration, and the courts = they will be immediately or eventually exterminated, politically, culturally and, of course, physically.
This conflation does not account for ways of interaction between two major national collectives in a single territory other than domination or subordination. At its most liberal, this central tenet of modern Zionism offers the Palestinians a constrained territory in which they may be dominant and hegemonic in their own limited space, a kind of a toy Israel; and even that is done with a nod and a wink and unconcealed assurance that the adult Israel will still be the hegemonic player in the contested space. But like any societal dogma, hegemony=survival is too rigid to outlast the relentless flow of history. Times change, politics shift, populations transform, new players come forth and the rules of the game are altered. The strain needed to preserve complete hegemony is already beginning to crack the hegemony itself; and Israelis who bet their survival on hegemony are actually making it into a self-fulfiling prophecy.
Finding a more flexible approach to retaining cultural and political collective rights without complete and utter forceful and unsustainable domination is a long-term Israeli-Jewish interest; but those of who would share this goal for considerations other than Israeli self interest – Palestinian self-interest, for example, or the universal pursuit of justice, equality and so on – must find a language that does not chime in so perfectly with the hegemony=survival, non-hegemony=extinction dichotomy. And I don’t mean it only semantically: The only legitimate alternatives to Jewish-Israeli hegemony in Palestine are such that nevertheless will not allow the physical, cultural or political removal of Israeli Jews from the scene.
This survival-hegemony-non-hegemony-extinction bend is what underpins, for most direct players in the conflict,the equally simplistic and equally false dichotomy of Zionism vs anti-Zionism. Merely reflecting back an inversion of every Zionist tenet and argument leaves advocates of change playing by the same old Zionist-nationalist rules, and proving the formula they seek to disprove. The change that needs to happen here is too great, and possibilities outside this dichotomy are too vast, for us keep clutching to that old pro/anti see-saw. New approaches must be found – and they cannot be found through mere contrarianism.
Larry Derfner
Dimi
I think you are articulating a “post-Zionism” perspective. And, I don’t think there is a post-Zionist potential reality.
The motive of universal human rights does not change the formation of identity, especially if there are repeated stimuli threats. (Even things like the flotilla are Rohrschach, meaning that people see what they are predisposed to see. The flotilla is paraded as liberatory to dissenters but threatening to most Israelis that Ive communicated with. And, the response of dissent has been that those that feel threatened are evil – stated as “racist” – for their feelings. Dissent should be a communication of a desire for change, not a communication of a desire for repetition.)
Solidarity and militancy consistently fail to communicate and applaud themselves for that “success”.
Your upbringing, your parents’ identity, your grandparents’ and predecessors (perhaps holocaust survivors or not) will not and should not be forgotten, or even forgotten in political significance.
The question in being true to oneself, to my mind, is how to remember, but also to remember color-blind, culture-blind sympathy for others. Assertive AND kind.
Breaking through racism in consciousness, behavior and institutions through political inquiry is still half a change, temporary, potentially victim to reciprocal racism in the institutionalization of ideology.
I personally will NOT walk in a demonstration that contains communication of “Zionism is racism”. The concept offends me. I see the evolution of a state as a need.
Even Buber and Einstein praised that the state formed once it was ratified (rather than remained undefined and in a state of mutual civil war).
They recognized the seeds of potential corruption, but still applauded living, and living free. Buber emphasized the cultural and religious Zionism and respect for others, but NOT to the extent of rejecting the state or the need for it.
Ironically, there are cultural Zionists among the settlers that are indifferent to a Zionist state, but are not indifferent to the need for safety.
DR, I must admit that I am impressed with what you have written and I must mediate upon it. Following up with a “witty” response would be difficult as well. Like Richard, I believe that you are articulating a Post-Zionism ideology and that you somehow equate that Zionism is somehow wrong and / or needs to be replaced.
Both you and Richard brings up excellent points. Nations come and go and the status quo in Israel must be changed. How long can Israel last in a sea of angry Muslims? How long can Israel rely upon their technological superior military to maintain dominance in the region? What are the political / societal ramifications should America becomes more isolationist for Israel? On the flip-side how can Israel survive if they reject their Zionism? These are truly tough questions with no easy answers.
Rather than use a pejorative word like “wrong” it might be said that it is time to go beyond the Zionist theory formulated in the late 1800s and the Zionist theory formulated post-Holocaust, that a secular neo-Zionist stance be formulated that adheres closer to the reality of the non-homogenous state that Israel has become.
One thing in particular bothers me about this article:
‘Unless Israeli Jews control every power institution in Israel – government, major private companies, the military, the land administration, and the courts – they will be immediately or eventually exterminated, politically, culturally and, of course, physically.
I’ll probably be labeled a member of the hegemonic-survival group for bringing this up, but I don’t this fear isn’t necessarily unfounded. In the support of such an idea, supporters of a Jewish, Zionist Israel need only to look and point at their neighbors to see what will probably occur to them.
If you want to dissuade Jews that the emphasis on Israeli ‘hegemony’ is wrong, you’ll need to persuade people that they’re not wrong about their fears.
I think theres a huge paradox in ur theory, and it exists in every +- similar theory, which talks about state (or two states), with full equallity between Palestinian and Jews:
You all are talking about Palestinian heritage, culture, etc. Palestine is not located in Europe or America, and those values of equallity and human rights are unfortunatly very new in the Arabo-Muslim world, which Palestine is a part of. Assuming Palestinian are interested in lving in such a democratic state, not based on religion, with jews being fully-equal citizens even if they are not a majority is in a way saying you’re interested ni keeping the western, european based, cultural hegemony here, which was created together with Israel (or partially brought by the british mandat). If you realise there are two different ethnical, cultural groups here, you must also realise u cant take for granted they both are interested in the same kind of state (and de facto they arent – one group actively votes for jewish religious parties, the other activley voted for hamas when it could).
Palestinian nationalism wont dissapear if we give up on the jewish state. Their society wont become more modern as a result of us giving up on a jewish hegemony, and accepting the ROR as a given fact,
The reason people like myself (and as far as i can understand Larry as well) are interested in two states solution is because there are two sides here u need to convince to share a usa-like state where religion and ethnicity shouldnt matetr (though we all know they do in the usa itself), and no one said u can take for granted any palestinian is actually interested in that.
Notice that even people like Richard Silverstein, who still believe in two states solution, are not too eager to talk about the possible nature of the Palestinian state. Look at our neigbhours: the only country where a revolution has succedded is Egypt, and again – it was a economical revolution more than a democratical one, and no one can promise Egypt will turn into Germany or Norway anytime soon.
As of ur claim that nationalism is now 100 years old – yes it is, but we can see it reviving now in many places across europe, and as ive already written here – it became unpopular in europe at a cost of 6,000,000 jews. Its very easy to say now “national states are no longer needed”, but while even the moderate Markel in germany speaks against immigration, and while we still hvae alive holocaust survivers (and nazi criminials for that matters) i dont think the need in national state for us the jews can be that easily dismissed.
So, from what I can gather from your comment, you think Arab’s can’t handle ‘Western values’ such as human rights, and said human rights need to be forced upon them.
Benjamin,
Anyone can handle any values, as long as he is interested in doing so.
What i said was “you cant take for granted the palestinians are actually interested in doing so, especially in a bi-national state with the jews”.
There are different reasons why Europe has developed in one way and the Muslim world in another (while at first the muslims were alot more closer to the ancient hellenistical thought, which lays at the base of modern democracy), but its a given fact the whole human rights concept is less developed in the middle east than it is in europe/usa/even israel. Notice that even people who spend their life on criticizing israel (such as mr silverstein) so often remind us they expect more from Israel because israel is/ supposed to be a western demoratical country. When this serves as an excuse for criticizing israel more than its enemies/opponents its no different from directly admiting that currently those western values currently dont belong to the political thinking of Israels enemies. The question im asking is why do people think it will change if only Jews give up on their hegemony in Israel.
Im not interesting in forcing anything upon anyone; Palestine can be a khaliffate empty of jews as long as i care, and as long as israel remains dominated/ruled by jews. Its people who are on the left of me politicly wise who usually put so much emphasize on each nations unique culture, and within the same breah expect/assume all those unique nations wish to live by western political standarts (hence the paradox).
In my pro-Zionist past, I was appalled by the “Zionism is racism” formulation because I thought that Zionism was a conversation. But I slowly discovered that Zionism — the hegemonic variety, that is — is more about shutting down conversation. It was Daniel Boyarin who educated me about the imperialist impulses that fuel Zionism, impulses that are inextricable from it. The Zionism that is non-racist no longer exists, as it once did in the thought of Martin Buber and Judah Magnes. There are those who think of themselves as Buberian or Magnes Zionists, but those positions remain part of a dream that can never be realized. There will never be a shared sovereignty in a binational state — at least, not one that includes Jews from across the religious and secular spectrum.
So how has conversation actually been shut down by ‘hegemonic Zionism’? As an example, your inspiration Daniel Boyarin, wasn’t exactly censored or shut down because of his somewhat offensive views. Neither has Chomsky, or quite a few other anti-Zionists. And religion isn’t exactly barred either; I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone flat out say that noxious groups like Neuteri Karta shouldn’t be allowed to speak.
Hell, the fact that we’re posting on a blog, and Drefner still writes for a mainstream Israeli newspaper, seems to be more proof that Zionism doesn’t shut down conversations.
I take it you don’t read *MuzzleWatch: Tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy*. They’ve got archives going back to 2006 — you should peruse it sometime.
Too bad you haven’t read Boyarin, either. I find him to have a unique insight. But then, you have to have a sincere interest in the Talmud.
Delia,
The resistance left and solidarity left also stifle debate, actively censor content, and in your case, actively ignore relevant questions.
The shift of which side to ignore, is not a shift to dialog, but a rejection of dialog.
The ideological left and ideological right both seek to silence more than to persuade.
I have little interest in one who decides to use crass analogies to moralize and wring his hands about. The same goes for those who speak ‘As-a-Jew’ and believe that their heritage gives them any profound moral clarity or high ground in general.
As Richard says below, stifling and censorship exists on both sides of the divide. I have little respect for those who stifle debate, regardless of their issue. (Although in my brief over view of Muzzle Watch, I find it odd that I was unable to find anything condemning the academic boycott movement of Israeli academics).
Dimi,
reading your post made me mostly wonder.
wonder if we didn’t learn anything from our own history.
Magnes ideas fell mainly because the Arabs rejected them. I am not trying to score points here, but the Arabs rejected many opportunities to bring a solution to the conflict, from rejecting 181 to the current day.
For your plan to succeed you would need the willingness and cooperation of the other side, you would need the other side to share some of your values, as a basis for a start.
I would like you to describe what type of support your ideas have from the Arabs ? is there currently a group who’s willing to give up their aspiration for a nationalistic Palestine ? is there a Palestinian group who can find a solution to the religious issues generated by your idea ?
I look forward to Mr. Reider’s reply to you. In the meantime, let me simply ask this: As the sector among Palestinians willing to support Reider’s ideas, how about simply starting with the sector that Salam Fayyad represents? Why have Netanyahu and his allies pretty much ignored Fayyad, starved him so to speak; why have they done so little to promote him? Had Netanyahu wanted to he could have done much, much more to promote the efforts of Fayyad, in an indirect way that would be effective. The truth, it seems, is that Netanyahu really preferred Arafat, and really prefers Hamas, so convenient for him, and that Fayyad is Netanyahu’s worst nightmare. Bibi keeps saying the conflict is insoluble because “they hate us and it’s not about territory, they simply want to destroy us” but all the while he studiously ignores Salam Fayyad and the persons and forces allied with him.
I think you are right, that both the ideological left (and left/right) and ideological right hate the effort for peace, in any form.
Both Hamas and likud/Israel beitanhu achieve street credibility by a status of struggle, rather than working towards a status of normalization, as if somehow the other is going to disappear.
They dance together, each relevant ONLY in the status of near war.
In 1995, Yossi Beilin & Abu Mazen drafted the proposed Beilin Abu-Mazen agreement for the end of conflict, The principles of that agreement were:
1. Jerusalem shall be united under Israeli Control.
2. Abu-Dis shall be the Palestinian Capital
3. ROR to Palatine and not to Israel, as the reality on the ground made it impossible to implement the ROR within Israel.
Barak, reiterated those principles (which Abu-Mazen co-developed) in Camp-David.
Can you care to explain the 180 degree change in the Palestinian president stands ? (http://www.beilin.org.il/UserFiles/File/beilin_abu_mazen_English.pdf)
What Exactly do you want from Bibi ? under Bibi-Barak more checkpoints then ever have been removed from the ground, Cooperation with PA security forces reached new levels, and generally speaking the PA enjoys prosperity.
The other side, decided they can get more bypassing Israel, and that’s what they do.
Exactly what is wanted from Bibi is well known, as you surely know:
1. Jerusalem divided: East Jerusalem the Capital of the new Palestinian State.
2. 67 lines with agreed swaps
3. Symbolic, relatively small numbers return to Israel, the great majority return to the newly-created Palestinian State.
It is not really a matter of what they think they can get, and what you think you can get away with not giving them. It is a matter of basic fairness and justice. Why oh why do Israelis feel so very entitled to all of Jerusalem and lots and lots of the West Bank??
Excuse me,
Since the days of Barak as a PM, every PM since (including Bibi) offered the PA a solution based on these principles.
Arafat nor Abu-Mazen didn’t sign a peace agreement, can you explain that to me ?
Elad what Barak actually truly offered is shrouded in mystery. It seems to get exaggerated. Larry or Dimi could much better answer this than I can. Show me please where Bibi ever offered a deal based on the 3 principles I list. Why has Bibi studiously ignored Fayyad?
Hey folks – thank you for all your insightful commentary. With your permission, I’m answering points from several commentators in this one message, rather than starting several small debates.
Benjamin:
“I’ll probably be labeled a member of the hegemonic-survival group for bringing this up, but I don’t this fear isn’t necessarily unfounded… If you want to dissuade Jews that the emphasis on Israeli ‘hegemony’ is wrong, you’ll need to persuade people that they’re not wrong about their fears.”
I suppose you meant “persuading people they /are/ wrong about their fears.” If so – absolutely, and I think the majority of this persuasion will need to be done by Palestinian activists and leaders, just like the ANC eventually persuaded the South African whites they had no intention of ethnically cleansing them from SA. Ultra-violent rhetoric and practice by elements of the Palestinian resistance have many flaws, but even if one was to take a completely amoral stance on that, it’s been politically self destructive – it’s utterly useless to try to scare off a society whose own practices are so deeply motivated by fear. Some of this is already being addressed – Ahmad Tibi in particular has made some very important statements on the Holocaust and on the Itamar murders in the past year.
Y:
I’m sorry, but I don’t accept the “clash of civilisations” stuff. I think young people across the Arab world have shown us very well just how committed they are to democratic practices and ideas and I hope Huntington and Lewis can finally be put back on the fiction shelf where they belong. I would also think that a civilisation that invented and committed more atrocities in the last two hundred years alone that the entire “Arab world” in all of its history would be a bit more modest about managing not to engage in genocide for the past 60-odd years, but maybe that’s just me
More to the point, I do not expect either Palestinian or Jewish nationalism to disappear. In fact, I think both should be accepted and respected as a given. The challenge here is how to find ways for these nationalisms to complement and interact with each other – and actually, I’ve seen Palestinian and Israeli nationalists find common language a lot more easily than nationalists and liberals from either side. I would actually be against an identity-blind, “equal” and liberal democratic state, simply because it wouldn’t address the collective needs of most people here. And unlike Richard, I don’t see practical ways of implementing the two-states-solution thoroughly enough to address all of these needs
Regarding EU and nationalism – the fact that centrist politicians like Merkel play the immigration card doesn’t really testify to a revival of nation-state-nationalism, certainly not in Israel’s antiquated format. There will always be xenonhobia and people will always enjoy thinking immigrants steal their jobs, whatever the facts on the ground may be. I would say national and especially regional identity is reasserting itself in Europe – but it’s happening within and largely because of the EU framework that shakes up the old large-nation-state constructs.
Delia:
If such Zionism doesn’t exist, it needs to and will be invented – perhaps in the shape of non-hegemonic Jewish-Israeli nationalism of some sort. As Martin McGuinness wrote in his tribute to Ian Paisley, never say “never, never, never.”
Elad:
At the prime of Brit Shalom and Magnes, Palestinians had everything to lose from bi-nationalism: Jews were a 17 percent minority seemingly jumping above their height. Now that the ratio between the river and the sea is nearly 50-50, it would seem both Palestinians and Israelis would have everything to gain. My guess is that in the next few years we will see various proposals being made by nationalists on both sides, with increasing degrees of seriousness.
Dimi, Though you ignored my questions, and didn’t name one Palestinian group that share your ideas or values, i thank you for your response.
In your numbers claim you forgot one minor fact and that is the Palestinian ROR.
To resolve the conflict in the middle east, pursuing either a two-state solution or a one state solutions, Palestinians need to forget about the ROR. In both cases it is due to the numbers game.
I don’t see this happening under any circumstances, after all, Abu-Mazen already agreed to that (i provided the link in my reply above) and changed his position.
if you would check the Palestinians standings of 1948 and you would compare it to their standings today, there is no change.
Why do you think that your ideas has any chance of succeeding within the others society/ culture residing between the river and the sea?
Larry, selecting Dimi is proven to be an excellent choice, despite disagreeing with each-other, the conversation/ debate is civil.
what a welcome change in comparison to the arrogant rude behavior of Silverstein, thank you both for that.
Dimi,
I’ve consistently stated that a solution is not solely political, as much as partially political, partially social, and partially just time.
If you believe in the democratic principle of consented governance, self-governance, then if the peoples do see themselves either as positively national (“I am ….”) or as negative nationally (“I am not…”) the two-state solution is the only one that manifests mutual self-governance to any material level.
There are MANY potential formulations of a two-state solution, based on the primary first principles in practice of “a healthy neighbor, is a better one than an unhealthy one”.
The theory of desiring to weaken one’s neighbor rather than strengthening is the definition of an enemy relationship, a zero sum.
In the field of intent, the field of creating the relationship that one desires, size of one’s army is not the determining factor of proportionality. The defining factor is statement of intent or absence of statement of positive intent.
I’ve heard positive intent stated by some Israeli activists and some positive intent stated by some Palestinian. I’ve heard negative intent, enemy orientation, from the majority of solidarity that I encounter.
In my personal life, I’ve thought of what am I willing to fight for, to harm for. Property, no way. To protect myself, only partially. To protect my family, YES.
Among too many, much much too many solidarity, I hear a willingness to harm strangers, people that solidarity has never met or even read thoroughly of. Its both noble and abusive in the same action.
Creating the relationship that one desires is key, the eye on the prize.
Apologies for my improper grammer, and my gratitude for your polite response and on-evasive answer. Although I’ll probably disagree with you in the future, it’s good to see that we can do so as civil people.
‘New approaches must be found – and they cannot be found through mere contrarianism.’
Dimi, you definitely have my vote on that one.
Zionism, Communism, Capitalism, Feudalism, Democracy, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy, Plutocracy, Tribalism and a host of other examples have all been grist to the mill of our spiritual, political and economic development.
To view one system as superior to another can only be a subjective opinion, very much dependant on the standpoint of those caught up in the times and experience of whatever governance is in place.
Suffice it to say that none of them has ever been considered perfect and the evolutionary trail still winds off into the distant horizon in search of something better.
It may be that we ourselves have to evolve, becoming more adept in our direction of certain matters. In these, we must sense the need to modify present arrangements and to forge new alliances whereupon issues and objectives, once thought well beyond our grasp, are, in reality, there for the taking.
But what are these arrangements and where are such allies to be found?
There are times when it may be necessary to make a pact with the Devil, a creature widely believed to be part and parcel of our own human nature. Since that nature is always ready to seek out its best interests and strive towards them, it may be considered a prime candidate for just such an enterprise.
And, if those interests can be harnessed to a higher cause, then so much the better.
http://yorketowers.blogspot.com
There must come a time when we all stop rattling the bars of our playpen and, for once, dare to climb outnand do what is necessary.
Now there is a refreshing and insightful perspective that makes one look anew at things:
“I would also think that a civilisation that invented and committed more atrocities in the last two hundred years alone than the entire “Arab world” in all of its history would be a bit more modest about managing not to engage in genocide for the past 60-odd years”
This says many things about the assumptions suffusing the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is worth reflecting on.