Can you smell the Kumah rising?
I’ve lived in Israel for nearly a full three years now. In that time, my political and religious perspectives have shifted from Right to Left a number of times, the roulette wheel most frequently getting bounced like a pendulum between political post-Zionism and religious anti-Zionism.
From a religious perspective, these days I think that even if you want to hold by the wholly legitimate belief that “the goyim dealing too harshly with us” invalidated the restriction against pursuing sovereignty in the land of Israel, to live here in anything other than utter righteousness, with the ultimate kavanah (intention) to sanctify this holy place with our words and deeds, is a grave offense in the eyes of G-d. The arms industry, sex trafficking, worker exploitation, police and government corruption, the occupation, Shoah survivors living below the poverty line, the prominence of rape and battery against women, etc. — these are just the major examples of desecrations of our covenant and defilements of the land.
In that, I think that Jewish sovereignty in Israel continues to be halakhically illegitimate because we are here without a righteous kavanah. We are not here to sanctify the land, we are not here to be in relationship with G-d; rather we are here to assert our so-called right to nationhood and to thumb our noses at the goyim. Further, the only halakhic option for Israel that would allow the non-religious Jewish majority to continue living here without offending G-d, is to forgo sovereign Jewish statehood, embrace post-Zionism and allow Israel to become a democratic state of all its citizens. We are not obligated to be unrealistically righteous if we are not alone the ruling power.
Post-Zionism, obviously, has it own merits from a secular perspective as well. It is the only remaining political perspective relating to Israel that transpires in a framework of human rights and international law that is considerate of Jewish rights and needs. Post-Zionism triumphs over ethnocentrism while nonetheless seeking that which is best for the survival and security of the Jewish people. It is a perspective that acknowledges that the present course leads to nowhere but further strife, and that we are best off, in the long run, elevating standards of human and civil rights, than we are in joining other nations in trampling those rights for the sake of our own ascendancy.
Nonetheless, I find myself somewhat sympathetic towards the neo-Zionists these days — the Kumah crowd, et al. Whereas I once simply trounced them for what I perceived of as a positively absurd position that ran counter to the political will of the nation of Israel, I have come to recognize that my perspective is in all likelihood no less absurd, and runs counter to the political will of the nation of Israel as well. But even more so, I have also come to recognize over time, that at least me and a couple of Kumah folks agree more than we disagree.
Or perhaps I should say, we agree on major principles, but completely disagree on what they look like in practical application. For example: I agree that Jews have the right to live in Judea and Samaria. As far as I’m concerned, Jews have a right to live wherever it is on earth they choose to settle. However, as citizens of a sovereign Jewish state, I don’t think they ought to settle in Judea and Samaria so long as a) Israel denies Palestinians the right to live wherever they’d like, b) Israel and/or Israeli citizens use(s) force of arms to seize land, c) settlers consciously or unconsciously operate in tandem with the IDF in order to advance the goal of displacing and dispossessing Palestinians, d) the act of settlement deprives Palestinians of land and water resources they would otherwise have access to, and/or e) that settlement interferes in the contiguity of a sovereign Palestinian state.
In that, the neo-Zionists and I share the perspective that what we have now sucks, that it’s a desecration of G-d’s name and the land he gave us, that it’s jeopardizing our survival, and that it needs to be replaced with something better. The conversation about what that something better looks like is one still needing to be had and one which the fiery invective of right versus left, religious versus secular, messianist versus rationalist, impedes (to say the very least).
So I’m pleased to see that Kumah has decided to relaunch their weblog, and that they want to have this conversation, specifically with us over here at Jewschool, noting:
If a certain super-lefty mega-blog is the only other voice clearly opposing the Partition Wall – we will join forces with them, even as they happily cheer the death of Zionism – because the passion of the leftist Jewish radical is so much closer to the Biblical revolutionary than the comfortable moderate who supported Oslo, Wye, Oslo II, the Disengagement (or maybe he opposed, but felt that ‘a government decision simply must be respected’) and is filled with hope by Bibi’s second coming.
So long as we can “duke it out with words, while managing not to hate each other and get nasty,” I think it’s a conversation worth having. We’re all radical Jews here looking to bring about a grand vision of redemption and revelation. We can only grow closer to this realization by sharing notes, as it were, and exploring this pathway together, even if our directions are divergent. Better we should engage one another and in doing so, strengthen each other’s hands, than continue to deride one another and further drive wedges between the most passionate members of the Jewish community.
Welcome to the table. Let’s hear what you have to say.
I intend the following post with the utmost respect for Mobius and his beliefs, but intellectual debate must occur – and if not here then where. So here it goes:
The interesting implication in this post is that the State of Israel exists today because of religious zionists who find the state of Israel to be a start to the geulah. Often the most forgoten fact of Israel’s existence is that it is owed in great part to the work of Secular (mostly socialist) Zionists. Israel didn’t start as a religious mission and does not need a religious mission to continue. It never asked for G-D’s permission and through that changed the fate of Jews accross the world.
The hardest thing for my grandfather to understand was the rediculousness of his having fought in the palmach, built kibbutzim, been a shaliach for a youth movement bringing hundreds of youth to Israel to make aliya – and then being told that the state he built is no longer his. The he can no longer drive on shabbat in his own neighbourhood. That religious edicts would dictate his life again now as they did his ancesters in the golah.
Religious Zionists often complain that Zionism is dying in Israel. Is it possible that by taking the state hostage after the 67 war they are the ones who have driven the founders of the state away?
you will.. bE ONE OF US m00000000000000000hahahahahhahahah
In the real world, the choice is between Jewish sovereignty over Eretz Yisrael, as imperfect as it may be, on the one hand, and a massacre of 5 million Jews, on the other hand.
By real world standards, as opposed to adolescent perfectionism, Medinat Yisrael is not such a bad place.
Grow up.
In the real world, the choice is between Jewish sovereignty over Eretz Yisrael, as imperfect as it may be, on the one hand, and a massacre of 5 million Jews, on the other hand.
uh no, that’s not the “real” world, that’s the imagined world of right-wing zionist “what ifs.”
While i think Gandalin is quick to assume those are the only two outcomes possible, Mobius, your commiting a fallacy – youre just totally rejecting Gandalins argument (though flawed it is) based on his exaggeration. giving up power just like that, while probably not ending in genocide, would also probably no go so peacefully even if everyone was invited to freedom.
giving up power just like that, while probably not ending in genocide, would also probably no go so peacefully even if everyone was invited to freedom.
Whoa.. A post-Zionist scenario doesn’t necessarily mean that the Jews of the Land Of Israel “give up power” and give themselves to the mercy of the angriest Islamo-fascists on the planet.
A post-Zionist scenario might merely involve ending the occupation and actually implementing existing Israeli government policies regarding equality of all its citizens. The main government policies that might need to be changed are (1) ending state financial support of religious institutions, (2) separation of religion and state in the area of personal status, (3) eliminating classification of citizens by “nationality,” (4) allowing all citizens to buy and own real property anywhere in the country. Plus, of course, dismantling all the Jewish settlements in the territories and moving the separation wall back to the Green Line.
Afterward, Israel could negotiate an end to what’s left of the Occupation, making permanent borders and mutual recognition, etc. One of the terms of the agreement could very well be the eventual permission for Jews to settle in the State of Palestine, as long as they understand that they will be living under Palestinian sovereignty, with the potential to be Palestinian citizens with equal rights, etc. just as Israeli Palestinians would have equal rights in Israel.
Even after all of this, the State of Israel would still be a majority Jewish state, and even if the Israelis explicitly gave up a claim to Jewish sovereignty, the Jews would still be in control.
After a couple of generations of living in Peace together, it wouldn’t matter who had to political majority. All those years that American Jews didn’t have the kind of “power” we have today, we were still OK, because most American goyim respected us and religious freedom was the American Way. That probably protects Jewish interests far more than all the high-ranking Jewish politicians and officeholders now cluttering up Washington. I see no reason why the Palestinian Arabs, after a few generations of living in peace with the Israeli Jews, shouldn’t decide that such an ideology is a better way to live than one that posits constant strife.
Personally, one of the main things that turns me off of Israel is that Israeli government policy does not give full religious freedom to my denomination of Judaism, and my denomination of Judaism is one of the largest ones in the USA. That’s a hell of a policy for a so-called “Jewish state” to have.
“…to live here in anything other than utter righteousness, with the ultimate kavanah (intention) to sanctify this holy place with our words and deeds, is a grave offense in the eyes of G-d. ”
Mobius. you object to the fact that Jews are human beings with the same follies and foibles as any other human beings on the planet. I didn’t realize that Jews had to be perfect in order to justify living in a Jewish state. I think that G-d understands that Jews are human beings and human beings are not perfect. Yes, all the things that you mentioned are bad, but you have gone way overboard.
You are setting Jews up on an impossible to live up to pedestal and then blaming them for not living up to your unrealistic expectations.
It is easy to a post-Zionist when Israel already exists. I still think that there is a need for a Jewish state, yes even a Jewish state with all its faults. I couldn’t be living here in America if Israel didn’t exist.
“I couldn’t be living here in America if Israel didn’t exist.”
Why not?
You are setting Jews up on an impossible to live up to pedestal and then blaming them for not living up to your unrealistic expectations.
That might have been a valid criticism of anti-Zionist sentiment back in the days when Labor ran Israel. Unfortunately since the days of Menachem Begin’s ascent in 1977, Israel is increasingly come to combine the worst combination of of religious fanaticism and secular materialism, all in one self-righteous package. No country is perfect, but Israel far too short of its goals. And reviewing the entire course of Jewish history, I can only conclude that “national self-determination” has been nothing but trouble for the Jewish people.
Oy, the most obvious fact of the Jewish Israeli existence has been overlooked in everyone of these posts. The Muslims just don’t want a Jewish state or for that matter Jews in their neck of the woods. The argument between Hamas and the PLO is how fast to destroy Israel and the Jews. If you don’t recognize that basic fact, you are living in world of unreality. So it doesn’t matter what Israel does regarding the West Bank or within Israel proper – her existence alone is the catalyst for Muslim hatred. And if anyone thinks thats going to change in the next few hundred years, please take a read on Muslim history from the 600’s on.
“We are not obligated to be unrealistically righteous if we are not alone the ruling power.”
Logical conclusion of this statement: If we ARE alone the ruling power (a dubious assumption already, given that the Israeli political process is open to all citizens but whatever), then….we ARE “obligated to be unrealisticall righteous.”
Uhh…what? Seriously where are you getting this? Does the Bible command “unrealistic righteousness”? If so, where? And what is so “unrealistic” about being “righteous”? And if righteousness IS unrealisitc, is this really a fair expectation for G-d to have of us? And who defines realistic? Or “righteous” for that matter? Are those that would argue that Israel IS righteous in its actions necessarily wrong? Is Mobius in a position to define “righteousness”?
Whatever happened to exercising political power AND at the same time being as righteous as possible within the confines of political power/security of citizenry/will of the majority? It’s not a zero-sum game, e.g. absolute “righteousness” (presumably defined as Mobius’ own preferred Judaic practice and its attendant implications) or no political sovereignty.
Israel has been/is/will continue to balance the two, albeit imperfectly. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Conservative apikoris writes:
A post-Zionist scenario might merely involve ending the occupation and actually implementing existing Israeli government policies regarding equality of all its citizens. The main government policies that might need to be changed are (1) ending state financial support of religious institutions, (2) separation of religion and state in the area of personal status, (3) eliminating classification of citizens by “nationality,†(4) allowing all citizens to buy and own real property anywhere in the country. Plus, of course, dismantling all the Jewish settlements in the territories and moving the separation wall back to the Green Line.
How is this “post-Zionist”? This is the position of left-leaning Zionist parties such as Meretz, as well as (leaving out the part about the territories and the Green Line, which didn’t exist as such) most Zionists on both the left and the right before the creation of the state.
uh no, that’s not the “real†world, that’s the imagined world of right-wing zionist “what ifs.â€
and
In the real world, the choice is between Jewish sovereignty over Eretz Yisrael, as imperfect as it may be, on the one hand, and a massacre of 5 million Jews, on the other hand
and
The Muslims just don’t want a Jewish state or for that matter Jews in their neck of the woods. The argument between Hamas and the PLO is how fast to destroy Israel and the Jews.
Can we all make a few more grand statements please? I feel we missed the idea here completely. Perhaps the jew can drink the blood of the evil muslim while we all fear the genocide worse than hitler.
GET OVER THIS BULL AND TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES NOT THE FEAR.
It’s true. The far right and the far left do have plenty in common. Folks in the middle, from the center left to the center right, care first for Israel’s security, although they may differ on how best to guarantee it. The far left and far right, by contrast, each focus their concern on their desire for a morally perfect Israel.Those on the far left demand moral purity in Israel’s relations with the Palestinians. The far-right demands that Israel retain sovereignty over every inch of the God-given Land of Israel. Alas, reality intervenes.
In the real world, Israel finds itself in situations where things aren’t always clearcut — black and white, moral and immoral. Rather, the decisions it has to make often involve ethical shades of gray. Reality also precludes holding on to all of the Land of Israel. Indeed, retaining control over the entire West Bank in perpetuity would endanger Israel’s survival.
But those on the political extremes can’t be bothered to adjust their demands to take into account the messiness of the real-world. They’d rather maintain their feelings of moral purity and smug self-rigtheousness. Indeed, they’re willing to be quite cavalier with the lives of their fellow Jews to do so.
I’m not looking for moral purity. I’m looking for a rejection of Jewish supremacy as a frame for how Israel exists, in terms of territory, legal system, state symbols and the unholy marriage of state and synagogue.
Let’s be imperfect and allow Israeli Jews to be Jewish without state intervention or discrimination.
Mobius,
I’d like to point out that the author of this post on Kumah, Ezra, paints a portrait of co-existence at his outpost, Sde Boker, which is rather at odds with the Yesh Din report posted afterwards that describes settler violence towards the Palestinians, including holding a gun to a farmer’s head, extortion, destroying their crops, and attempts to prevent the Palestinians from attending to their lands. Israel decided not to charge the Sde Boker settlers responsible for these abuses.
http://www.kumah.org/2007/02/undercover-jewish-settlers-of.html
Normally, life is quite pastoral in Sde Boaz. It is the highest point in Gush Etzion, overlooking all the main roads, Jerusalem, Jordan, the Mediterranean and the Ela Valley. We have very real relations with the local Arab farmers who tend old vineyards behind our homes and who, in turn, ensure that their progeny do not get involved in the local Jihad groups active in the neighboring villages of El-Khader, Husan and Nahlin.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22sde+boaz%22+violence+settler&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&start=20&sa=N
ID 2143/05 (Yesh Din file 1090/05)
In June 2002, the outpost of Sde Boaz (also known as Neve Daniel North) was established north of the compound called Ein Qasis by the Palestinians, which contains plots owned by residents of the village of al-Khadr in the Bethlehem area. Since the outpost was established clashes have occurred there between the Palestinian land owners and residents of the outpost, led by the youth M., who tried to prevent the Palestinians from cultivating their land.
A few hundred meters from the outpost’s mobile homes is a plot that belongs to the family of Nabil Salah, which contains planted vines. On the morning of Thursday, May 27, 2004, Nabil and his sister Basma Salah went to the plot to tend it. At around 7 a.m. two settlers approached them, one of whom was identified by Nabil as M., with a dog. M. demanded Nabil’s identity card, and when he refused he grabbed the card by force and kicked Nabil in the leg. M. made the return of the identity card contingent on Nabil and his sister leaving the site. Nabil refused and told M. to keep the card, and that he, Nabil, would complain to the police. In response M. pulled out a gun, cocked it, pointed it at Nabil’s head and threatened to shoot him if he didn’t leave. Then M. ordered Nabil to give him NIS 5,000 the next day in exchange for his “permission” that Nabil tend the land, or else M. would vandalize the plot. Only then did M. return Nabil’s identity card to its owner, and Nabil and his sister went home without tending the plot.
The next day, May 28, 2004, Nabil returned to the plot with several members of his family and discovered that about 20 vines were uprooted and stolen. Nabil’s uncle, Imad Salah, went to the police station in Gush Etzion and reported the damage. Following the report an investigation file was opened (ID 2143/05) in the Hebron Region police.
An examination of the file by Yesh Din found that in two separate photo lineups Nabil and his sister Basma identified the picture of M., and pointed at him as the person who threatened them.
Despite repeated attempts by the Hebron Region investigators, M. did not respond to the messages left on his phone or with his neighbor in the outpost. A search order issued against his home was not carried out, because on the various visits the police made there M. was not home. Only on August 3, 2004, after an arrest order was issued against him, was M. found at his home in the outpost, arrested and brought for investigation – more than two months after committing the actions of which he was suspected.
In his investigation M. denied his involvement in the events. He added that the description of the other person whom the complainants claimed was with him during the events sounded like his friend N. The complainants did not identify the picture of N. in the identification lineups conducted by the police, and therefore he was not summoned to the investigation at all.
M. also said in his investigation that he didn’t remember what he did on the day of the event and where he was at the time, and that he would need a few days to provide an alibi. At the end of the investigation M. was released. On August 29, 2004, an investigator called M. and asked him whether he had managed to comprise an alibi claim. M. replied he had not yet managed to ascertain where he had been at the time of the event, and promised to check shortly. After another phone call initiated by the investigator on October 12, 2004, was not answered, the police made no further attempts to receive an alibi claim from M.
Even though the complainants identified M., even though the suspect vaguely denied in his investigation his involvement in the events, even though he did not provide an alibi and even though he repeatedly evaded the police – the head of the prosecutions unit at the SJ District Police decided to close the file on the grounds of “Lack of Evidence.”258 Atty. Michael Sfard appealed on behalf of Yesh Din and on behalf of the complainants against the decision not to indict M.259 At the time of writing this report no response was received yet from the state prosecutor’s appeals department.
Just like to make sure everyone’s aware that the Kumah crowd is also the Arutz Sheva crowd. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arutz_Sheva. Ezra is the news editor. Yishai and Malkah write and have radio shows.
How is this “post-Zionist� This is the position of left-leaning Zionist parties such as Meretz, as well as (leaving out the part about the territories and the Green Line, which didn’t exist as such) most Zionists on both the left and the right before the creation of the state.
Could someone please answer BZ’s question? Shouldn’t a post Zionist agenda include shedding the Magen David flag, Hatikvah and the Law of Return? (Longer kvetch on this point can be found here
-How is this “post-Zionist� This is the position of left-leaning Zionist parties such as Meretz, as well as (leaving out the part about the territories and the Green Line, which didn’t exist as such) most Zionists on both the left and the right before the creation of the state.
Could someone please answer BZ’s question? Shouldn’t a post Zionist agenda include shedding the Magen David flag, Hatikvah and the Law of Return? (Longer kvetch on this point can be found here.
Just like Zionism, there are different flavors of post-Zionism. I’ve found that the eprson whose writings have made the most sense is Bernard Avishai, and he might even consider himself a “Zionist.”
The symbols of the state that you cite are, indeed, the most trivial part of the problem of a Jewish State. The Law of Return is not a problematic to the concept of a democratic Post Zionist state of Israel as you are making out — certainly other democratic nations have similar arrangements. (As an American of Irish descent about his eligibility for Irish citizenship. For that matter, as a descendant of someone who emigrated from Latvia, I may be eligible for a Latvian passport in addition to my eligibility for the Israeli one — maybe I should start collecting passports.)
In fact, it might even be possible to set up a post-Zionist secular democratic State of Israel that also embodies Jewish sovereignty, if one follows the concepts elucidated by the Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Democratic_Party_of_Puerto_Rico
The PPD’s political ideals call for a Puerto Rico that is autonomous in some areas, and dependent on the United States in others. For example, local law and the taxation are managed locally by a tripartite system of state government. Custom duties and foreign treaties remain in the hands of the federal government. In addition, Puerto Rican law remains under the purview of Congress, and must concord with the American constitution.
The PDP is the current ruling party of Puerto Rico, and the relationship between the US and PR is getting pretty mclose to what the PDP is looking for.
I interpret the PDP program to mean that what they want is the psychic satisfaction of Puerto Rican sovereignty and self-rule without the hassle of being a fully independent state. This also has an advantage to the US, who gets the continued strategic control of the area without the hassle of colonial administration, or even fights over national identity and culture, a la Quebec.
If a similar concept were to be applied to Israel/Palestine, the solution would be obvious: Israel would be the “Jewish” State, Palestine would be the “Palestinian” state, and both would be combined in a Federal union that would control foreign policy, military, etc. Being a “Jewish” state would merely means that the sovereignty would be “Jewish”, that and 5 shekels would buy you a latte at a cafe on Dizengoff. Seriously, the “Jewish” State might also have specific symbols of its Jewish sovereignty, of which the most substantive would be the ability to allow immigration of persecuted Jews above and beyond whatever immigration limits the Federal Union would impose. The two states would also have significant local autonomy, similar to that of US states, and perhaps a bit more, as Israel could emphasize Jewish and Hebrew culture, while Palestine might emphasize Arabic culture. On the other hand, both Hebrew and Arabic should be legal languages throughout the Union, and the goal should be for all residents to eventually become bilingual.
All of this would constitutionally remain the situation even if the Jews became a minority of Israel’s population. However, I doubt that would happen because of the tendency of most people to self-segregate themselves (see the “Schelling segregation model”) , so most Palestinians would live in Palestine, and most Jews would live in Israel, yet minorities could live in both states with full and equal rights.
Of course, given the bad feelings on both sides, this couldn’t be implemented without a very long transition period of two independent states, or perhaps some sort of very powerful outside empire conquering both nations decisively, knocking some heads together, and then setting up the requisite autonomous “free associated states.” Unfortunately, there seems to be no candidate for such a powerful outside empire at the present, so it’s up to the Israelis and the Palestinians to do this on their own.
If a similar concept were to be applied to Israel/Palestine, the solution would be obvious: Israel would be the “Jewish†State, Palestine would be the “Palestinian†state, and both would be combined in a Federal union that would control foreign policy, military, etc. Being a “Jewish†state would merely means that the sovereignty would be “Jewishâ€, that and 5 shekels would buy you a latte at a cafe on Dizengoff. Seriously, the “Jewish†State might also have specific symbols of its Jewish sovereignty, of which the most substantive would be the ability to allow immigration of persecuted Jews above and beyond whatever immigration limits the Federal Union would impose. The two states would also have significant local autonomy, similar to that of US states, and perhaps a bit more, as Israel could emphasize Jewish and Hebrew culture, while Palestine might emphasize Arabic culture. On the other hand, both Hebrew and Arabic should be legal languages throughout the Union, and the goal should be for all residents to eventually become bilingual.
OK, that most certaintly is a post-Zionist agenda. (It is a bit more nuanced than a standard anti-Zionist program, in that you leave open the possibility for cultural Zionism centered around a non-sovereign Jewish statelet in the binational federation.) That being said, the idea is completely unhinged from reality. Consociational democracy has crashed and burned in Lebanon, and the Lebanese don’t even have the problem of managing large diasporas with potential to radically disturb the demographic balance of power.
Why not take the very same “Palestine” statelet you want to create in the West Bank and Gaza and instead of performing an awkward shotgun marriage with Israel, fuse it to a Palestinian-majority Jordan, creating a binational federation that actually has a prayer of becoming stable within our lifetimes?
That being said, the idea is completely unhinged from reality.
No more unhinged from reality than the current situation where a small nation of 5 million people is prancing around and acting like it’s a Great Power.
No more unhinged from reality than the current situation where a small nation of 5 million people is prancing around and acting like it’s a Great Power.
If this is the central problem you have with Israel, surely it could be addressed within a Zionist context; after all your initial, reasonable policy proposals certainly did not require the creation of a Levantine Belgium. You don’t seriously believe that the only two options are the status quo or a binational state, do you?