What Are We Arguing About?
The arguments on this blog and others have gotten fierce the past few weeks, and both sides (myself included) have been using very strong rhetoric. I want to thank Sam on Blogs of Zion for trying to cool things off. The result of this tussle is that we have been drawn into so many catfights that it is easy to lose sight over what we actually disagree on. So, let me try and bring things into focus by listing a few basic propositions that I believe lie at the heart of this and many other debates that we have.
- The State of Israel is not inherently valuable.
Many of the people who fall on the ‘right’ side of the debate disagree with this statement, and feel that the State of Israel is a good thing that needs to be supported regardless of what its people or government do. However, I and other progressive Zionists insist that the State of Israel is only instrumentally valuable. This means that the state is only as valuable as what it accomplishes. If the state brings about good, then it is good. However, were it to, chas v’chalilah, cause evil, then it needs to be criticized and fought against, just as we would fight against any evil. - The struggle between Israel and its neighbors is not a zero-sum game.
I believe that the long-term solution to our strife will bring peace, prosperity and security to all of the people in the region. Israel’s success does not need to come at the expense of others. Israel will only fulfill its potential when everyone can benefit. - Jewish rights do not take precedence over other peoples’ rights.
Perhaps this is where we have picked up the label of ‘universalists’ as opposed to our ‘particularist’ objectors. Human rights have value only because they apply to all of humanity. Often different peoples’ rights conflict, and the resolution that is necessary will not be pleasant. We don’t disagree that violence may be justified, nor do we disagree that sometimes people will be hurt. However, we think that every conflict needs to be analyzed on its own terms, and that Jewish rights do not necessarily trump any other rights.
“The State of Israel is not inherently valuable.”
Let’s define good and evil in terms of theft. Do you agree that theft = evil? If not, then we have nothing to discuss. If so, then let’s proceed- Do you agree that the Tanach demonstrates binding deeds to *at least* the cave of Machpelah in Hebron and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem? If not, then we have nothing to discuss. If so, then let’s proceed- logic dictates that IF theft = evil, AND Arab control over Hebron and the Temple Mount = theft, THEN destruction of Israel = evil. The opposite logic is used to show that Israel = good. Again, I call on your good senses to conclude that good = inherently valuable.
Yes, it really is that simple.
“The struggle between Israel and its neighbors is not a zero-sum game.”
It depends what you mean by “its neighbors.” Some of Israel’s enemies define their actual identity, partially, as the force which eradicates Israel. For these, by definition, our existance comes at their loss. This does not apply to all of our neighbors, nor does it apply to those enemies who will, hopefully, come to redefine their identity as something more accurate to their heritage (allowing for peaceful existance, side by side, with fair borders).
“Jewish rights do not take precedence over other peoples’ rights.”
This is a very vague statement, and could be interpreted in a variety of different ways. Do babies’ rights take precedence over animal rights? What if it is sustaining the animal’s life vs. tickling the baby? In most practical cases, the sides of the scale are not even. Often we are dealing with the prevention of more lost lives, different needs, the obligation towards family as opposed to friends, etc. In *general*, Israel’s obligation IS primarily towards Jews, and secondly towards other people, but the secondary importance is still very, very important.
Thanks for this post.. it is wonderfully balanced and refreshing.
“…it needs to be criticized and fought against, just as we would fight against any evil.”
Do you fight the evil of a brother the same way that you fight the evil of a stranger or an enemy? I don’t think so.
Being on the left or right has little to do with whether or not you see inherant value in Israel. As long as one still shows the appropriate love for their kin, there’s no reason that they shouldn’t be able to criticize them. The question is, how do you criticize while maintaining the love?
tokhakha
we’re going in circles
I really think that this is only relevant if josh is still wearing that fedora. Otherwise his aregunmet just doesn’t work.
“The State of Israel is not inherently valuable.”
The state, as a state, may be instrumental, but the land isn’t. The yearning of Jews to return to the land of Israel (which the enemies of the Jews, starting with the Romans, call “Palestine”), is an inseparable part of Jewishness and one of the things that kept us going all those hard years in the Diaspora.
In the 19th century, quite a few Jews repudiated the basic Zionism inherent in Judaism, saying, “Berlin is Jerusalem”. We know where that ended. Nor is there today room for any Jew to regard, for example, London as Jerusalem.
As for the “occupied territories”, which I believe is the bone of contention here: in this case it is indeed all or nothing. You may call Ma’aleh Adumim a settlement and Tel-Aviv a legitimate part of Israel, but the Muslim enemy regards both as settlements, as do so many on the Far (and not so far) Left. This recent Lebanon War was started by actions within our internationally recognized borders, as did the firing of Kassam rockets on Sderot. Our declaration of difference between Tel-Aviv and Ma’aleh Adumim gives us nothing in the way of legitimacy, not in the eyes of the enemy (who want all the land) and not even in the eyes of the “neutral” world (who pounded us when we dared to defend ourselves in Lebanon). So there is not even a pragmatic benefit to such a distinction.
In 1947 the UN Partition Plan tried to settle the conflict by giving the Arabs part of the land (the more fertile part, it must be added) and the Jews another part. The Arabs rejected it, because they wanted it all–as they do today. Under the circumstances, we really ought to stop telling ourselves the lie that giving up some of the land would end this conflict. Until the other side really abandons its demand for all the land, we must insist, for our part, on demanding all the land too.
And it is, after all, really ours. Jewish children begin Chumash with Rashi reading the following: “That if the nations of the world should say, ‘You are thieves (listim atem), for you have occupied the lands of seven nations’, they (the Israelites) would say to them, ‘All the land belongs to G-d; He created it and gave it to whomever was right in His eyes; in His will He gave it to them, and in His will He took it away from them and gave it to us’.” People may complain that the appeal to the Bible is irrational and carries religion into this conflict; I say religion has always been in this conflict, and only the appeal to the Bible can secure our claim. Appeal to the Holocaust can already be seen not to work, for even those of our enemies who don’t deny the Holocaust say, “Why should another people pay for what was done to the Jews?” The land is ours because G-d says so. Period.
“The struggle between Israel and its neighbors is not a zero-sum game.”
It need not be a zero-sum game. We Jews were quite ready to accept the 1947 UN Partition Plan. There are Arabs in the Israeli parliament; who abuse their position to consort with the enemy, alas, but that’s their choice, not ours, and that’s the problem in a nutshell: the other side wants it to be a zero-sum game, all or nothing.
In this conflict between Israel and the Muslim enemy, as indeed in the conflict between the whole non-Muslim world and Islam, the Left’s fatal error has been to search for the roots of the conflict in ourselves, instead of recognizing that nearly all of the blame rests with the other side. Osama Bin Laden is not as dangerous alone as he is when coupled to West Guilt Laden.
“Jewish rights do not take precedence over other peoples’ rights.”
This is quite a strawman, isn’t it? Leftists keep picking upon Israel, an “apartheid state” that has, as I mentioned above, non-Jewish parliament members, while ignoring countries like Saudi Arabia where even non-Arab Muslims, let alone non-Muslims, are marginalized.
Israel isn’t perfect, but it’s the best there could be in this hell-hole of a region. This moral inversion of holding Israel to incessant criticism while turning a blind eye to the menace of Islam, which creates hell-holes wherever it takes root, epitomizes the bankruptcy of today’s Left. The glory of the Left from the Roosevelt and Truman days has departed completely.
I’m not Israeli, so maybe I’m just a little confused. How does one describe themselves as a Zionist, albeit a progressive one, if one does not recognize the state of Israel as inherently valuable and, in fact, vital to the Jewish people?
“I’m not Israeli, so maybe I’m just a little confused. How does one describe themselves as a Zionist, albeit a progressive one, if one does not recognize the state of Israel as inherently valuable and, in fact, vital to the Jewish people?”
Right. Only if one refuses to identify the state of Israel with Zion, and still identifies the hope of their souls with that Zion.
The problem with assuming that Israel value is inherent, is that it makes Israel pointless, missionless. That’s ok for a person to be, not for a project, that is, a country. If Israel’s value is inherent, and we’re fighting for it, that’s fighting for it’s own sake, something hard to rally your kids around maybe.
Complete this quote:
Nationalism for it’s own sake is ——
R. Kook
Am I the only one that has had just about enough of people calling themselves ‘progressive’ this and ‘post’ that? I’m very pleased that you have an opinion and am delighted for you to have one that is counter to my own, but terms such as ‘progressive’ and ‘post’ leave a connotation that there is something inherently wrong or flawed with the original concept or movement. I find it arrogant and condescending and am quickly coming to the opinion that splitting hairs is a luxury afforded those not on the front lines.
sorry. I grew up identifying “progressive” with trying to help poor people, the active, caring aspect of left wing, as opposed to “liberal,” more of a self dilitante politcal priority.
What’s wrong with implying that something is wrong with the original notion? Is it wrong to be on the front lines fighting for something wounded and not-what-I want-exactly? People living in Israel who feel like they have no other options but to be in Israel might not have any interest in what they’re fighting for, chas w’ shalom, but it’s still not true. Until you’re actually engaged in the fight, on the field, killing and watching friends die, you do actually have other options, and/or, control over what it is you’re defending or not defending.
Because there is an Israel that I love and would be down to fight in wars for, but it’s not the Israel that is now, a place I have a real ambivalent desire to trust and utter, verified distrust for, in no small part because of how they have always treated any of their citizens who they perceived as victimizeable.
“sorry. I grew up identifying “progressive†with trying to help poor people, the active, caring aspect of left wing, as opposed to “liberal,†more of a self dilitante politcal priority.”
I understand your sentiments and I guess what I’m trying to get to is that we are JEWS. Every time we bring a flag to the table (Israeli, Orthodox, Masorti, Liberal, Progressive, etc. etc.) the argument loses just a little bit of its intellectual shine.
> The problem with assuming that Israel value is inherent, is that it makes Israel pointless, missionless.
It is pointless to recognize that Jews have the right to self-determination?
> If Israel’s value is inherent, and we’re fighting for it, that’s fighting for it’s own sake
Not when our enemies want our complete and total eradication (some from the land, some from the world). Then it’s fighting for the sake of survival, which, in this “post-pacifist” (progressive pacifist?)’s opinion, is the only thing ever worth fighting (physically) for.
Josh, this is a great post. I am NOT a Zionist, but eagerly look for common ground with progressive Zionists. My goal is a state of Israel infused with values I happen to support, Jewish supremacy not being one of them. I think the test for Israel’s survival, and it is legitimate, is persuading the Palestinian people to accept us, emotionally and religiously. And by ‘accept us’ I do not mean the entity known as Israel, but rather the population group known as Israelis.
there’s much evidence that our muslim enemies don’t require our complete and total destruction, only our surrender. http://www.jewsoflebanon.com claims that fatah defended lebanese jews from attackers until the seventies, differentiating between Jews and Israelis.
We’re not fighting for survival unless we want to draw it up that way. We’re fighting for control and independance, something maybe worthwhile, but different from survival. But maybe that’s one of the point of contention in this dialog. What does our survival depend on?
That was an idea i picked up from some of my Rebbes in Israel, that we’re put by our evil government in a situation where we feel like they are our only hope of survival, so we have to trust them to keep us alive, that our terror, at least on the scale it’s on, is what keeps us from making much effort at improving the country internally At All, instead focusing us on loving our soldiers for keeping us safe.
“The State of Israel is not inherently valuable.”
This naturally leads to the question as to what the ultimate values are by which we should judge the Zionist project,. For all its foibles and failings, Israel has been a dramatic success both as a physical haven and as a center for Jewish cultural revival. Israel a wondrous, but flawed, like all human creations. It is long past time that American Jews entered a more mature relationship with the Jewish state. If the blind idolization of the American Jewish right is problematic, so too is a reflexive backlash from American Jewish progressives.
“The struggle between Israel and its neighbors is not a zero-sum game.”
This should be self-evident, and we need to remind other Jews of this fact. However, we also need to acknowledge that many of Israel’s neighbors do see the struggle as a zero-sum game pretending that they doesn’t get us any closer to peace.
“Jewish rights do not take precedence over other peoples’ rights.”
This sounds fine as an abstract sentiment, but what exactly does this mean in concrete terms. Should every Jew that gives tzedaka to Jewish organizations simply funded secular charities instead? Should we just disband our communal institutions then? How complete should the dedication to universalism be?
The problem with tribalist attitude of certain Jews is not that Jewish rights are prioritized, but they are the only rights that are given any consideration. Tribalists trumpet the “right” for a Jew to have a large house and a swimming pool in a Samarian hillside villa over the right for a Arab to have clean drinking water. Tribalists place the need for yet one more fully-subsidized haredi yeshiva over the basic medical needs of African genocide victims.
Progressives are right to reject the modern-day Shammais, but in order to be modern-day Hillels they have to be for “themselves” at least part of the time.
Thank you mhpine for a very intelligent, meaningful response which gives a glimpse of where healthy debate and discussion can lead.
I through these three propositions out not as a summary of my opinions or of a credo of post-Zionism, but simply as three simple ideas that I agree with, which I have a feeling that many people that agree with me politically concur with and that many people who I argue with reject.
But, perhaps like you, mhpine, are trying to say, these aren’t set in stone. Perhaps everyone agrees with these and disagrees with them at some level and our arguments lie off somewhere else entirely?
What are the real points of our disagreement? A calm analysis of them, and thoughtful responses like mhpine’s can help bring us all someplace better.
I think that perhaps the problem in communications has to do with different emphases on what it means to “be Jewish.” Some Jews identify Judaism in part with what is otherwise referred to as “civilization” or “human rights” [and might even go so far as to say that most of what makes Western Civilization Western Civilization is due to Jewish influences], some Jews have a much more sectarian emphasis.
You see the same division between those who speak of The Tradition or Halacha [in the singular and with a capitalized first letter] and those who use the same terms but without capitalization. Some such are referring to the “spirit of the Laws” with they equate with the highest values of civilization, some are referring to bare legalism. This was well illustrated for me recently by a debate between purportedly observant Jews on another list regarding the labor disputes at Postville. Some took the position that “Of course the workers have a right to appoint representatives and voice their grievances to management.” and some wanted citations to the Talmud supporting the formation of labor unions [What, no citations??! Then no such “right” or corresponding duty.].
Perhaps that sort of classification is too black and white for the olive branch Mr. Frankel was trying to extend, but perhaps it is also more acurate.
Hey, I’ve just come upon your blog and I found this entry quite interesting. I myself write a blog for the Jewish magazine “New Voices.” You can currently find it at http://newvoicesblog.blogspot.com (soon to be on the magazine’s server). I would of course love it if anyone here were to check it out. I will say however, it is perhaps a bit less… ‘somber’ in tone than this blog…
Anyhow, I wanted to respond to several of your assertions. Obviously I haven’t been involved in the whole dialogue you’ve had, but this is what struck me.
>”Many of the people who fall on the ‘right’ side of the debate disagree with this statement, and feel that the State of Israel is a good thing that needs to be supported regardless of what its people or government do”
I believe this is perhaps going a bit far in attributing a perspective to its opponents, or maybe just by implication overstates the number of people to whom it ascribes this view.
Let us assume that you have a sick child, although you might hate the disease and wish for it to be gone, the child requires support and treatment to become healthy once more. The analogy should be obvious, and it seems perfectly possible for someone to support the state of Israel while at the same time disagreeing with its policies. I would suggest that that although there are certainly steadfast tribalists who believe that any acts by Israel are justified, there are many more on the right who support the state of Israel but do not necessarily support all if the actions that the government or people take. I am certainly on the left side of things, but I often hear people on the left ascribe these sorts of views to the right, which I think misses the bone of contention, i.e., what kinds of actions are justified and what kinds go beyond a legitimate right to self-defense?
>”I and other progressive Zionists insist that the State of Israel is only instrumentally valuable. ”
The question of whether the state of Israel is valuable or not seems to me to be a distinct, though admittedly related question from whether it does good or not. Take for example the question of whether cars (or more generally motorized transport) are a good thing? Well, cars put a great deal of toxins into the atmosphere, and a huge number of people are killed in automobile accidents every year, so it would seem we should say that cars are a bad thing. Yet this is not telling; in fact we weigh the harms against the utility and benefit that cars provide. If a drunk or irresponsible driver gets into a car and hits someone, we don’t throw a car out or declare it no longer “instrumental useful.†We just don’t let that person drive. Now if you really believe that the State of Israel has done so much evil as to be like a crashed car, irreparable, I think this is a different claim, and one which I imagine many would disagree with.
> “The struggle between Israel and its neighbors is not a zero-sum game.”
I worry that all this sentiment really expresses is “why can’t we all just get along?†As another poster has already suggested, if someone’s stated goal is your destruction, then your success does indeed come at their expense, at least insofar as they see it, which will of course keep the fight going. I don’t believe that there are really so many people who think that Israel’s success should be predicated upon the destruction or suffering of Arabs, rather the view is that if an Arab faction wishes to destroy Israel then Israel’s success legitimately and necessarily comes at the expense of that faction. If Israel’s potential can only be fulfilled when there are no longer Arabs who call for its destruction then I’m afraid that Israel is incapable of achieving its own potential without a dramatic ideological shift for many on the Arabic side (moreover, I’m not so sure that a person or state’s potential can legitimately be defined by another person or state’s actions. It takes the potential out of them entirely).
> “Jewish rights do not take precedence over other peoples’ rights.”
Much like a previous poster Mhpine, I believe this to be a strawman argument. The number of people who actually claim that Israelis’ rights are the only ones of import, although existent, are probably far fewer than you are suggesting. And as you concede there is such a thing as “justifiable violence.†I tend to think that the question is rather about what is to be considered “justifiable.†I won’t go further into this as Mhpine did a fairly good job of drawing this out.
Anyhow, I enjoyed the post and will be checking back. And of course, check out the blog at http://newvoicesblog.blogspot.com.
I think the most important step is for everyone to start thinking about the state as a means rather than an end.
Well said, and, as you guessed, those who disagree with your political analysis also disagree with your basic assumptions.
To ZionistYoungster…
Regarding the land that was promised to us by G-d… you seem to forget that part of Devarim that says that we shouldn’t think that we are getting the land because we are righteous, but rather because the inhabitants are evil…
The Land is G-d’s and he give it to whomsoever he chooses, and that is the main point here! The land is given under the condition that we keep the law… otherwise we can just as easily be thrown out of it…just as the other nations in the past have been.
You cannot lay claim to the land on G-d’s word when you have the vast majority transgressing the law while living on G-d given land.
“you seem to forget that part of Devarim that says that we shouldn’t think that we are getting the land because we are righteous, but rather because the inhabitants are evil…”
And are the Muslim inhabitants of the land, exploding themselves in the midst of women and children, not evil? I rest my case.
“You cannot lay claim to the land on G-d’s word when you have the vast majority transgressing the law while living on G-d given land.”
That is true and I agree. However, Rabbi Kook explained how G-d could consent to the return of the Jews to their land by means of a secular movement. Return to religious observance will follow, as a lot of Israeli Jews have already begun to perceive that the treatment the state of Israel gets from the whole world is something… well… not of this world.