Why I post the worst of Israeli news
Let me reiterate why I bother to post stuff like this. Or this.
It’s a selective reading of news, I know, to pick out the parts of our community most shameful for public review, as if there were nothing else redeemable about Jews, Judaism, Jewish culture or Israel. Even though here on Jewschool it should go without saying that, though we question the assumptions and priorities of Jewish life as we see it, we do this because we are engaged and care deeply about Jews, Judaism, Jewish culture, and Israel. But I’ll explain a little more.
There are compelling realpolitik and pragmatic reasons for discussing our dirty laundry in public. Not only do Israel’s true-to-life detractors feed off these events, making it important to distance ourselves from said events and to understand how we are perceived by others. But it’s also impossible to do otherwise these days. And it’s important to shake off their fence-sitting the Jews who politely demure from facing our own culpability regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Posting these things is pushing something clearly indefensible forward and saying, “Our shit too stinks.”
Those realpolitik and pragmatic reasons are not under discussion right now.
My love of Israel is not for its materialistic and militarized culture, its marvelous multicultural hype, and certainly not its fried chickpea patties. I am not wowed by its Nobel prizes trophies, its environmental inventions, the number of universities it hosts, its place as the only gay-friendly military in the Middle East. There is nothing impressive to me about those factoids used to lure young Jews into pride. Mine is real, thank you very much.
Many of us leave unexpressed the “love” of Israel that drives our posting because we hate the very vocabulary of a sinfully simplistic upbringing and the framework of the right-wing which dominates amongst the Jews. Unlike on all other issues of domestic and international concerns, on this issue we must obey special loyalty oaths. Must I “prove” that I “love” health care before I can criticize health care policy? To hell with the oaths.
My love of the place and peoplehood is rooted elsewhere. It’s not a love that most Jews are confortable with, even, including many Jews who have found their way to progressive Israel work.
My love and pride is rooted in the furious indignation of ragtag Israeli activist friends against the demolition of their Israeli Arab friend’s home in East Jerusalem, and who chained themselves together in his living room. And when they were dragged out and the house toppled, they cried together with him.
It is rooted in the compassion of a lone rabbi serving as the caretaker of the Bedouin camp at the edge of Jerusalem where corrugated aluminum shacks and windowless concrete boxes are home to destitute families. He does his silent ministry without acclaim in the shadow of Maale Adumim’s red tile roofs not a quarter mile away, which remains oblivious to its disenfranchised neighbors.
It is fueled by the look in a 25-year-old Israeli veteran’s face as he described to a zealous American college student the feelings in his soul when he pulled a 40-year-old Palestinian man out of a checkpoint, beat him to a pulp, and returned him to line as an example for the rest of the checkpoint. Daily. For three years. I am also 25. What have I done that compares?
It is the scores of women’s rights, religious pluralism, gay rights, poverty, racism, and environmental activists who are waking up in increasing numbers in Israel to the discontent around them, the distrust of the politicians, the disgust with their society’s zero-sum excuses. What have I done similar for my country?
Any pride I may have an activist in America is eclipsed by their work. Their passions seem laced with both hellfire and choirs of angels. Their language is offensive as they sling about “apartheid,” “police state,” “Nuremburg Laws” and “ethnic cleansing” and see the parallels that raise red flags. Israelis are rough and crude and pushy and insensitive — I could never live among them long — and yet I have fallen in love with the Israelis who have bent their full irritability towards the righting of relationships in the Holy Land. Prickly bastards they may be, but they see injustice at home.
These are your new prophets, friends, and no prophet is welcome in their own home, not this Home of the Jews, nor the homes of most Diaspora Jews abroad. So when I have a choice to stand with the living visage of Jeremiah and Ezekiel on one side, or the modernized equivalent of the Hasmonean tyrants on the other side (or their sycophants in the States) then by God Almighty I will stand with Jewish values against Jewish power without question.
There are many places and people (and even contexts I find myself in) where criticism of Israel will be pleasantly and sensitively couched in love sandwiches and caveats to every loyalty oath possible. But that’s not my role on Jewschool, it’s not why Jewschool was created, and it’s not what compels me to Israel justice work. Here, you’ll get it straight without the bullshit, as best as we can speak it.
We do this out of our own love, our own unique pride in Jews, Jewish culture, Judaism and Israel. We are our brothers’ keepers. These racists, they are ours. These murderers, they are ours. These zealots, they are ours. But also, these activists, they are ours. These changemakers, they are ours. These reincarnations of the Nevi’im, they are ours too. To draw upon Bavli, Shabbat 54b, this is our family, this is our community, this is our world.
For better or worse, they are all ours.
And I’m going to post here the ugly things my people do, and I’m going to explain to you why they don’t deserve the name “Jewish.” And I’m going to pick fights with the powerbrokers in my family, community and world — yes, in that order. This is why I and many others here write. God willing, this is why you come to Jewschool. So no more apologies. Write on.
Amen. Not my story, but it doesn’t have to be. This is why we love you, KFJ.
Wow. This cuts to the quick: amen and amen. Please keep on.
I just don’t understand why it is never relevant to that perspective ever post any good news. Like, not that I’m a modern-day prophet like your friends are, but I do live here (Israel) and I work with troubled Arab youth, and I feel angry and depressed most times when I read the newspaper and hear stupid racist comments on the bus and so on, but if the only thing I ever had to say about the country was how stupid it was and not sometimes, you know, how meaningful the Hebrew language is, or whatever, then I would never want to do anything. Love and pride demand anger and criticsm, but can’t be based exclusively on those.
Ruth, do we know each other? If so, I think you’d like KFJ if you ever met him, though I’d still love to hear a good argument between the two of you.
I also love Israel, KFJ, and I love Jewschool (even though I get the sence that I usually disagree with most posters.)
But, it seems like your love for Israel is predicated almost entirely on the Palestinian conflict, and on the discrimination suffered by Israeli Palestinians. Does this mean that if those issues were somehow resolved, you would no longer love Israel?
Do most JewSchoolers have the same relationship with Israel?
No love for the story of the revival of the Hebrew culture? The kibbutz experiment? The immigration from all corners of the world? The environmental inventions? The number of universities it hosts? Its place as the only gay-friendly military in the Middle East? The list can go on…am I the only Jewschool fan who actually loves Israel for reasons other than conflicts?
Until there is a Utopian society, there will always be reason for righteous indignation, Jonathan. If the conflict was ever resolved, there would be other issues to fight for and other prophets to stand for the oppressed. It is the essence of our people. Remember that you too were a slave in Egypt one time.
Eloquently stated as usual, KFJ. It’s almost frustrating for me that you feel it necessary to make such a post on Jewschool. Isn’t this a place where that kind of worldview is accepted and encouraged? If you want to hear about all the wonderful things Israel does and all the terrible things Palestinians do, there are PLENTY of other sources to do that. And if you want to find sites, even Jewish sites, that demonize Israel without remorse or love, there are sites for you as well. Jewschool is unique in its critical yet devoted alternative stance on these issues and that is why I read it. As much as this post was invigorating in the face of a lot of opposition, it should all go without saying. Don’t undermine yourself or your work, KFJ, you too are a prophet.
“Until there is a Utopian society, there will always be reason for righteous indignation”
Who said there is no cause for indignation?
“If the conflict was ever resolved, there would be other issues to fight for and other prophets to stand for the oppressed”
Who said that it’s not right to fight for the oppressed?
“Remember that you too were a slave in Egypt one time.”
So?
“As much as this post was invigorating in the face of a lot of opposition, it should all go without saying”
Where is all of this opposition to KFJ?
What are you talking about?
KJF, thank you for your post.
As you know, the role of prophets – you mentioned Jeremiah and Ezekiel – is to assist the Jewish people in times of need, both physically and spiritually. In addition to helping resolve political arguments or fighting injustice, a Jewish prophet must guide the people, in a pragmatic, practical way, towards Torah and mitzvos.
Those who adopt a Budhist tradition may philosophize in the mountains. We Jews have the opportunity and obligation to act to transform the world, through the pursuit of justice and actual performance of mitzvos – which unite physical and spiritual and bring peace and G-dliness to the world.
So let’s protest home demolitions, let’s fight arbitrary arrest and indefinite imprisonment, let’s bring light to the world by wrapping tefillin and lighting shabbos candles, in the true tradition of Jewish prophets.
“Israelis are rough and crude and pushy and insensitive — I could never live among them long — and yet I have fallen in love with the Israelis who have bent their full irritability towards the righting of relationships in the Holy Land.”
KJF, About the “I could never live among them long” aside: tongue-in-cheek – or said in all seriousness?
This was my first link to Jewschool, from a friend, and what you wrote was great. Except I’d like to suggest that we need to link our like-minded activism in the US (or wherever) and Israel, not separate them as you suggest. Theirs is not more prophetic, even if the biblical metaphor is more intensely felt in Israel. In fact, it’s a huge mistake to allow for that sort of differentiation because it plays into the goals of those Jews who demand that Israel be set apart from other countries and societies. Human rights are equally important everywhere. You’re picking the right fights and you’re picking them in the right order…but not because they’re really different, just because your obligation is greater the closer it is to you.
In response to Jonathan’s question of whether all Jewschoolers have the same relationship to Israel, the answer is of course not. I would say that we all have a commitment to intellectual honesty on this subject (and all others as well), but our hearts sometimes take us in divergent directions. I know that I’ve found myself opposed to what many of my colleagues here post about Israel as often as I’ve found myself agreeing with them. That we can all come together to have informed, impassioned discussions is one of the blessings of this site.
Made me want to jump up from my computer and shout, “Amen!” Looks like I’m not the only one, I see a lot of Amens.
While I personally would not compare myself to the Nevi’im A”H, we share a common characteristic with them in that we are iconoclastic in our rhetoric, yet with a genuine concern for our people.
“I am not wowed by its Nobel prizes trophies, its environmental inventions, the number of universities it hosts, its place as the only gay-friendly military in the Middle East. There is nothing impressive to me about those factoids used to lure young Jews into pride. Mine is real, thank you very much.”
Why are you not impressed by these achievements? And why is the pride that some people get from those less real?
I could live among Israelis, and have, and would again, if it were practically possible for me. I am proud of the achievements of Israel, but, amen, KFJ: it is the struggle of Israelis for the Jewish soul that is the thing we can be most proud of.
I don’t think that KFJ is saying that his love of Israel would disappear if he Palestinian-Israeli conflict were over, but rather that it is those Israelis who face themselves and others in that particularly and truly Jewish way – to admitone’s wrongs, to take culpability, that makes him proud. Too many people scream that anytime someone says that we as Jews are responsible for the violence in any way, that we are blaming the victim, but the rabbis throughout our history had it right – they always searched for our role when something bad happened to us – that’s not blaming the victim, it’s a show of strength. Even to go so far as to offer sacrifices in temple times for inadvertent sins – because the rabbis understood that even the inadvertent has some layer of need to take responsibility – all the more so when we do have choices that we can make, no matter how hard those choices are. We here at JS are always proud of you KFJ (even when we sometimes don’t agree on every detail).
It is silly to argue that people who love Israel cannot or should not speak out publicly about things that put the country in a bad light. This is so even though it is inevitable and unavoidable that Jewish “critics” of Israel will not be exploited by those who, regardless of what Israel does, hate Israel, hate zionism, and/or simply hate Jews. Indeed, it is like what the American right wingers used to do in the 90s when they would quote something they found favorable in a “liberal” journal. . .”Even the liberal New Republic thinks. . . .!”
I accept that it is necessary to publicly critize Israel. My problem is with those who find such criticism to be sufficient in and of itself, as though it cleanses the critic and completes his or her task. My problem is with those for whom such criticism is an end in itself, as if it absolves them from all that Israel does and what it stands for. To Jews, including my own three college- and post-college age children, who see injustice in much of modern Israel, I implore them to speak out against such injustice, but never forget that, good or bad, the future of the Jewish People is inextricably linked to the survival of the State of Israel, warts and all. Criticism yes, but constructive criticism always.
Second second should have read:
“This is so even though it is inevitable and unavoidable that Jewish “critics” of Israel will be exploited by those who, regardless of what Israel does, hate Israel, hate zionism, and/or simply hate Jews.”
Hi Desh, yes, I believe we know each other… for a while now… great seeing you at the bat mitzva…
Anyways, I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with saying, I will only post the worst news about Israel, because “there are PLENTY of other sources” for anything less than the worst news. Lots of people are saying, yes, I criticize because I care, and I don’t doubt that that’s true. But moral leadership demands a clear vision of why we care, just as clear as what criticism we present, and the latter must be shaped by the former. That’s what I don’t understand in this post and some of the comments. What is the positive vision of Israeli or Jewish society and what is your place in it?
“let’s bring light to the world by wrapping tefillin and lighting shabbos candles, in the true tradition of Jewish prophets.”
—Victor · February 19th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Justice and righteousness is the tradition of the Jewish prophets. Which one mentioned tefillin and candles again?
“Too many people scream that anytime someone says that we as Jews are responsible for the violence in any way, that we are blaming the victim”
Really? It seems that almost all JewSchool blogs/posts deal with Israel’s guilt in the conflict…and of its many warts in general.
That’s fine with me. But I always thought this was the case because (1) other blogs report more positive aspects of Israel, and/or (2) most posters here think that Israel is a mistaken/failed project.
But, according to KFJ, and some of the posts above, only fools would love Israel for it so-called impressive factoids…and the true lovers of Israel realize that it is a terrible place, but love it nonetheless because of the people who live in Israel and also recognize how awful a society it is…wouldn’t it be a bit more honest to say just that you don’t love Israel?
“…most posters here think that Israel is a mistaken/failed project.”
I have yet to see anyone here suggest that. However, many of us realise that the project has been a tightrope act from the beginning, and we would much prefer to guide it safely to solid ground rather than keep it teetering up on the wire.
“I have yet to see anyone here suggest that.”
We must read a different Jewschool (not that there’s anything wrong with thinking that Israel is a mistake/failure.)
Thanks as always for the positive replies and the sensitive inquiries for more. (And Michael, welcome to Jewschool, come back all the time.)
Let me answer all of the above in a more or less comprehensive approach:
First of all, this is a blog — a public conversation. For me, the most interesting conversation is social justice work in Israel. It happens that it’s an uphill battle, and there is more negative than positive. God willing, I will be using Jewschool to crow victory and enumerate all the good news to come.
Second of all, I thing the worst phrase is “love of Israel.” Which Israel: the land, the people, or the government? One can admire the system of government and hate the politicians also. Or love the people but hate their politics. Or love some Israelis and hate hate hate other Israelis. Personally, I think some of the land is awe-inspiring and some of it looks like a parking lot in San Diego. I know plenty of Americans who think the idea of Israel is awesome, but not awesome enough to move there…so what is “love” and what is “Israel”? I think that phrase leads to empty answers.
Regardless, will my relationship to Israel end if the conflict is over? Wouldn’t we all agree that losing my love for a state is a small and willing price to pay for an end to the conflict? Hells yes! More realistically: do you think not subjugating another people will make me admire Israel more? I think that’s waaay more likely.
If something about Israel really excites you — environmental techology or falafel — good for you. But I find the manufacture of Israeli factoids by advocacy groups pretty pedantic and missing the bigger point, a la Blue Star PR. If I’m a Jew conflicted about the moral right of Israel to bomb a million civilians to kill only a few hundred terrorists, then I don’t give a shit about the other stuff. You can’t change the topic as an answer to the moral qualms. That’s my beef with factoids: their use as an answer to my moral qualms.
As to the lack of overall positive reporting in my posts and Jewschool’s posts…this is a blog of critical thought, folks. That’s why it was created. Please don’t come here for fuzzy “I <3 Tel Aviv” type writing. Please. That said, I think we need more Israeli culture on this blog, particularly anything outside the mainstream.
So what is the vision of Israel I would like to see and my place in it?
My vision of Israel is a country that treats all its members (note: not just “citizens” but “members”) equally, cares for the widow and the orphan regardless of race, religion, sex, orientation, beliefs (non-Zionist included) and all others. A nation secure behind defined borders with a constitutional guarantee for all above, having actively pursued and settled security and economic agreements with all countries in its neighborhood, where the military draft is finally rescinded. A country that is self-sufficient and need not rely on the charity of the Diaspora or the protectzia of a superpower. A country in which, someday, an Arab will be Prime Minister and celebrated with the largest inauguration attendance of all time, yet somehow maintains some aspect of a Jewish heritage. A country where gays can marry — hell, a country where straight couples can marry outside orthodoxy would be nice! Which means a country where all forms of religion are respected but none imposed.
My role in that country?
A huge fan. You never know, maybe even a citizen. Like I said, I could live in Israel for a little bit. But even New York is too pushy for me. I can only live in places where people don’t cut in line in front of me. And where there is decent coffee. Israel needs some social justice on that front too. The occupation and Nescafe, the two things in Israel I’ll never tolerate.
P.S. No offense to San Diego. It’s my birthplace.
Shabbat shalom.
Jonathan, I think there’s validity in what you’ve said, but I would like to offer a twist on it. It is not Israel that some Jews see as a failure – it is the tired, out of favor fad called political Zionism that they believe has failed. If this is your only way to relate to Israel – as a secular, racially exclusive pseudo-European nation state – then events are beginning to overwhelm any positive way for you to relate to Israel.
If your connection is to Israel as the home of the Jewish people, and the incredible vitality and progress we have made in these 60 years, coming off the heels of the greatest extermination program in history, then Israel is an incredible and thriving success. The Jewish people are stronger and more secure now than at any time since David and Solomon.
Good shabbos!
“We must read a different Jewschool (not that there’s anything wrong with thinking that Israel is a mistake/failure.)”
It seems you are reading things into commentary hear rather than addressing what is. I doubt you could quote anything to to substantiate your claim, and have read this blog enough to to be sure there couldn’t be much.
Hello KFJ – I stay well-stocked on filter coffee here, you can buy fair trade beans (at the Ilan’s chain among other places) but they’re expensive, I mostly get friends from NA to bring.
I appreciate your articulation of your vision and role – but there is still a missing link for me, and not just relating to you personally, but to this line of thinking broadly speaking. What is your role in the process of getting from here to the awesome Israel you described, or more generally, what is the path from the current society as it is to the ideal? Every critic you mention I’m sure has important and insufficiently understood things to say about the current situation, and their voices are vitally important. But envisioning a real path forward requires some kind of idea of how to shape the society that we have – and any hope I have that your awesome Israel will ever come to pass derives from the idea that there are some important elements of solidarity and equality in the culture and institutions of this country, and that there were many more in its not-too-distant past.
The acceptance of gays in the military, for example, while not overshadowing the deep homophobia here overall, is something that is progressive and does come out of a certain context. What that context is and what good things we have here to work with (and good things here that make it worth working) are important, not in a way that can be measured relative to how important it is to talk about the bad things, but in a different part of the equation.
Victor–I don’t disagree.
KFJ–You’ve cleared up much. Don’t forget, as an aside, that you refer to “love of Israel” in your blog–that’s why I referred to “love of Israel.”
kyleb–I’m not going to dig through old posts to try to substantiate my claim. I’ve been reading and posting on JewSchool for a while now, and I stand by my assertion. But the bigger question is: Why does it upset you so much that I think some JS posters think that the modern state of Israel is a failure/mistake? To me, that’s a very legimitate position. Why are you writing as if that claim is such an egregious insult?
I am not upset or insulted, I am just asking you to reconsider your position. And I ask again in light of the fact that you just suggested you would have to dig for what you previously claimed was commonplace.
This is where our controversy started kyleb…from above…
me: “It seems that almost all JewSchool blogs/posts deal with Israel’s guilt in the conflict…and of its many warts in general. That’s fine with me. But I always thought this was the case because (1) other blogs report more positive aspects of Israel, and/or (2) most posters here think that Israel is a mistaken/failed project.”
you: ““…most posters here think that Israel is a mistaken/failed project.”
I have yet to see anyone here suggest that.””
me: “We must read a different Jewschool.”
you: “It seems you are reading things into commentary hear rather than addressing what is.”
So, again, just to name a few regular posters off of the top of my head, I’ve never seen any blogs/posts from KFJ (until now) or Justin or Amit or Yael that have not been extremely critical/accusatory of the state of Israel. And, again, I thought (maybe assumed is a clearer word) that such comments have been made because such posters (1) felt that praise of the state of Israel is best left to other blogs (2) and/or such posters think that the state of Israel is a mistaken/failed project.
If you’d like, I can go through and make connections to all posts by KFJ and Justin, regarding Israel, made over the past year. I’m pretty confident that we won’t see much praise of Israel in such posts–which is their right. If such posts somehow contradict my assumptions from the above paragraph, then you will somehow prove correct.
I can’t speak for any other person other than myself, but Jonathan’s presumptions about my feelings regarding Israel as a mistaken/failed project are correct. BUT that doesn’t mean that I never have moments of pride over Jewish accomplishments. Yet, to me, and I’m not proscribing this to anyone else, the rampant injustices outweigh any such accomplishments.
Pride blinds truth as much as hatred. I do not hate Israel as a concept, but the fact that Israelis invented Instant Messaging or have made agricultural improvements that are mind-blowing does not change the fact that they are a repressive, militarized regime that inflicts immense suffering on the Palestinian people in the name of nationalist ideology.
I honor KFJ for having the courage to speak his mind and share his truth and avoid being blinded by either pride or hate. This was a great post which was personal, open and honest.
Thank you for your honesty, Justin.
“Original sin” may be the phrase you’re looking for?
What is a project for some is a home for others.
To Jonathan and kyleb, there’s also a substantive difference between what I say to my friends, coworkers, family and so on and what I feel is an important critical point to bring to a wider audience on Jewschool. Writing online is precisely the place where I feel a critical explanation of the news belongs, which can catalyst other voices into speaking up and speaking out. In my time away from the computer, I may be more conciliatory.
Just food for thought.
Lastly for Jonathan’s question, yes, I absolutely think that Israel’s creation was conducted out of step with Jewish AND universal values, particularly in the displacement of the Arab populace (deliberate and accidental), and such actions were a mistake.
I also feel that Israel as conceived in its Declaration of Independence has fallen far short in reality.
Is that failure? Interesting question…
“I can’t speak for any other person other than myself, but Jonathan’s presumptions about my feelings regarding Israel as a mistaken/failed project are correct.”
As Victor mentioned, Israel is more than a project to many, as millions were born and raised into it’s particular nationalism though no choice of their own. In general terms, it is little different than the blind patriotism which blinds much of the US to our own transgressions, and those of many other nations both currently and throughout history. So, while I agree with your criticisms, I also see opportunity for redemption. Do you honestly not acknowledge any at all?
Kyleb,
I don’t see how someone who believes in Israel’s “original sin” can see the validity in ANY redemption short of the destruction (perhaps that’s a charged word… disbanding?) of the State of Israel, and likely massive deportation of its Jewish inhabitants… somewhere else. Those who vacillate on this issue are intellectually dishonest, in my humble opinion.
If you believe the existence of Israel is a mistake that must be righted, there is simply no other way to do so, legitimately and completely, than by ending this “project”. Anything short, let’s be honest, are concessions at the expense of complete, restorative justice. In other words, we’ll give you X, but we get to keep Y. This is dishonest, self-serving, and ultimately inconclusive.
If you believe justice must be done, then why stop when 50% or 75% of it has been achieved? Anything short of complete justice is not justice.
Victor-
I do not believe that ‘original sin’ is appropriate, at all. The founders of Israel, and the thinkers who were their forbears, I do not believe were intentionally trying to be violent and racist. Would it have been that Jews were able to create a nationalist movement that did not resort to violence and racism! I do not think Jews should stop living in or moving to Israel, rather I think they should stop excusing the oppression of their Arab neighbors. I, too, once felt Israel was home, but I realized it was a home I did not want to live in. Just because someone thinks Israel has evolved into a failed project based on its projected ideals does not mean that people want to see it destroyed. I do not want to see Israel dismantled any more than I want to see EVERY state dismantled (and I do, but that is clearly not going to happen).
Kyleb-
Redemption? Sure, I suppose it’s possible if Israel puts aside, or drastically changes the approach to, Zionism. Just like the US could be redeemed if it put aside its greed, materialism, militarism and imperial habits. Or if it just told the truth… Do I think it likely that Israel be redeemed? No. Do I pray for it? Sure.
I must admit I feel passionately about some of these issues, so I’m sorry if I come off disrespectful. This is not my intention, and I’m doing my best not to be offensive, or to put words in people’s mouths.
Justin, you say you don’t want to stop Jews from moving to Israel, but a Palestinian would say the “Right of Return” (the Jewish one, that is), is the epitome of racism and colonialist imperialism (which you then agree with and say you want Israel to denounce). How do you synthesize these ideas?
Perhaps I still misunderstand, but it seems from what I’ve read the some here are rebelling against the notion of a nation state, using Israel as the most accessibly ready target for a national nihilist “project”.
Jews are oh-so-clever socio-political entrepreneurs.
I think the problem, Victor, is that you’re seeing things black and white. I do think the Law of Return is racist. But changing the Law of Return does not mean ending Jewish immigration, it just means democratizing ALL immigration.
As I’ve said before (perhaps before your entrance into the Jewschool community, and we’re so glad to have you!) I’m an anarchist, so I do believe that the nation-state should be abolished. The reason you see us talking about Israel is because it is the only Jewish state and this is a Jewish blog. As you presume, and as I stated, I think all states should be dismantled (but this is my, and other anarchists, pipe dream–most people in the world are not anarchists).
It is dangerous to confuse anarchism with nihilism. I think what people here who are disagreeing with you are calling for is neither a nihilist nor anarchist “project” in Israel, but rather for the Jewish state to live up to the democratic values it professes. Am I understanding your confusion correctly?
I agree that Victor is seeing this conversation in very binary terms. The way Israel was created involved mistakes, but to me the fact remains that several million people consider themselves Israelis (Jews, Arabs, Druze, Bedouin…) and that’s not going to change. The mistakes are there to stay.
Just like the argument over whether “Palestinians” were a people before ’48. It doesn’t matter anymore. What matters is that now there is a Palestinian people now and they want self-determination. I don’t actually believe in self-determination for all nations — that’s the root of violent nationalism everywhere — but the Palestinians are living and dying for it presently. Let ’em have it and we’ll argue the philosophy of it later.
Justin, thanks, you cleared quite a bit up for me. There seem to be competing strains here – one rooted in the anarchist (libertarian?) tradition, one in a secular democracy, one in contemporary Jewish identity, and so on. They manifest themselves at different times and to various degrees, and because I don’t know many of you here very long, I take them at face value and extend the concept they espouse at one instant in time to its logical extreme. I understand that for each one of you, your views of the world (and Israel in particular) are too complex to be condensed to a label.
Clearly, as you mention, KFJ, the situation is not black and white, and I’m eager to learn how you great Jewish minds 🙂 have come to make peace (or truce?) with these various (competing?) ideologies.
KFJ, you’re absolutely right. Whenever I speak to a Jew who begins to say there is no such thing as Palestinian, I tell them that’s like telling a gay person they are not gay, or a black person that they are not black (but 43% white) – it serves no purpose but to antagonize. You can’t argue with someone’s self-identification.
That said, I disagree that the nation of Israel, and the notion of “Israeli” are so secure and settled that we can keep hammering away at the foundations of the State without the house coming down on our heads.
Furthermore, I would argue that doing so, in extreme circumstances, poses a threat to life. That is not to say criticism of Israel is not warranted, or valid, or should be suppressed. Never. We need more criticism than ever – but criticism that is visibly coming from a place of love. I guarantee you, in this case, that this criticism will be more effective, and more readily embraced, than that which stems from anger and frustration.
“If you believe justice must be done, then why stop when 50% or 75% of it has been achieved? Anything short of complete justice is not justice.”
There is no justice in displacing millions of Israelis who were born and raised in the region, just as there was no justice in displacing the Palestinians who were there before them. Justice is to be found in a two state solution on the basis of international law. How do you suppose one should fluff that to get the message though? It seems to me you don’t want to hear it regardless of how it is said.
I believe a two state solution will not meet the desire for self-determination that the Palestinians wish. We need to examine the situation honestly, looking past the slogans.
The Palestinian territories are geographically fragmented, with no “natural” solution for solving this (tunnels? raised highways?). This essentially means that the West Bank and Gaza will develop independent policies for how to manage their unique circumstances. It is no accident that the territories are politically fragmented today, and this split will continue in the political arena, even during peacetime.
The population of Gaza is not self-sufficient. The Palestinian economy simply cannot absorb such an excess of labor. That means either immigration, or asking Israel to soak that labor pool (as the only nearby actor able to do so), as it did before the Second Intifada.
While in the West Bank the population density is far smaller, and it has potential to develop economically much more than Gaza, we need to look at the relative economic size of the Palestinian economy. The Israeli economy is approaching $200 Billion. The Palestinian economy is stagnating at $4 Billion.
What this means is that a majority of any capital the Palestinians raise to finance new business will come from Israel (and this is the case today). In other words, let’s say the Palestinians want to open a new chain of restaurants. Where will they get the money to finance this? Israeli investors will be the closest, and most able to ascertain risk, and thus most likely to invest in successful new ventures. Israeli companies will simply buy up much smaller Palestinian competitors.
What I’m trying to say is, the Palestinians will essentially be dependent and subservient to Israeli economic interests, just as they are today. As is the case today, The WB/Gaza will always be a captive market for Israeli goods.
Next, let’s look at foreign policy. To have an relevant foreign policy, a nation needs to exert influence. We just said that the Palestinians will essentially be a subset of the Israeli economy, and thus will not be able to exert economic influence. What’s left? Military influence.
The military is an important component of nationhood and, at times, foreign policy. However, in the case of the Palestinians, let’s look at the region. Gaza is surrounded by Israeli population centers or the deserts of Egypt. The West Bank is surrounded by Israeli population centers, or the deserts of Jordan. If the Palestinians develop a military, where will this military be pointed? Regional competitors to Israel will be deterred by the IDF. So what role will a Palestinian military serve? Who will this military fight? The only logical answer is Israel. There is no one else to fight because there is no one else there.
With limited economic influence, and no military influence, the Palestinians will be left with little political power with which to influence their surroundings. After all, if they have no economic power, or military power, they have no political power.
The bottom line is, a two state solution reduces the Palestinians to what they are now – a subset of the Israeli economy, subservient to Israeli interests and incapable of projecting power. The Palestinians will be a nation in name only, stripped of the essential rights of nationhood to direct their own affairs, and exert influence abroad.
This is the reality, and it is not a pleasant one for a people who have aspirations to self-determination.
I basically never comment here. I usually have nothing to add and too much to learn to bother commenting.
But reading Victor’s last comment, I have to wonder if you have any familiarity with so-called “Third World” countries. Minus the geographic fragmentation, which certainly is an issue, your insurmountable barriers to self-determination describe the political, military and economic situation of most developing countries. Perhaps you think I exaggerate. I assure you, I do not. Economic dependence? Mass out-migration of labor? Rising political instability when that migration is blocked? Reliance on foreigners for investment/access to credit? Dependence on richer countries for most consumer goods? Militaries in search of wars to fight? Intense regional divisions that threaten the political stability of the country? All of that describes most countries in the world today. But I expect you will find very few of them where the citizens wish to give away their sovereignty because they have not met what you seem to consider the pre-conditions to be worthy of self-determination.
“I believe a two state solution will not meet the desire for self-determination that the Palestinians.”
I now it wouldn’t meet your desire to continue this conquest over Palestine.
First, the success rate, or economic viability rate of third world countries is tragically extremely low. Compounding that, a Palestinian state would pose unique problems that other third world countries do not. A developing country, especially one that does not have an abundance of a valuable natural resource (i.e. oil–or the thing that allowed other middle east states to have even the opportunity to develop) must rely on its neighbors for stability. I have a feeling that a Palestinian state may outright reject any help from Israel (remember what happened after the gush katif evacuation? The Palestinians destroyed viable agriculture and greenhouses left there by the Jews). That poses a great problem.
Another problem is that developing countries are the most volatile places in the world. The problem here is that the volatility will have horrible consequences for Israel, which would probably bear the brunt of everything that goes wrong in the new state, and would be the target of the anger of the people, which means more violence.
And if the ideology of the Palestinian leadership (hamas and hatred of Israel) does not change if they get a state, all the billions in aid that will be poured in will be funneled into terrorist activity and arms building. Furthermore, I can see how a Palestinian state may be propped up by other Arab countries (or at least it should, though I have doubts about this), but where do you think Iranian or Syrian or Saudi Arabian money will be spent? Especially considering that such money will keep the Palestinian leadership in these countries’ back pockets? I don’t think it will be spent on industry. Those countries’ best use of a Palestinian state would be for it to keep attacking and destabilizing Israel.
In order for a Palestinian state to have any hope whatsoever of working, a confluence of forces and unification of objectives never before seen in the history of developing countries would have to come together: The US, the EU, other Arab countries, Israel, the Palestinian leadership, the Palestinian people. The odds are not good.
My point wasn’t “Wouldn’t it be great is the future Palestine was the worst basket case of a country this world has ever seen?” My point was “But their economy is only worth $4 billion a year!” is a pretty weak argument for justifying an ongoing occupation.
Noah,
You are right, there are many terrible potential scenarios. What I wrote describes essentially the best possible situation, in which the Palestinians will develop completely peacefully, but utterly and irreconcilably in Israel’s shadow.
Em,
What I tried to do with my last comment was to strip away the delusions some people have about what a Palestinian state will look like. So far, I don’t believe someone has actually questioned my analysis.
You’re absolutely correct. I do not support keeping millions of people in a state of siege for another minute, much less indefinitely, and I have written about this elsewhere.
However, as a Jew, I need to think, honestly, about the kind of Palestinian state I will have for a neighbor. If we are talking about the creation of a Palestinian state that does not meet the self-determination aspirations of its people – and if it is dominated economically, military and politically by Israel, as it will naturally be, it won’t meet those aspirations – then what will be the consequence?
I wrote earlier that a Palestinian military could serve no logical purpose. Competitors of Israel will be deterred by the IDF, and the West Bank/Gaza has nowhere to direct military power except at open desert or Israeli population centers.
So, let’s say there is a Palestinian state, and it starts acquiring weapons, advanced weapons. Russian tanks, advanced anti-aircraft missiles, etc. As Jews living in Israel, knowing that the Palestinians can only possibly use those weapons against us, what are we to do?
Should we watch as an army is built? Should we wait while anti-aircraft batteries are deployed within range of the international airport in Tel Aviv? Let’s have this conversation now, before we commit ourselves to suicide.
What I am telling you, in no uncertain terms, is this. If the Palestinian people cannot achieve their goals of national aspiration, free of Israeli domination in all spheres of economic and political life, they will continue to resist, they will continue to fight, and they will do so violently, with advanced weapons, not home made rockets.
This is what we are seeing in Gaza today. The Palestinians could have begun to build their state in the territory of Gaza by now, to prove their credibility as a partner for peace and all that jazz. They would have received billions in contributions from abroad to do this. Instead, they’ve chosen resistance, they’ve chosen to fight, for the reasons I listed earlier.
Under a two state solution, Gaza will NEVER be self-sufficient. It massive pool of labor will NEVER be used up within Gaza, and must be soaked up by Israel, because there is no other economic power close enough to do it.
Under a two state solution, Gaza will NEVER have an army, because the only purpose for that army would be to fight Israel.
This is not the definition of self-determination, to be defenseless, economically dependent on a foreign power, and politically toothless. The leadership in Gaza understands this, which is why they have chosen to fight. To them, it is very clear that the two state solution equals one thing – Israeli domination, in one form or another.
The West Bank is facing fewer labor pressures, but there this scenario is played out just the same. The sheer size of the Israeli economy means that enormous capital flows from Israel are the only real way in which the West Bank economy can be jump started and sustained in growth, and that means long term Israeli domination of Palestinian economic life. In free, democratic societies, with money comes control.
I am not saying that Israel will do these things maliciously. No, this will not be anything like official state policy. It will be completely natural occurrence, based on individual decisions, guided by a simple strategic reality – the Palestinians are in a permanent geopolitical prison.
The only way to break out of this prison is to resist, to fight.
So again, I ask you, what is the point of Jews accepting a Palestinian state, if it will be but a prelude to continued war?
We need to move past Two State, and evaluate solutions with more promise.
“I have a feeling that a Palestinian state may outright reject any help from Israel (remember what happened after the gush katif evacuation? The Palestinians destroyed viable agriculture and greenhouses left there by the Jews). That poses a great problem.”
I remember the World Bank bought those greenhouses, and they were looted durring Sharon’s unilateral disengagement, which the Palestinian authority had hoped to prevent by mutually arranging an ordered transfer of control, but were flatly rejected by Israel, and hence inevitably lead chaos. I also recall how those greenhouses were repaired, but the tomatoes they produced mostly rot due to Israel’s blockade.
As for the two-state solution in general, industry could develop in the Sinai to employ Gazans, and a mutually agreeable exchange of land could arrange a connecting route to the West Bank as well. Then of course there is aways the option of continuing to make excuses and point fingers instead, which seems to be the preference of most here.
The Egyptians have 70 million people, with high rates of unemployment and much of that population just coming into the labor force now. Asking them to create work for 1.5 million Gazans is not feasible. If their industry has needs, it will use its indigenous labor pool. To find another economically viable area that can soak up Palestinian labor, you would have to go to the Gulf, which is what the Palestinians did for decades. But we’re talking massive migration – maybe 500,000 Gazans must leave, or more, for the territory of Gaza to be self-sustaining.
The only economic power within driving distance of Gaza that has labor needs is Israel. It is no accident that industrial zones were set up by Israel to employ Palestinian labor, and those zones have sat idle since the 2nd intifada. But then we’re back to the problem I described.
Show me a scenario where the Palestinians are not under Israel’s shadow, or show me a Palestinian who will accept such an outcome (which is essentially what we have today, just not formalized).
It was the situation before 1967, and we have to find a way to return to that situation.
Firstly, as part of an agreement, Gaza can be tripled by extending its borders southward into Sinai. Egypt can be compensated by some symbolic land in the Negev, and a highway/tunnel linking Egypt to the Gulf.
Even more, any agreement will presumably involve billions in international aid, to help build a Palestinian economy, separate from Israel–that should be our goal.
It might be politically incorrect to say on JewSchool, but let them have their country…and we can have our country. There actually was a time when “Jewish” labor was an ethos in Israel, before 1967. We can go back to having Jews do the jobs that we’ve brought in Palestinians to perform.
Egypt is currently too busy suppressing their population’s disgust over Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to fix their unemployment problem, but that can be resolved. Also note that Gaza has considerable natural gas deposits along it’s show, which would provide a considerable boost to Palestinian economy. Sovereignty along would do much to improve the standard of living of Palestinians, and yeah, the international community owes Palestinians much for allowing this conquest for so long, which can further improve their condition.
Kyleb-
The greenhouses, which brought in $200,000,000 annually to Israel and made up roughly %15 of Israel’s total agricultural exports, were looted by thousands of Palestinians. The whole procedure with the Economic Cooperation Foundation (of the EU), which bought the greenhouses (Wolfensohnm the president of the World Bank, donated half a million of his money) was to peaceably transfer them to the Palestinians (4000 of whom were employed by the Israeli farmers). The IDF left with the evacuation complete (as they should have) and then immediately, thousands of Palestinians looted the area and rendered over %20 of the greenhouses non-viable.
This is no one’s fault but the Palestinians. Don’t shift the blame. And I doubt the Palestinians see anything wrong with what happened. They wouldn’t talk about “fault” as much as “credit.” The episode is emblematic of something fundamental to the Palestinians: Do not accept anything Israel gives, it must be taken instead. There is good reason why Arafat would not accept 97%: it undermines everything the Palestinians work for, fight for, and believe in.
I will believe in a two-state solution, or even any solution at all, when I see a sea-change in the ideology of the Palestinian leadership and people. It is troubling that the two-state solution is peddled primarily by other nations, and not the Palestinians.
But Noah, you’re right that it was Arafat’s fault. Where does that leave us though? Time is not on our side.
It was the situation before 1967, and we have to find a way to return to that situation.
Before 1967 Jews were not allowed to pray in Jerusalem. We had constant Jordanian mortar fire on Israeli communities, snipers were picking off cars that traveled on roads near West Bank, fedayeen infiltrated from Gaza, Lebanon, West Bank and murdered families in their sleep. let’s make sure we don’t idealize how things used to be. Israel is more secure now than ever.
So far no one has actually challenged what I wrote – which is that the Palestinians will naturally be dominated by Israel, and will not accept this, resulting in further bloodshed but on a grander scale.
Shifting borders… when has Egypt ever said they will give up their land for a Palestinian state? Why should they? It’s a great tourist region for them, and is already populated. Because we say so? I think some people forget that normal nations don’t just give up territory left and right when others say “please”. Israel is the only nation in modern history that is actually considering giving up land (to a hostile population, no less).
I am not arguing for or against a Palestinian state. I am asking people to examine the situation in an honest way, regardless of ideology. If we want peace, we need to plan with pragmatism in mind.
Time is not on our side.
Can you explain?
Victor: “Show me a scenario where the Palestinians are not under Israel’s shadow.”
Me: “It was the situation before 1967, and we have to find a way to return to that situation.”
Victor: “Before 1967 Jews were not allowed to pray in Jerusalem. We had constant Jordanian mortar fire on Israeli communities, snipers were picking off cars that traveled on roads near West Bank, fedayeen infiltrated from Gaza, Lebanon, West Bank and murdered families in their sleep. let’s make sure we don’t idealize how things used to be. Israel is more secure now than ever.”
You’re jumping from one point to another, Victor. Israel is no doubt more secure now than it once was, from a strictly militaristic point of view.
But, what is strength?
Are we stronger morally because we’ve held millions of people under martial law for more than a generation?
Are we stronger for replacing an ethos of socialism and labor-by-Jews with a philosophy of using Palestinian day workers, who can be satiated with poverty-like wages?
Are we stronger now that so much of the population thinks that the country has been a failure, a philosophy that emerged strongly after the Lebanon War and the Intifada (both events connected to our indicision regarding the territories?)
Are we stronger now that dodging military service altogether is becoming the norm, instead of trying to get to Tzanchanim or Golani, which once was the case for most young men in many areas thirty years ago?
Are we stronger now that, for too many non-osbervant Israelis, Torah-life means only bushy-haired youngsters, brandishing weapons and taking hilltops, in contraveance to court orders, and then pummeling the police who are sent to remove them. It was only 40 years ago that the NRP and national-religous world were led by men like Yuseph Burg, who stressed things like education and “religious-“secular” cooperation–it’s hard to believe.
The list can go on…that’s not to say that all of these changes are simply because of the situation in the territories, but how can we ignore the changes in Israeli society today versus the situation before the rise of Gush Emunim?
“So far no one has actually challenged what I wrote – which is that the Palestinians will naturally be dominated by Israel, and will not accept this, resulting in further bloodshed but on a grander scale.”
A lot of posters keep talking about an independent Palestinian state, which will receive massive funding and economic cooperation from the EU. Why is this inconceivable?
“Shifting borders… when has Egypt ever said they will give up their land for a Palestinian state? Why should they? It’s a great tourist region for them, and is already populated. Because we say so? I think some people forget that normal nations don’t just give up territory left and right when others say “please”. Israel is the only nation in modern history that is actually considering giving up land (to a hostile population, no less).”
We can make it a red line that Egypt give up land for a Palestinian state. They would be reeimbursed from the highway/tunnel, that would give them an economic connection to the Gulf. Also, diplomatic pressure can be brought upon them, if ceding that land is framed as part of bringing about a Palestinian state. Is that area populated? Do you mean the southern part of Rafiah? Who else lives there?
“Time is not on our side.
Can you explain?”
If you look at the demographic realities inside of the state, the Heredi population is growing dramatically. Generally speaking, that community doesn’t care about whether the state of Israel makes it or not.
The settler community in the territories is growing expodentially as well. If we wait another generation it will be even that much harder to move them and, thus, partition the land.
The national-religous community, as a whole, is becoming more and more entrenched in the officer core of the army. We saw the widespread call for disobeying orders in August 2005. What will be when a majority of officers refuse to remove settlements?
Worst of all though, thanks to our policy of de facto annexation, the Arab community in Israel has grown from 13% in 1967 to 20% today–and that’s in consideration of the massive Soviet aliyah. We’ve done it to ourselves! We opened the borders after ’67, and turned our situation back to before ’48!
Don’t worry, though, Victor, it probably will end up being too late–and we’ll end up like the former Yugosvlavia or the former South Africa, but neither paradigm will last…and Hamas and the PLO will get their wish.
“So far no one has actually challenged what I wrote – which is that the Palestinians will naturally be dominated by Israel, and will not accept this, resulting in further bloodshed but on a grander scale.”
I challenge that economic domination by Israel necessarily means bloodshed would continue. Lots of countries suffer under serious economic domination by their neighbors, and it results in tension and resentment and the occasional riot, but in most cases, it doesn’t result in open warfare or constant terrorist attacks. Independent countries have more to lose than non-state actors.
I’m not saying it will work without intense commitment and financial investment from a lot of different parties or that the road will be easy or that it is impossible that nationalist sentiment will win out over the greater good. But I don’t look around the world and see any reason that economic domination must mean ongoing bloodshed.
” The IDF left with the evacuation complete (as they should have)…”
No, again, they should have mutually arranged an ordered transfer of control with the Palestinian Authority security forces, and not doing so enevatably resulted in the the chaos Sharon set them up for you to condemn them for with your stereotyping. As if lawlessness wouldn’t result in any society which had been under siege for decades suddenly lifted; no it’s just another reason to point our fingers a Palestinians and judge them as less than worthy of self-determination.
“There is good reason why Arafat would not accept 97%: it undermines everything the Palestinians work for, fight for, and believe in.”
Rather, there is no good reason to claim Barak’s so-called “generous offer” was anywhere close to 97%, only the devious one of flagrantly fudging the figures of what was effectively an offer to permanently log Israel’s boot up Palestine’s ass. Even if Arafat would have been corrupted enough to take it, he would have been assassinated directly after and the agreement wouldn’t be worth the paper it was written on. But of course one can always just ignore such facts to keep pointing the finger at anyone themselves.
“There is good reason why Arafat would not accept 97%: it undermines everything the Palestinians work for, fight for, and believe in.”
That Arafat left Camp David with a blanket refusal and incited the intifada with the flick of a switch is the most popular lie in American and Israeli Jewry. We even know who’s responsible and talk about it in this week’s news. Yet the lie persists.
KFJ–
my mistake. Won’t happen again.
The Palestinians rejected at Camp David a roughly 85% deal, while at Taba, the Israelis initially offered around 97%, but this was pulled off the table.
Why is everybody ignoring the Clinton Parameters, which stiputlated 94-96% of the West Bank, and compensatory land swaps….in 12/00 the Barak government accepted those parameters, but Arafat rejected.
The persistant farce is that Arafat, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who was dragged kicking and screaming to a peace summit, had no choice but to turn down all offers.
It’s amazing that we forget that, when the Camp David talks broke down, Arafat’s people weren’t mentioning borders or refugees but that the Temple Mount was the crux of the problem (recall that Arafat and his entire team refused to acknowledge that a Temple ever existed in Jerusalem.) Also, Arafat had no choice but to turn down all offers at Camp David–they argued–because Barak was not friendly enough….what a sham.
“Even if Arafat would have been corrupted enough to take it, he would have been assassinated directly after and the agreement wouldn’t be worth the paper it was written on.”
Then why the hell would we make any deal with Arafat or his successors?
The refusal to continue negotiating through the Oslo process was always Israel’s and history corroborates it. Despite Arafat’s turning down of any deals, it was Israel and not the PLO that refused to continue the negotiation process.
This is the half-truth, the lie. It’s how we maintain our innocence and point fingers. It’s cynical and it’s a sham.
So, again, you’re ignoring the events of July 2000-Jan. 2001, specifically the Barak government’s acceptance of the Clinton parameters and Arafat’s rejection in December 2000.
If that’s what you need to do in order to maintain the “everything is Israel’s fault” line, then so be it.
Justin, on the one hand you are worried about exploding Arab demographics. On the other you’re worried about exploding Jewish demographics. On the one hand you’re worried that observant Jews don’t care about the survival of the state. On the other hand you are worried that observant Jews have infiltrated the officer corps.
I understand that you feel you are between ten rocks and four hard places. It is in vogue today to be so laden with policy contradictions that you’re left confused and tied up in logic knots that create anger and resentment as your inability to function grows.
Take a breath.
You cannot solve everyone’s problems. If a family member is sick and you go to the hospital, do you visit every other sick person there? No, family obviously takes priority. You are a Jew, this is your family, and your first responsibility. You may not like your family, or some members of it, but it’s what you’ve got. I guarantee you that Hamas is not sitting there in their bunkers right now thinking how to make life easier for the Jews.
When you talk about forcibly evacuating Jewish settlements – transferring 500,000 people – that would be called “ethnic cleansing” in any other situation, but somehow we’re allowed to do it because it’s Jews doing it to Jews? There are still Gush Katif settlers living in trailers, three years after they were “evacuated”. And you want to uproot another 500,000 Jews?!
How is it that no one is proposing we uproot 500,000 Palestinians from the West Bank and drop them off in Jordan? How dare I even mention that, right? But doing this to Jews, that’s considered acceptable?
You talk about the army refusing orders… give me one good reason why they should?! What Jew, observant or secular, would want to participate in such a thing?! You want to put on the uniform of the Jewish state and expel Jews from their homes? Think about what you’re saying – ethnically cleansing 500,000 Jews from Judea and Samaria?! It may be one of the top 3 largest forced transfers of Jews in history, G-d forbid! You’re talking about civil war, Jonathan. If you want to rip Israel to pieces (the nation and the people), you will do exactly what Hamas and PLO want and try to take out those Jewish villages. They would love nothing better than a Jewish civil war.
I will not even discuss alternatives at this point. I want you to close your eyes and think about what you’re saying. It’s not a rhetorical gesture. You’re discussing wiping out Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria – 500,000 people. This is not a paper shuffling exercise. This is not a game. This is your family. I am asking you to close your eyes and think about it.
(Justin is another poster.)
“It is in vogue today to be so laden with policy contradictions that you’re left confused and tied up in logic knots that create anger and resentment as your inability to function grows.
Take a breath.”
Is that not just another way of saying that I’m stupid because I don’t agree with you?
You are correct that I am worried about exploding demographics of the groups (Arabs and Jews) who want to undermine this experiment of Jewish soverignty in the Land of Israel.
I wasn’t clear enough about my comments about Heredim. For that, I must apologize. I think that they are an invaluable part of the Jewish civilization, but the reality is that the political parties representing that community in Israel will make political deals based on who supports them financially. And, at the end of the day, they won’t care if the state crumbles. Because I think that we must partition the land, I am worried about their demographics and, hence, political power. After the petition, bezrat HaShem, I will rejoice in all of their births.
You are right also that I am worried about National-Religious Jews taking over the officers corps. We all know, btw, that there is a clear difference between the Heredim and National-Religious–are you trying to trick us?
“I guarantee you that Hamas is not sitting there in their bunkers right now thinking how to make life easier for the Jews”
That never occured to me.
“When you talk about forcibly evacuating Jewish settlements – transferring 500,000 people – that would be called “ethnic cleansing” in any other situation, but somehow we’re allowed to do it because it’s Jews doing it to Jews? There are still Gush Katif settlers living in trailers, three years after they were “evacuated”. And you want to uproot another 500,000 Jews?!”
I most certainly do want to see most, if not all, of the Jews ethnically cleansed from Judea and Samaria. We’re allowed to do it because part of Zionism is us taking our own destiny back into our own hands. We need to partition the land and make a clear separation between us and the Palestinians, in order to ensure the survival of the state of Israel.
I really don’t feel bad for most of the Gush Katif settlers. I had to listen to them daily, on the news, talk about how their rabbis were certain that HaShem would prevent the disengagement, and how they would never cooperate with the authorities. I had to watch some of their supporters place fake bombs in the Jerusalem bus station and close down traffic. I had to watch some of their supporters atttack Elazar Stern’s family at the Kotel…
Well, I don’t have a direct line with HaShem, and apparently neither did those Jews’ rabbis. Because, the disengagement did happen, and we all were lucky enough to watch some of those Jews leave their homes in Gush Katif with arms raised, calling soldiers Nazis (as if moving from one home to another in the Land of Israel is the same as getting gassed to death.) Maybe the Jewish in Judea and Samaria will actually cooperate with the authorities beforehand, so they won’t find themselves stuck in trailers.
“How is it that no one is proposing we uproot 500,000 Palestinians from the West Bank and drop them off in Jordan? How dare I even mention that, right? But doing this to Jews, that’s considered acceptable?”
Because if we expell the Arabs from the West Bank into the East Bank we will likely lose all military aid from the USA, and all trade relations with most of the world. How will we maintain our military and economy? Maybe HaShem will save us…then again those rabbis were pretty certain that HaShem would prevent the disengagement. And, even if we could get away with such a move diplomatically, the kingdom in Jordan would fall. We would be left, on our eastern border, with an enemy state from Jordan, through Iraq and to Iran in the Gulf. We’d be back in that precarious situation that existed before ’67. (It’s not an accident that so many MK’s supported the treaty with Jordan, btw.)
“You talk about the army refusing orders…give me one good reason why they should?!”
They/we should obey orders because we are part of the collective entity that is the state of Israel. If the freely elected government orders as such, we should obey. Almost all Heredi rabbis say that it is Halachically permissible to uproot settlements. Just to name a few others…Rav Ovadiah Yoseph, Rav Lichtenstein, and Rav Amital also agree..even Rav Aviner said that all Jews should leave their homes in Gaza once the police knocked on the door. It’s not a black-and-white moral issue like you’re trying to present.
“You’re talking about civil war, Jonathan”
Now the truth comes out Victor!!!! First, you asked us to present practical solutions, and when we present a plan you don’t like, you threaten civil war????? I THOUGHT WE ARE FAMILY????WHAT HAPPENED?????
We’re family as long as that means that the majority of our family is intimidated by a determined minority? Then we are family, but if the majority says to the minority that, we’re truly sorry, but the situation must change, then you threaten war?
What did Rav Lichtenstein say before the evacuation from Gaza: sometimes we need to cut off a foot in order to save the rest of the body (to paraphrase?)
Our sisters and brothers in Judea and Samaria, who were sent their by our government due to a mistaken policy, will need to move westward, in order to save what will remain of our body.
Unbelievable, WE’RE THE JEWISH FAMILY AS LONG AS THE SETTLERS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS GET THEIR WAY…OTHERWISE THEY WILL START A WAR AGAINST THE REST OF THEIR FAIMLY…Unbelievable.
“If that’s what you need to do in order to maintain the “everything is Israel’s fault” line, then so be it.”
Rather, excusing Israel’s refuse to respect Palestinians right to sovereignty in what little of their homeland they have yet to cede their right to regress talking in vagaries like percentages and creating illusions of credibility by citing shysters like Clinton. On the other hand, a glance of how the proposals lay out on a map demonstrate clearly that it is Israel who rejects a two-state solution:
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/IMG/arton8070.jpg
Ok, again, the events of December 2000 are undisputed.
Nobody involved in the negotiations, on any side–hell, Clinton presented his ideas publically–disputes that Clinton proposed negotiating parameters for a Palestinian state in all of Gaza, 94-96% of the West Bank, and a 1-3% land swap from “Israel proper.”
And, again, the Barak government accepted those parameters, and the PLO didn’t. These are undisputed facts…what are you trying to prove by presenting those maps?
If this is what you need to maintain the “everything is Israel’s fault line,” so be it.
I’m sorry, I meant Jonathan earlier, not Justin 🙂
You didn’t do it, did you Jonathan? What I asked?
At least you are honest about one thing – it is forced ethnic cleansing.
You think I am threatening civil war? You want to displace 500,000 people from their homes, their land, and then challenge them to smile about it? Maybe they should kiss you for your courage in tossing half a million lives around like chess pieces? And for what? To save the Jewish political experiment? The first rocket that is launched from Judea, the first sniper, the first bombing will reduce your theory for national survival to rubble. Say what you wish about Gush Katif, but they were right – the moment they left, the rockets stopped falling on Gush Katif and started falling on Sderot and Ashdod and now Beer Sheva.
The Jewish national experiment depends on our not merely holding Judea and Samaria, but thriving there. I’ve written about the futility of a two state solution in other comments, the long term threat to life on all sides that this idea presents, the inability of a Palestinian state in WB/Gaza to meet basic goals of national aspiration. My argument have not been refuted so much as wiped away, like sweat from the brow, as people continue to hope against hope, instead of planning to deal with reality.
Regarding the Palestinians, that you would even consider ethnically cleansing them is a frightening notion. I don’t support such a move. If I don’t support ethnically cleansing THEIR people, I most CERTAINLY won’t support doing it to our own. There is sufficient land for both people, and there exists a proposal for how we can annex Judea and Samaria peacefully, and integrate their populations without risking demographic war, as some choose to call it.
You see the ’67 borders as a panacea of legitimacy and stability. Let’s play a thought experiment. Tell me what will happen in the West Bank the minute what you wish to achieve will occur. Be honest – not about what you hope will happen, but what will occur with reasonable certainty. Given your knowledge of how the last 20 years of Intifadas, Oslos, Hamastans, concessions and negotiations have proceeded… tell me how you see the day after.
Again, the maps show what talking in vagaries like percentages and creating illusions of credibility by citing shysters like Clinton hides; the fact that Israel has constantly insisted Palestine’s only right to exist is under permanent subjugation to Israel.
Kyleb,
You didn’t dispute my comments in another post about how it is impossible for Palestinians to NOT be under Israel’s economic, military and political shadow. Your retort to this was – well, the Europeans will throw some money at us. Where do you think that money will be spent? The Palestinians produce very little, but consume large quantities of consumer goods produced in Israel or Egypt. International donations to a Palestinian state are no less than subsidizing Israeli and Egyptian consumer industries.
Instead of bemoaning the big bad Jews, why don’t you present us with a scenario by which the Palestinians will be free of Israeli “subjugation” – economic, military and political. I desperately wish to see this magic formula, which will have two people – one an economic, military and political power, the other weak in every similar respect – surrounded by oceans of desert, but thriving independent of one another.
I am not going to bother further explaining the details of what you deem impossible in your insistence on keeping all of Palestine under Jewish rule.
Victor-
Your being a little short sighted, no? The reason the Palestinians depend so much on Israel and Egypt is because 4 decades of occupation (especially the last 5 in Gaza) have destroyed all infrastructure and stability in their economy. They have NO economy at this point. Part of the intent of the occupation has been to make Palestinians dependent on Israel which makes the two-state solution much more difficult to achieve. The Palestinian populace in exile has many people trained in European institutions–military, business, educational, et al. Just like Israel had such an easy time building their state, relative to others, because of the amount of training in Europe people had, so too the Palestinians, given true freedom of movement and economic advancement, would be able to establish themselves better than you think.
“Again, the maps show what talking in vagaries like percentages and creating illusions of credibility by citing shysters like Clinton hides; the fact that Israel has constantly insisted Palestine’s only right to exist is under permanent subjugation to Israel.”
I invite everybody to look at the map from the Taba talks (on the right.) Recall, that the Palestinians would have been give some compensatory land inside “Israel proper.”
If that is a plan to keep the Palestinians under permanent subjugation then perhaps the whole two-state idea is futile.
Victor,
“You think I am threatening civil war?”
I can read English. But, it’s not just you, hundreds of thousands have been doing this for some time now.
“You want to displace 500,000 people from their homes, their land, and then challenge them to smile about it?”
I want them to protest, with all of their might, in the Kennesset and through civil disobedience. But, when the police come to the door, as Rav Aviner said, they should all get up and leave. And if they’re smart they’ll cooperate with the authorites this time and accept fair compensation–just like the Jews from Yamit did.
“To save the Jewish political experiment?”
It means more to me to try and build a society valued on justice and socialism, a society where maybe we can reconcile the
differences between “secular” and “religious”, a society where volunterism is valued, a society that can effectivley absorb Jewish immigrants from all over the world, a society at the cutting edge in scientific inovation, a society that is part of the revival of the Hebrew culture. That’s the kind of society I want to see–not one that spends so much material and human resources fighting over every rock in Judea and Samaria because certain people/rabbis are convinced that they know that HaShem is about to send the Moshiach, if only we hold onto these areas a bit longer. I don’t think that the situation in the territories is to blame for all of our shortcomings, but look at the direction the country was heading in the ’70’s versus today–there is a connection.
“The first rocket that is launched from Judea, the first sniper, the first bombing will reduce your theory for national survival to rubble. Say what you wish about Gush Katif, but they were right – the moment they left, the rockets stopped falling on Gush Katif and started falling on Sderot and Ashdod and now Beer Sheva.”
I think that the threat of turning us into the former Yugoslavia or the former South Africa is greater than the threat of sniper fire and/or bombings (God forbid.) If we have to deal with the latter, we will do it as a united society, defending a border that almost the entire Jewish world will recognize. And, history has shown how strong we are when we are certain in the path that we are taking (see ’67 and ’73.)
Gush Katif was wrong, btw. Let’s take a poll and see how many Israelis want to rebuild Gush Katif. How many Israelis want to place 9,000 Jews back in the midst of 1.3 million Arabs, in one of the most densley populated areas in the world. And those Jews again will be able to control 1/3 of the land and 1/3 of the water resources there. Unfortunately, they’ll be rockets falling out of Gaza for a while–we won’t have peace until they have peace. But, you don’t think some of the effectiveness in the latest invasion of Gaza was because the society was united behind the justness of the mission (I’m talking about Israel, not JewSchool?) Was it better when we had an entire infantry battalion gaurding Nitzarim?
“Regarding the Palestinians, that you would even consider ethnically cleansing them is a frightening notion. I don’t support such a move.”
I guess you’re a better person than me. What’s so shocking? Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in ’48.
“If I don’t support ethnically cleansing THEIR people, I most CERTAINLY won’t support doing it to our own”
Baruch HaShem you’re not in charge then.
“You see the ‘67 borders as a panacea of legitimacy and stability.”
When did I write that? I see a partition as the only way to set us back on course to trying to build an amazing society.
“Tell me what will happen in the West Bank the minute what you wish to achieve will occur. Be honest – not about what you hope will happen, but what will occur with reasonable certainty. Given your knowledge of how the last 20 years of Intifadas, Oslos, Hamastans, concessions and negotiations have proceeded… tell me how you see the day after.’
Unfortunately, I don’t see us having a real peace in any of our lifetimes–with or without Judea and Samaria. My question is: What type of Israel do you see? A society built on holding another people under martial law for another half-century? A society where, more and more, Torah means only holding onto every inch of certain land, at the expense of all other values? A society where Arabs are seen as indentured servants, there to work on our construction lines for next-to-nothing and to be good boys and girls if they don’t want problems? Is this a kidush HaShem?
I want us to go for the kind of society I talked about above. We can’t hold onto the territories and go that way.
My apologies to everybody for writing so much lately.
Jonathan, sorry, I have to clear up the Camp David myth here:
– Camp David ended July 25, 2000.
– The Intifada started Sept 29, 2000.
– Barak and Arafat met at Taba Jan 21 – 27, 2001.
– Ehud Barak postponed the following meeting with Arafat until after elections.
– Arik Sharon was elected in February on an anti-negotiations platform and never resumed the Oslo process.
The half-truth is that Arafat turned down Israel’s proposals. The other half is that Arafat continued to negotiate but Israel ended negotiations.
You’ll notice that most right-wing versions of the history omit Taba entirely and certainly leave out that it was Barak and then Sharon who put off and then canceled negotiations entirely.
Justin, (I got it right this time!)
Whether or not the decades of occupation have created co-dependency, it now exists. I can argue that the Palestinians never had an economy prior to Jewish emigration and the creation of Jewish industry. The situation at the time of Oslo – where massive industrial zones were created to soak up Palestinian labor – remains true twenty years later. Israel is the only economic power around whose orbit the Palestinians are spinning, and this won’t change.
By now, the imbalance in power is so great that any Palestinian growth will drive further Israeli growth, as I wrote about above – Israeli capital and industries will exploit Palestinian lower cost labor, high reward investments, etc. Any investments made in Palestine by EU/US/Arabs are likely to feed into Israeli economic growth – by spurring consumption on the Palestinian side. This should be seen as a positive overall – in my view, integration is the solution – but whether you want to divest of the Palestinians or embrace them, co-dependence is the reality.
One of my Palestinian friends is a felahe from a village near Ramallah. They grow many things in her village, but primarily olives and almonds. Massive quantities of almonds are not even collected from the trees and allowed to fall to the ground and rot.
I remember in the North of Israel there is a factory which produces marzipan, which is baked from almond paste and sugar. Israel is a major marzipan producer, apparently, and has excellent exports of the product to Europe. Do you know where that factory gets its almonds? Spain. By ship from Spain, when just ten minutes by truck from the West Bank will bring it all the almonds it could ever want, and higher quality sort!
Why are we doing this? Why are we purposefully trying to embrace division, when it is clear that the geographic reality makes it impossible for the two people to exist except together.
Is it the demographics? Are people worried about losing the Jewish state? Then let’s talk about that. If that’s the issue then we should focus on that and that exclusively.
KFJ, Arafat was leveraging Palestinian violence (which he orchestrated) into Israeli concessions. That’s not negotiation; that’s extortion.
What exactly is the Camp David myth, KFJ?
–The Camp David summit ended July 25, 2000. We know for a fact that Arafat and his team completely denied that a Temple ever existed in Jerusalem at that summit. It’s also a fact that Arafat’s teams argued, afterward, that the summit was a failure largely because they had not done the background research beforehand, and that Barak was not friendly enough to Arafat at the summit. And, most importantly, their arguments went, the summit failed specifically over the Temple Mount. We can look at any news reporting from that time to confirm this.
–The Intifada started Sept 29, 2000. Whether Arafat wanted the violence or not, we’ll never know, but our Nobel-Prize partner sure made a lot of speeches back then about continuing the violence and urging Palestinians to become martyrs.
–Barak resigned (leading to a runoff between Sharon and him) in early December 2000.
—And, again, you’re ignoring the fact the President Clinton presented his negotiating parameters soonafter. The Barak government accepted them, Arafat didn’t. We could argue that, had Arafat accepted them and the two sides closed a deal, Barak could have made his election a referendum on a deal. Conversly, we could argue that Arafat rejeted them because Barak was likely to lose the election and the Arab world was very hopeful about the President-Elect (remember those day?)We’ll never know what could have been because Arafat did not accept the Clinton parameters, and Barak did. This is an undisputed fact.
—Barak and Arafat met at Taba Jan 21 – 27, 2001. There, too, maybe Arafat should have pushed for a deal at the last minute. Maybe his reasons were sound not too. Maybe Barak was simply trying to hamper the new Israeli government by this point.
Point is, there is plenty of fault on both sides. But, the half-truth of JewSchool seems to be that Arafat is compelety innocent.
He wasn’t stupid, he knew that the election of Sharon would spell the end of the Oslo process. Why didn’t he accept the Clinton paramters then? Why did he suddenly start talking about what great ideas they were in December ’01, after Sharon was PM and it was too late.
Are we just refusing to accept that Araft didn’t want to be the one to sign on that dotted line?
(None of this matters so much about how to move forward admittaly.)
Jonathan, I’ve not said that Arafat was *innocent* at any point. I’ve made it plainly clear that Israel is the one who cut off negotations and who refused to resume them.
That is the fact of most importance.
As to Victor, as if Israel wasn’t leveraging the increased pace of settlement construction paired with its crackdown on the Intifada as leverage also.
As if everything Israel has done though this occupation hasn’t been to leverage Palestinians into ceding their rights to some extent or another, only varying in degree depending on who is in charge.
Now you’re justifying the murder of civilians?
How is this a progressive position?
Jonathan and I may have our differences, but I agree with him – it seems “blame Israel first, and blame Israel only” seems to be a powerful narrative here.
Don’t worry Victor, I seem to offend every single poster here at one point or another.
You offended me?
I’m outraged! Show me where! 🙂
I don’t know about others here, but I don’t take policy arguments personally. I spent two years trolling a major Pali/Arab Diaspora blog (although I would argue the trolls were the ones running the asylum). I am very familiar with the blame Israel game. What I can tell you, with certainty, is this – Arabs (at least all those I met through that blog and others) don’t discuss or debate policy. Their sole purpose is to vent anger and frustration at Israel, to propagandize and radicalize their own people, but you will NEVER see them actually engage each other in ideological debate.
There was a spectrum there from Islamists to Baathist fascists to Communist Internationalists. Not once in two years that I’ve been there did they critique each other! The only critique ever leveled at their own people was that of collaborator – a label applied to any Palestinian or Arab that was not actively resisting.
I am proud that our community is strong enough to have real policy debates, even though I wish we would keep closer to heart the glue that binds us inseparably together.
“Now you’re justifying the murder of civilians?”
Who in the world are you talking to there?
Why, did it hit home and you want to respond?
Victor, do you have a blog of your own?
“Why, did it hit home and you want to respond?”
It was way off the mark of anyone’s comments here, but being right under my post I assumed you had deluded yourself into thinking you were addressing me, which still seems to be the case.
So you love Israel because there are leftists there? How, ummm, inspiring…I guess…
The assertion that you’re standing with “Jeremiah and Ezekiel” against “the Hasmonean tyrants” is shallow and manichean. Have you even studied the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel?
You first claim that everyone is part of your family. But the truth is that the people who disagree with you “don’t deserve the name “Jewish.”” So they’re out.
So who’s in?
Jewandme, I don’t. Imagine that! 🙂
I used to be a blogger for anti-com.com, long since disbanded. It was a decently trafficked political commentary blog, written mostly by a bunch of Soviet immigrant Jews. Since then my passions have changed somewhat, so who knows, maybe if I find a good domain name… 😉
Eric,
Are you talking to one person or multiple? I think I’m the one who brought up the principle of Jewish family in this comment thread. I don’t think I ever suggested that those Jews who disagree with me, or with anyone else “don’t deserve the name ‘Jewish'”. That’s kind of a preposterous thing to say, and I reject it out of hand. My point was that we are one family, whether we like it or not, whether we agree or not, and there is nothing wrong with making sure our family is taken care of first, and that our family’s rights and interests – including the right to life – are the top priority. I guarantee you that no one else is making Jewish life a priority. That’s what family is for. That’s how families work – you don’t tell neighborhood thugs that your uncle keeps his front door unlocked, or turn your grandma in to the feds for growing some medicinal pot. No one is out. Jews don’t give up on each other. We’re all “in” together. We’re all going to survive together and thrive together.
Victor, I’m referring to KFJ’s post. On the one hand he belatedly says “this is our family, this is our community, this is our world.” But it’s obvious that he considers the people he disagrees with to be the moral equivalent of tyrants whom he obviously would never admit into his family. (By the way, KFJ, do you know anything about the Hasmoneans whom you hate???)
The post amounts to: “Israel is militaristic, nasty and selfish. But it has leftists, so I love it.” That’s really nice. But Austria has leftists too. KFJ loves Israel because there are people in Israel who hate its values and are trying to rework it according to leftist values. So as long as there’s a chance that Israel could eventually end up as a thoroughly leftist nation, and spare him the embarrassment of being linked to an identifiably Jewish non-leftist country, KFJ finds it (at least theoretically) lovable.
KFJ said in the post that there are things or people (on rereading I’m not sure which) that “don’t deserve the name “Jewish.”” OK — so whatever doesn’t fit into KFJ’s value system is now “not Jewish”. That’s convenient — one person’s moral thoughts are now the benchmark for what qualifies for Judaism itself.
Read the post and think about it. It is not about “loving Israel” — it’s about being relieved that there’s still a chance that Israel can be ‘salvaged’ and turned into something non-disgusting by KFJ’s lights. That’s not love.
Your last sentence reminds me of a story.
There was a farmer on the bank of a river, fishing. He snared a salmon and pulled it out of the water. “The King loves lox!” he said, and threw it in the bucket. “Oh, good,” sighed the salmon, “the King loves lox, he will free me!”
So the fisherman takes his bucket with the salmon to the gate of the King’s palace. The guards stop him and inspect the bucket, “What do you have there, fisherman?” He replies, “I have a salmon for the King!” “Oh, good,” they answer back, “the King loves lox!”, and take the bucket inside. “Did you hear that, fisherman,” thinks the salmon, “The King loves lox! I’m almost free!”
The guards take the salmon to the King’s chef. “Fantastic,” says the chef, “the King loves lox!” “I am so close to freedom,” rejoices the salmon, “the King loves lox!”
And as the poor, flailing salmon was thrown in the pot of boiling water, with its last dying breath it cried out, “King! You don’t love lox! You love yourself!”
Eric, you’re not far from the mark on reading my post, but you get it wrong in a couple crucial places. I’m not saying that I can define who is in and out of my family — but I can certainly argue that some members of my family are shaming the family name. They don’t deserve association with the goodness it embodies. I think that’s a fair statement to make that we could all agree on, our difference is of course what is the central “goodness” at stake and who has shamed it.
And the Israelis I admire are the ones committed to social justice — the betterment of Israel for all people. Many of these activists disagree with each other. But at least in some broad concept they agree that Israel needs to be fixed. I find that laudable. Inspiring. Even, yes, redeeming.
Your definition of love is overly simplistic also. Just to turn your vocabulary on it’s head, it’s totally possible to love my hypothetical uncle, even though he’s in jail for domestic abuse.
I’ll repost something I said above about the vapidity of the phrase “love of Israel” because I think it addresses the lack of a multidimensional relationship to Israel implicit in your comment:
[…] I thing the worst phrase is “love of Israel.” Which Israel: the land, the people, or the government? One can admire the system of government and hate the politicians also. Or love the people but hate their politics. Or love some Israelis and hate hate hate other Israelis. Personally, I think some of the land is awe-inspiring and some of it looks like a parking lot in San Diego. I know plenty of Americans who think the idea of Israel is awesome, but not awesome enough to move there…so what is “love” and what is “Israel”? I think that phrase leads to empty answers.