Derfner is a beloved leader of the Israel-Can-Do-No-Right propaganda brigade. By no means can this hack be construed as a “smart journalist”. His firing was long overdue!

I think Derfner makes a serious mistake in his post, namely, by confusing causal or psychological necessity with moral justification. He implies that Palestinian resistors are driven (again, causally) to attack civilians, because they cannot succeed in attacking Israeli military targets. Fair enough. That still does not justify terrorists targeting civilians. One wrong doesn’t justify another – that’s axiomatic of any morality.
It is a personally reasonable position that certain actions create the context for terrorism. It is said all the time, for example, that the invasion and resulting power vacuum in Iraq (and disinterest in Afghanistan) set the conditions for a terrorist insurgency. It is, in a (causal) way, our fault, and we should have known better. (We did, the Cowboy and Darth Vader didn’t.) But that doesn’t justify roadside bombs! I believe Derfner is being deliberately provocative. He got what he asked for, and employ of an opinion columnist is no matter for morality.
What’s ironic, of course, is that Israelis enraged by Derfner are bound to share his view that wrongs justify wrongs. And this shared view seems to me characteristic of IP conflict for as long as I’ve known about it.
And so the Liberal Zionist knows that if this error is Derfner’s, it’s not only Derfner’s. Because being able to point this out is really the whole point of being a Liberal Zionists, I don’t see how losing his voice is much of a loss.

The big problem with Derfner’s post is that he doesn’t distinguish between civilians, military and settlers. Granted, the structure of Israeli society and compulsory (Jewish) service makes that hard to do, but it still needs to be the moral line. If one believes that an illegitimate government should be overthrown, including by violent means if necessary (hardly a controversial position, though certainly one that can lead to some moral difficulties), then yes, Derfner is correct in saying that Palestinians have a right to engage in violent resistance to the occupation. I’m sorry that in his mea culpa he backs away from that position. Where he errs is in not distinguishing between legitimate targets (such as military installations and soldiers) and illegitimate targets (such as Israeli civilians inside the green line). Settlers, as a major engine of the occupation though not military personnel, are a trickier question.

Hi Chorus of the Apes,
I am not trying to attack you here, I am just trying to understand your position. Would you say that when a Palestinian man killed the Fogel family, including slitting the throat of their 3 month old daughter, that it was a morally tricky scenario as they were living in the settlement of Itamar?

The big problem with Derfner’s post is that he doesn’t distinguish between civilians, military and settlers.
Isn’t the problem that Derfner wrote his true opinion, but then showed no backbone in issuing an “apology” soon after.
What was he apologizing for? He “accidentally” wrote his own opinion?
If he was going to get fired anyway, he should have stuck to his guns, no pun intended.
Ehud Barak said the same thing as Derfner more than a decade ago, btw.

Avraham –
Although it’s clear that children are civilians, it’s not at all clear that adult settlers are civilians. I saw this morning and thought of it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/world/middleeast/31israel.html
It’s nice to be clear on your moral positions. But the world makes their application “tricky”. Excuse me, then. Maybe your question wasn’t rhetorical, but your understanding of COA was uncharitable.
Everybody wants condemnation of Derfner. But his game is to be as provocative as his opponents. He doesn’t have the non-evaluative facts wrong, namely, that Israel’s behavior provides the causal antecedents for terror. That doesn’t change the fact that everyone has a choice, of course. But from a policy point of view, individual moral choices are sometimes irrelevant – one should govern on prudence and principle, not just principle.

Dan O.,
The fact that settlers some settlers are armed or trained to defend their families, does not remove their status as civilians.
“Israel’s behavior provides the causal antecedents for terror” I think this sentence sums up a huge point of contention. Many would argue that Israel’s existence provides tha causal antecedents for terror. The official PA map of Palestine includes Tel-Aviv, Haifa, and everything else that is now Israel. The Hamas charter does not state its goal is to liberate Gaza and the West Bank. And Unilaterally pulling out of Gaza and South Lebanon did not bring Peace from those areas.

@Jonathan1
The way you put it, our disagreement is merely philosophical. You use ‘justification’ differently (I think, oddly). But I think we largely disagree about rhetoric, and I just don’t think Derfner’s works.
BTW, not all moral realism is based on “natural law” or individual transcendence.

I do think Ehud Barak was justifying Palestinian groups’ actions. He was saying that of course the Palestinians are going to shoot missles at us from their prison-camp in Gaza. It’s justified, and we’d do the same thing in their place.
J1, I mostly agree with you, but I would give a slightly different description. I would say that, yes, Barak was saying “I’d do the same thing in their place”–but, he wasn’t saying “Their actions are justified.” That is, he is operating from a position of moral relativism: he is saying, “If I were in that situation, I’d do the same thing and call it justified freedom fighting–but since it isn’t me in that situation, but rather ‘them,’ then I will call it unjustified terrorism.” (In contrast, a more universal sense of right and wrong would say, “If I were to call an action justified for me to do, then I should also call it justified for you to do. If I were to call an action unjustified for you to do, then I should also call it unjustified for me to do.”)
It seems like many Zionists (along with many human beings generally) are operating from the same sort of moral relativism–viewing their own violence as ‘justified’ but the “other group’s” violence as unjustified, largely on the basis of the identity of the person doing it. While this sort of process is common to lots of people in lots of groups, the explicit addition of an ideology of romantic ethno-nationalism tends to exacerbate it.
And I think that Defner’s main point was to call out and critique the moral one-sidedness of many Israelis. That is, I don’t think his main point was to say that violence against Israeli civilians is ‘morally justified’–rather, he was saying that violence against Israeli civilians is JUST AS justified as violence against Palestinian civilians as carried out via the Occupation. So those who condemn the former need to condemn the latter just as much–and if people gloss over the latter, then they are implicitly lending justification to the former. And, if they condemn the former without equally condemning the latter (which is strongly intertwined with the former in terms of cause/effect and stimulus/response), then they are basically implying that the Occupation is not so bad.
His point was not ultimately about justifying violence, but about honesty and equality in moral judgments. And yes, I agree that he should have stuck to his guns rather than backing down by ‘apologizing’–if he did want to clarify what he said, he could have done so while still pressing his basic point.

Thanks to Avraham for linking the original article.
On my initial reading of Derfner’s article, I wouldn’t have said I was necessarily in agreement with him (it honestly does sound like he’s excusing terrorism and the death of civilians as, if not necessary, then acceptable), but his “apology” (I’ll explain the scarequotes in a minute) clarified what he meant beautifully, and I can definitely say I’m in full support of his stance.
I think he’s saying what needs to be said. And yes, it hurts. It’s harsh, and he doesn’t try to soften the blow. I don’t think his take is necessarily the entirety of the situation, since I don’t believe in a single objective truth (especially when we’re talking about situations like the Israel-Palestine conflict, where so many different lived experiences are at play), but I respect him and I agree with him.
What’s really making me curl my lip is that he was fired for this, and felt pressure (presumably) to apologize for his column. There’s nothing to apologize for! Whether or not someone was in agreement with Derfner, he did absolutely nothing wrong. It’s an op-ed. How can someone be fired for what they write in an op-ed, short of being actually offensive (along the lines of racism, sexism, etc)? It’s bizarre and disappointing that the Post would do this.

Jew Guevara,
Is this the scenario you are envisioning: The Palestinians have military and economic parity with Israel, Israel is now more afraid of the Palestinians and therefore relinquishes all control of the west bank and East Jerusalem and allows for a limited right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel and the the two countries live side-by-side peacefully?

In contrast, a more universal sense of right and wrong would say, “If I were to call an action justified for me to do, then I should also call it justified for you to do. If I were to call an action unjustified for you to do, then I should also call it unjustified for me to do.”
I’m surprised that there is even a debate about that Barak quote–I think it was in a Gideon Levy piece.
Barak didn’t say (if I remember) that he condemns Palestinian terror but he can understand why Palestinians would go down that dark road.
What he said was that had he been a Palestinian young man he too would have joined one of these groups. And he made that statement during an election campaign in which he ran on a platform of coming to a treaty with the Palestians. Plus, Barak is not exactly a stupid man, whatever his foibles.
So I do take issue with the stream of thought here that Israelis, or Zionists, can’t understand justice in the sense that Ben Azzai is presenting things. (Although we can’t really prove it without going to Ehud Barak for clarification.)
I understand it, Derfner understands it, Barak understood it, IMO, as do plenty of other Israelis.
Still, none of this really solves any of our problems. We’re just going to keep on trying to ruin each others lives for another century, the way things around going.

Jew Guevera,
And what is to be done about the barrage of rockets falling on Southern Israel?

So I do take issue with the stream of thought here that Israelis, or Zionists, can’t understand justice in the sense that Ben Azzai is presenting things. (Although we can’t really prove it without going to Ehud Barak for clarification.)
I understand it, Derfner understands it, Barak understood it, IMO, as do plenty of other Israelis.
J1–OK, to clarify, what I meant is the following. I’m sure that Barak does understand this at some level, as indicated by his statement. Barak said that had he been a Palestinian young man he too would have joined one of these groups. This indicates some level of putting himself in their position, and could imply that on some level he views their violence as justified–i.e. if you would also do something, that lends a certain type of justification to the idea.
However, there is still a gap: even though he can ‘understand’ Palestinian violence on one level, he still ‘favors’ Israeli violence on a practical level. That is, he does not treat them equally: he ‘understands’ Palestinian violence, but then in practice condemns it with words and bullets. However, he does not condemn/try to stop Israeli violence to the same degree, either in words or in practice.
So, there is an inequality of moral judgment involved, and this is what Derfner was trying to get at. And, his point was that this is not something that ‘plenty of Israelis’ understand. He could be wrong about that, but that was his claim, not mine.
I should also note that I’m not trying to justify any kind of violence–just saying that one’s approach to any moral judgment should be fair and honest, rather than biased and unequal. (See, for instance, Deuteronomy 1:16-17.) And so what’s good (or bad) for the violent goose is good (or bad) for the violent gander.

@ben azzai
Ok. I see your point. And I suppose I’d put myself in the Barak camp on this, which leaves me morally inconsistent, per your definition.
Also, you are correct that Derfner is saying that most Israelis don’t get Barak’s point.
(As a side note, people don’t want to see this, but Hamas does have its own morality as well–it doesn’t target hospitals, or schools, or synagogues.)
In any case, I think rb’s point is that instead of trying to figure out ways to extract ourselves from the mess in which we’re stuck . . . people are trying to get Larry Derfner fired from his job.
Maybe it’s because none of us have a great answer to that problem.

@Avraham.
They don’t target school buses though. They target public buses, under the argument that Israelis who ride public buses also serve in the military as reservists.
You can argue that there is no moral difference there.
I’m just pointing out that Hamas does have a certain moral code by which they operate. Whether that code is good or evil in another question.

I mean, I’m not exactly a Hamas expert. I guess targeting publicly buses at hours when school children are more likely to be riding those buses does fit within the Hamas moral code.
My point was/is that Hamas does operate by a certain morality–they don’t target hospitals or synagogues or schools.
I’m not sure what you are getting at with this anyway.
Maybe this is Larry Derfner’s point: because you are presumptively a Zionist, and because Hamas is an organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction, then Hamas is prima facie evil and it operates with no sense of morality?
I don’t know. Ultimately, IMO only HaShem (and Dan O.?) can decide what is truly right and wrong, and Hamas does have values, even if those values sometimes contradict our own.
Derfner isn’t really offering a way out of this mess though. Neither are any of us, btw. We’re just distracting ourselves from the real problem, because it’s too much.

@Jonathan1
I think moral facts (yes, objective ones) depend on interpersonal ethical discourse of the sort we’re having here. I understand that you disagree, but there’s no reason to mock.

well would you like him to forfeit his subjective reality as an israeli and live accordingto the standards that objectivity would dictate?
I don’t know about ‘objectivity’ per se, but some form of ‘impartial moral judgment’ does seem to be what Deuteronomy 1:16-17 is calling for. Likewise, Hillel’s dictum of “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow” would seem to demand a different mode of acting than one tends to find.
Now, it may very well be the case that one can’t hold by those teachings and sustain a modern ethno-state at the same time. But that may be part of the problem with modern Zionism, in that it places the one-sided political interests of one ‘national group’ as the highest moral priority, and other things (such as equal consideration of what is hateful to one’s fellow) must take a back seat. In contrast, earlier rabbinic Judaism placed the highest moral priority not in the particular interests of one’s group, but in the interest of the God of the universe. So that could be one big difference.
So, yes, if Barak were to adhere to “Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. You shall not respect persons in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of any man; for the judgment is God’s” or to “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow”, then he would probably have to resign from his current Israeli government position. Those ‘outdated’ dictums would not allow for a ‘realistic’ modern military policy. But this in itself may point to the idolatry of contemporary nationalism.

Well, in any case, Derfner’s may point remains eminently practical. He wrote: But if everybody, not only the Right but the Left, too, is saying that B, the Palestinians, don’t have the right to hurt A, the Israelis, then the logical mind concludes that Israel must not be hurting the Palestinians after all, the occupation must not be so bad, the occupation must not be hurting the Palestinians at all – because if it was, they would have the right to hurt us back, and everybody agrees that they don’t. So when they shoot at us or fire rockets at us, it’s completely unprovoked, which gives us the right, the duty, to bash them and bash them until they stop – and anybody who tries to deny us that right doesn’t have a leg to stand on, so we’re just going to keep right on bashing them. And when the Palestinians complain about the occupation, we Israelis can honestly say we don’t know what they’re talking about.
This, I’m convinced, is how the Left’s ritual condemnations of terror are translated in the Israeli public’s mind – as justification for the occupation and an iron-fist military policy.
In other words, if you see Palestinians as responding ‘irrationally’ or ‘simply out of hatred’, then you are going to think that a certain practical response is called for. In contrast, if you acknowledge that the violence of Palestinian response may mirror the violence of the occupation, you will likely think that a different sort of practical response is called for. So when people operate from a biased moral framework, they will be unable to assess the actual situation properly–they ignore the violence that they themselves do, and only see the violence that the ‘others’ do. And then they’ll think of their own violent response as ‘fully justified’, and so on, and so on, and the bodies of all colors and creeds pile higher.
So, far from being the case that “these hyper intellectuo understandings of things…don’t help a damn on the ground”, an honest moral assessment, freed from personal-group biases, is crucial for assessing the situation ‘on the ground.’
But, if Jews/Israelis were to face up to the reality of their own unjustified violence, they wouldn’t be able to maintain the notion of the moral validity of a ‘Jewish state’ as easily. So if they do want to uphold the notion of a ‘Jewish state,’ they’ll be compelled to ignore their own violence and only point to that committed by the ‘others.’ A fun situation all around.

But, if Jews/Israelis were to face up to the reality of their own unjustified violence, they wouldn’t be able to maintain the notion of the moral validity of a ‘Jewish state’ as easily. So if they do want to uphold the notion of a ‘Jewish state,’ they’ll be compelled to ignore their own violence and only point to that committed by the ‘others.’ A fun situation all around.
@ben azzai
This is just the same ethnic cleansing debate all over again.
It’s your right to do so, but you consistently set up these ‘black and white’ moral choices, that the proverbial Zionist must make . . . and when that Zionist chooses wrongly, it’s further proof that support for a ‘Jewish state’ is reason to excuse any and all evil that any person associated with that state might commit, with no compunction for that support.
Obviously, we just see things differently.
(Like the Manson/Goetz question–under your understanding of Torah they are equally as guilty. Fair enough. I just disagree.)

FYI –
Derfner published a “Why I wrote it” piece on the forward:
http://israelleft.com/2011/09/01/my-op-ed-on-forward-website-why-i-wrote-it/
http://forward.com/articles/142222/
The Forward’s site is currently down. I assume it’s a coincidence.

Is there really no difference between the intentional killing of civilians and the unavoidable death of civilians in the process of attacking a combatant?
@Avraham.
You are correct that there is a difference, but would you disagree that the difference is only in gradation of intent–the effect ends up being the same to those injured as a result of this conflict.
Jonathan 1,
Sorry I didn’t see this comment earlier, but I think the point relates to the discussion between you and Ben-Azzai.
I would agree with you if Israel was firing at combatants in Gaza for fun, but context makes all the difference. In this case, the alternative to not attacking the combatants in Gaza is allowing a million Israeli’s to live in constant terror of rocket attacks and that prevent them from going about their daily lives. Israel’s first moral responsibility is to the security of its citizens. That being the case, Hamas is to blame for the tragic deaths and injuries of the civilians in Gaza.

Derfner’s point is that many Israelis reject the political realist position, and *do* want to have moral justification for their actions–however, rather than engaging in response #1, they instead opt for response #2, and thus get enmeshed in a distorted view of things, leading to actions that are neither moral nor realistic!
I agree with you that this is Derfner’s point, and I agree with Derfner on this point.
That’s where I think there is a bit of confusion in this stream: I am saying that instead of trying to figure out ways to end our mess with the Arabs, JPost readers are yelling about a Derfner column. They want to put their heads in the sand.
my sense is that one would either need to be a political-realist Zionist (rejecting a concern for morality, and basing everything on ‘expediency’), or one would need to reject political Zionism due to its structually egoistic element
Here is where I think it is indeed the ethnic cleansing debate again, or the foreign worker debate again . . . just wrapped in different packaging.
I’m not convinced that the structurally egoistic element of Zionism necessitates a rejection of concern for morality, and for basing everything on ‘expediency’. I stipulate that this (Zionism) is a non-orthodox (with a small O) stream of thought within the Jewish tradition.
(And I personally am more and more embracing post-Zionism, in the sense that I’m resigned that this carnation of Zionism is doomed to fail.) Still, I don’t accept the argument that Zionism necessarily leads to immorality. I assume ben azzai and others here do, though.

Dan O.,
I read your, link and I have heard this story. It is awful and tragic. I reiterate that this tragedy and the many like it are on Hamas’s shoulders for forcing Israel to come to the defense of it’s citizens in the south.
I find it frustrating that in a dialogue like this one, my views can be so easily be dismissed as “canned” or “hasbara” instead of being addressed. I’m sorry if you’ve heard it already, I have not heard a real response. I would hope that if we can’t agree, we can at least understand where each side is coming from.

Dan O.,
I’m afraid I don’t understand your point in this context, although I do appreciate your response. Are you saying that I am blaming the victims? I have made it clear that I do not blame the innocent Palestinians and that I consider their fate to be tragic, and that I believe they are victimized by Hamas who forces this conflict upon them.

I see a difference in Goetz in this version and Charles Manson. And I don’t think you do. It’s just a different way of viewing the world.
J1–no, I certainly see a difference between Goetz and Manson: I just don’t think either one counts as a good example of a mentsh. And, the difference between them doesn’t seem like it would make a great advertising campaign for the Israeli state: “Support us–we’re not as bad as Charles Manson!”
So, I’m fully prepared to admit that some immoral actions could be ‘less immoral’ than others–but that doesn’t still mean that they should be supported or approved.

Dan O.,
Thanks for your candor. Here is what I still do not understand: we both agree that Israel has a responsibility to its citizens in Southern Israel. If fighting Hamas in Gaza is not an appropriate response to rocket attacks because of the unavoidable civilian deaths that will follow, what is the appropriate Israeli response to rocket attacks?

Thanks for the kind words about my post. Dr. Abuelaish is an incredible individual (he has, since the time I wrote about this event, only stepped up his efforts at securing peaceful coexistence) and a model for all of us to emulate. But I wanted to note a different implication I think should be drawn from that post relevant to the way this thread has been progressing.
A few decades back, Alan David Freeman wrote a really great article* where he contrasted the “perpetrator perspective” from the “victim perspective” as approaches to anti-discrimination law. The perpetrator perspective tries to find wrong-doers (perpetrators of discrimination) and deter or punish them for their morally culpable actions. The victim perspective, by contrast, looks at how people are harmed by discrimination and seeks to remedy the malign effects. The difference can be seen as a moralist versus a pragmatic approach: the former can’t or won’t help victims unless their condition is traceable to a morally culpable offender, the latter doesn’t particularly care about identifying and shaming/punishing a “bad guy” in the course of trying to promote conditions where all stakeholders are accorded their just due. Indeed, it recognizes that sometimes injustice occurs even though there isn’t a party who is morally guilty.
Discussions of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are overwhelmingly made from within the perpetrator perspective frame. Each side tries to identify the other as the “bad guy” and their side as “innocent”, and end the discussion there. And from that vantage point, it does matter a great deal whether a given death of an innocent is intentional or not. We rightfully ascribe considerably more culpability to someone who deliberately kills an innocent than someone who does so accidentally (or even negligently/recklessly).
From the victim perspective, of course, that question matters much less. I wouldn’t say it has no weight — if someone shot me, I’d rather hear the shooter say “oops” than “gotcha!” — but it’s definitely a tertiary concern. From the perspective of what all stakeholders are owed in order to reach a fair and justice solution, it doesn’t really matter much how the victim died; nor does it particularly matter if there is a specific, discrete perpetrator whom we can point to and say “guilty”. The person is dead, and it is bad for innocent people to die; the world we are trying to build is one where that does not happen.
I’ve argued before that many Israeli and Palestinian actions that are often characterized as good or evil would be more productively analyzed from a framework of smart/stupid. There are lots of things one can do without it being necessarily morally culpable, that nonetheless are clearly practically bad options if the goal is to create a world where all are accorded their just due. The persistent impulse to analyze these decisions moralistically is a serious distraction; folks will far more aggressively defend themselves against the charge that they’re immoral than against the charge that they miscalculated.
The key advantage of the victim/perpetrator perspective frame is that it allows us to say that the deaths of Dr. Abuelaish’s children are bad things that we need to endeavor to avoid, without having to reach out and say “and here is the immoral perpetrator who killed them.” There are injustices in the world that result even when there are no cartoon villains cackling about bringing about misery and evil. Remedial actions from the victim’s perspective do not carry with them implicit or explicit condemnation of a perpetrator, making them far easier to instantiate. Holding onto the perpetrator perspective distracts us from the reality of the injustice done to Dr. Abuelaish’s family (which is not dependent on the existence of such a culpable perpetrator) and prevents folks from searching for alternative courses of conduct that actually make the lives of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians better.
In sum, then, what happened to Dr. Abuelaish’s family was grossly unjust. That it was grossly unjust does not necessarily mean Israel was a morally culpable wrongdoer. And that Israel may not be a morally culpable wrongdoer does not mean we (meaning all stakeholders) should endeavor to try their hardest to create a world in which such injustices don’t occur. The goal is to remedy the injustice, not find a villain.
* Legitimizing Racial Discrimination Through Antidiscrimination Law: A Critical Review of Supreme Court Doctrine, 62 Minn. L. Rev. 1049 (1978).

>“How many more of these “X was fired from her/his position at Important Newspaper after writing a column criticizing Netanyahu/settlers/terrorists/the flotilla/etc.” stories am I going to write? “
Uh, I dunno. Have you been writing alot of stories like this lately???
>“After all these years, we shouldn’t have to keep saying that just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they want civilians exploded, children shot, or puppies killed.”
Derfner didn’t say that he wants his readership to be murdered; just that he has no moral objection if they are.

Dan O.,
I am afraid we are just not speaking the same language. What you are saying is philosophically fine and good. But I still don’t understand what you expect,on a moral level, from Israeli decision makers when rockets are flying. Do you agree that they are in a moral dilemna?

@Avraham
“But I still don’t understand what you expect,on a moral level, from Israeli decision makers when rockets are flying.”
I don’t know. Mostly, I expect them to do a better job when rockets aren’t flying. They think the status quo is sustainable. They are idiots.

How about putting it this way?
ben azzai thinks that the original sin–as it were–was Zionism in this carnation.
I certainly see the persuasiveness of that argument.
I, however, think that Zionism in this carnation has much merit as a movement, and it has led to certain great accomplishments and might have produced many others. The original sin, as I see it, was the Arab rejection of a deal in 1947, which would have resulted in a Zionist state without a war and also in an independent Palestinian state.
But even if the original sin is this Zionism itself, the state was a fact after 1949, and much of the immorality Israel caused resulted from the fact that it was located amidst a very unhealthy reality in the greater Arab world–a damaged political system which led to the 1967 War.
To this I imagine b.a. would reply that even if the Arab world’s maladies led to the 1967 War, the situation over the Green Line would not appear as it is today were it not for Zionism in this carnation.
To that I reply that this Zionism is a movement with enough value to justify the situation over the Green Line for 1,2,or 5 years (as we first told the world and, even more, ourselves it would last.) And this Zionism’s justness might excuse all of the awful things we’ve done to each other over these decades–if there were an ending in sight.
But, because there is no ending in sight, I will agree that this Zionism is a failed venture.
Although I don’t think it was bound to fail, and b.a. does.

Again, I see a difference between Goetz and Charles Manson, and you do not.
J1, I had just stated that I *do* see a difference between them!
The original sin, as I see it, was the Arab rejection of a deal in 1947, which would have resulted in a Zionist state without a war and also in an independent Palestinian state.
I’m not seeking to establish a specific ‘original sin’, but I will say again that factors a, b, and c, which I stated above, and which preceded 1947, seem like significant elements to take into account.
But, because there is no ending in sight, I will agree that this Zionism is a failed venture.
Although I don’t think it was bound to fail, and b.a. does.
Again, I don’t know about ‘bound’ to fail, but the constitutive elements in political Zionism seem to make that pretty likely — quite apart from any ‘failings’ on the Arab side.
And this is one thing that I think has not been sufficiently discussed on this forum: Is an ethno-national state a good idea in itself? That is, a state which is not a state of all its citizens, and instead ‘belongs’ to a specific sub-group of its citizenry, such that remaining citizens are structurally relegated to second-class status?
To put it another way: would Jews in the US think it was a good thing if the US was transformed into such a state, and if Jews were included in the second-class status? I.e. if Jews were put in the position of current Palestinian citizens in the Israeli state?
My sense is that Jews in the US would *not* be happy about such a set-up, and in fact, it corresponds to the types of things that American Jews fought against in the US throughout the 20th century. So the support of the idea of a Jewish ethno-state seems somehow not fully thought out. If you want to support such a thing, fine, but then it seems you’d have a harder time saying why other ethno-nationalist groups (e.g. the BNP in the UK) are wrong.
Maybe one of the main editors of the site could do a post on this question?

If you do see that difference, then you can see that context matters–like how the Jews expelled Arabs from their homes in the context of an existential war is not a blanked Zionist acceptance of ethnic cleansing.
Sure, I would see a difference between those two things, as you’ve described them. However, the actual expelling that took place was not simply because ‘Jews felt that their lives were threatened’ — rather, it took place in a context that involved a specific group of Jews that held to a specific ethno-nationalist ideology that shaped the attitudes and decisions that went into the expulsion, and even more so went into the closely-related refusal to let people come back to their houses and homes.
So, I would return the question, as to whether you see a difference between (a) a situation in which people are expelled from the homes, simply because ‘there’s a war on’, but in which there is no ethno-nationalist ideology in play, and (b) a situation in which ‘there’s a war on’ but in additon to that there is a strong desire to establish an ethno-state in which Jews are the sovereign and dominant group.
Clearly the war part played an important role, but I think it’s misleading to portray it simply as ‘response to an existential threat’ without taking into account the specific ethno-ideology that was also strongly shaping actions.
And the fact that actions during the war were strongly shaped by ideology is strongly indicated by the fact that after the war, people weren’t allowed back to their houses — not primarily because they would be ‘dangerous’, but rather because they weren’t Jewish, and allowing them to return would undermine the desired ‘Jewish state’ set-up. That is, they may not have been an existential threat to the lives of Jews living in the state, but they did pose an ‘existential threat’ to the Jewish-dominatedness of the state.
Again, I really don’t think that this is that controversially — but it seems to me that you want to avoid or downplay the role that the political ideology played. Instead, it seems like you want to make a moral argument by pointing to ‘extenuating circumstances’, which doesn’t seem fully convincing. (But please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you.) I feel like an ‘honest Zionist’ would say: yes, we expelled, because we wanted a Jewish state — stam. But because this is clearly difficult to justify on moral grounds, a more ethically sensitive person would try to look for extenuating circumstances.
I feel that I am willing to acknowledge ‘extenuating circumstances’, as much as the historical evidence points to — but are you willing to acknowledge the role played by exclusivist-nationalist commitments?

b.a.
I’m a bit surprised at the claims you are making about my arguments, only for the reason that we went back and forth and back and forth about this in that famous stream.
However, the actual expelling that took place was not simply because ‘Jews felt that their lives were threatened’ — rather, it took place in a context that involved a specific group of Jews that held to a specific ethno-nationalist ideology that shaped the attitudes and decisions that went into the expulsion, and even more so went into the closely-related refusal to let people come back to their houses and homes.
I’ve never disputed this.
So, I would return the question, as to whether you see a difference between (a) a situation in which people are expelled from the homes, simply because ‘there’s a war on’, but in which there is no ethno-nationalist ideology in play, and (b) a situation in which ‘there’s a war on’ but in additon to that there is a strong desire to establish an ethno-state in which Jews are the sovereign and dominant group.
You are describing two different situations, so obviously I see a difference.
And the fact that actions during the war were strongly shaped by ideology is strongly indicated by the fact that after the war, people weren’t allowed back to their houses — not primarily because they would be ‘dangerous’, but rather because they weren’t Jewish, and allowing them to return would undermine the desired ‘Jewish state’ set-up. That is, they may not have been an existential threat to the lives of Jews living in the state, but they did pose an ‘existential threat’ to the Jewish-dominatedness of the state.
No, what I must have written ten times in that stream was that the Jewish community was facing an existential threat during 1947-1949, a threat thrust upon it even though the Jewish community was prepared to accept the Partition Plan . . . and during the course of that existential war, at some points which it was not clear that the Jewish community would survive, the Zionists took the opportunity to expand the borders from those in the 1947 Plan and to expel hundreds-of-thousands of Arabs in order to change the nature of that Zionist state.
but it seems to me that you want to avoid or downplay the role that the political ideology played
I can just turn around and say that you want to downplay the role played that Israel had an existential war thrust upon it.
I feel like an ‘honest Zionist’ would say: yes, we expelled, because we wanted a Jewish state — stam.
In my dishonest Zionism I can’t agree to this statement, because we really don’t know if any expulsions wouldn’t have occurred had an existential war not been thrust upon the Jewish community in 1947–we know for sure that expulsions on a material scale did not occur in 1967, when the entire Western world was on Israel’s side (that’s only a slight exaggeration.)
I’ll let you have the last word here, because it’s off rb’s point, but I invite you to go back and read that other stream, because you keep insisting that I am denying things that I am not denying.

So, at this point I think we aren’t actually having a conversation
J1, what makes you say this? I really do want to engage in open clarification of thought, so I apologize if something went off track.

FYI Gal Beckerman at the Forward just published a piece referencing a Jeff Barak (former editor at JPost) Op-Ed from this past Sunday:
http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/142349/
Barak’s thinking on the matter seems to reflect Jonathan1’s.
Leaving aside the best way to strategically engages the emerging totalitarian-minded Israeli right wing aside, I agree with the assessment.

@b.a.
I’m certainly happy to go back and forth on this again, but these exact things were discussed in the ethnic cleansing stream.
I wrote above that we all probably view ‘morality’ through some prism of how we’ve been influenced by both the Jewish tradition and Western thinking.
First of all, it seems like you are conflating ‘Torah’ with ‘morality’.
Notice I didn’t write “rabbinic tradition,” I wrote “Torah.”
If “Torah” to you means the rabbinic tradition, or if “Torah” was completed with the rabbinic tradition then, yes, you are correct that the terms are synonymous.
I happen to take the view (minority) that we entered a new era with Zionism and, what’s more, we entered a new era with the HasKala and the Reform Movement as well.
You’ve said that you embrace certain changes in the Jewish tradition–such as women involved in public prayer–but you reject Zionism’s validity.
Fine. But, is it not a stretch to say that Zionism is not Torah-based (even if its mistaken) when so many mitzvah-observant Jews and serious Jewish scholars see themselves as Zionists today?
What’s more, rabbinic Judaism itself was a stark deviation from what was “Torah” at one point.
While the conception of Torah in rabbinic Judaism may conflict with ‘Western moral intuition,’ it is nonetheless pretty clear (as far as I have seen)
It’s pretty clear, although not 100% clear. However, will you acknowledge that those rabbis lived in an era when the Jewish communities had no real practical choice but to allow their children to be trampled upon? And, in many cases the physical and spiritual heirs to those rabbis have embraced Zionism wholeheartedly? Is that embrace but a surrender to “Western military thinking?”
And most of the people in this forum, btw, have lived their entire lives in North America, an unprecedentedly comfortable home for Jews–that probably influences all of our perspectives on allowing are children to be trampled upon when it’s preventable, although it’s not necessarily an influence on “morality’s” nature.

Notice I didn’t write “rabbinic tradition,” I wrote “Torah.”
If “Torah” to you means the rabbinic tradition, or if “Torah” was completed with the rabbinic tradition then, yes, you are correct that the terms are synonymous.
I happen to take the view (minority) that we entered a new era with Zionism and, what’s more, we entered a new era with the HasKala and the Reform Movement as well.
J1, very clear and a helpful response. If you fully admit to the break from rabbinic Judaism, then your position is not inconsistent. Historically, there have been many different forms of things that have called themselves ‘Judaism’ or ‘Torah’. So, from a strictly neutral perspective, Karaism can also call itself ‘Torah’, as can Sabbateanism. In the latter case, they also said that we have ‘entered a new age’, and that it is now permissible to engage in previously forbidden sexual and dietary practices.
You are also right that early Reform Judaism presented its changes as the result of ‘entering a new age’, and they often presented this in quasi-messianic form. I am personally very uncomfortable with the justifying-rhetoric of ‘we have entered a new age.’ It is bound up with a form of historicism that has some major ethical problems. That is to say, it’s one thing to adopt changes in one’s practice (e.g. for ethical or practical reasons), but it’s something else entirely to do so on the grounds that ‘we have entered a new age.’ It’s not the change per se that’s the problem, but the messianism/historicism. My sense is that the current Reform movement doesn’t press the historicism quite as much, but it still might be something from which they still need to free themselves.
But, on those grounds, yes, you can also call Zionism ‘Torah’, not because of continuity with rabbinic Judaism, but anyone can call whatever they want Torah.
But, is it not a stretch to say that Zionism is not Torah-based (even if its mistaken) when so many mitzvah-observant Jews and serious Jewish scholars see themselves as Zionists today?
Here is where I disagree, however. I don’t think that the ‘voice of the many’ in this case is indicative of continuity. There were many ‘mitzvah-observant Jews and serious Jewish scholars’ who joined the Sabbatean messianic upheaval, for instance, and probably made the same argument then: if so many people support it, it must be in continuity with tradition!
As I said in my previous post, rabbinic Judaism, with its core text in the Talmud and other classical rabbinic texts, has a view of human life, linked with the notion of the image of God, which affirms the uniqueness of each life and the non-substitutability of one life for another. As such, it would prohibit the type of life-taking that is a necessary part of modern warfare, and of the violence that is necessary to gain/maintain control of a modern ethno-state. Zionism, by contrast, in stemming from European ethno-nationalism, had a different sense of the value of human life — while you shouldn’t just go around killing people randomly, it was good and proper both to kill and to die in defending the ‘fatherland.’ As this was translated into the Zionist movement, “Tov lamut [and: le-hamit] be-ad artzenu”. This takes a very different view of human life: human life to second priority to controlling the ‘fatherland.’ The individual is sacrificed for the sake of collective control of the state.
I should also note that Zionism, for the most part, saw itself as consciously rejecting the values of rabbinic Judaism. They (rightly) held that a group that stuck to those values would not be able to gain/maintain ethno-state sovereignty. (And, pretty much all of the pre-state Religious Zionists, although they supported the notion of going and settling on the Land, still held that it would be prohibited to gain state-control through the use of violence.)
So, I maintain that Zionism (as a modern ethno-nationalism) represents a sharp break in the value of individual life and in the notion of the image of God, along with a fundamental break in other core rabbinic concepts. If someone is cool with that, fine. But then let’s not pretend that we are basing ourselves in ‘rabbinic ethical concepts.’
Perhaps you are willing to admit this–as you say, you may be in the minority–but how many other people on the Jewschool forum would do so?

If you fully admit to the break from rabbinic Judaism, then your position is not inconsistent.
I would call it an extreme veering of course, as opposed to a break, because I do view the Torah as a living process.
So, from a strictly neutral perspective, Karaism can also call itself ‘Torah’
For sure, look we call rabbinic Judaism Torah because that is the movement that prevailed.
In the latter case, they also said that we have ‘entered a new age’, and that it is now permissible to engage in previously forbidden sexual and dietary practices.
Like homosexuality?
I am personally very uncomfortable with the justifying-rhetoric of ‘we have entered a new age.’
I hear where you are coming from, I just personally don’t know how to gauge where the ‘hand of God’ begins and ends, in our daily lives, if you see what I mean. Could we not say that Yochanan ben-Zakai took an arrogant approach as well?
But, on those grounds, yes, you can also call Zionism ‘Torah’, not because of continuity with rabbinic Judaism, but anyone can call whatever they want Torah.
Even if this carnation of Zionism is a false messiah, I would not classify this false messiah as ‘whatever we want can be Torah.’ If I were to walk down the street, rob an old lady, use the money to buy a cheeseburger, and then look for the nearest brothel, I could still call my lifestyle “Torah” but that would be far-fetched.
On the other hand, is not to say that Zionism, in any form, has nothing to do with Torah to ignore a millennium of Jewish history? Is it not to ignore the longing for Jerusalem weaved throughout our liturgy, or the Hagaddah story we recite on Pesach?
I agree that this carnation of Zionism might have been a mistake, but I wouldn’t qualify it as detached from our Jewish tradition.
if so many people support it, it must be in continuity with tradition!
I agree that quantity does not equal continuity. What I meant is that serious people have embraced modern Zionism, through a Torah lense. Whether that embrace is right or wrong only HaShem knows . . . my point is that this is a different reality than an ignorant person like me taking things from Western concepts of military norms and claiming that those concepts equate with Torah. So, Rav Aviner in Bet El is making decisions based on his understanding of Torah, he just might be wrong (or right.)
Zionism, by contrast, in stemming from European ethno-nationalism
Here, I do think you should conceded that Zionism also stems from our Jewish traditions. It might be a bastardization of those traditions, but it derives therefrom nonetheless.
I should also note that Zionism, for the most part, saw itself as consciously rejecting the values of rabbinic Judaism.
When you say Zionism I assume you are not starting with the followers of the Gaon of Vilna, but you mean the early secular Zionists. You are correct about their view, but do you deny that modern Zionism has been embraced by a certain segment of the ‘observant’ world–the ‘National Religious’ public which, even if they’ve veered from rabbinic Judaism in their embrace of Zionism, surely live a ‘rabbinic’ lifestyle in many regards?
Perhaps you are willing to admit this–as you say, you may be in the minority–but how many other people on the Jewschool forum would do so?
Does it seem like I’m smart enough to understand the thinking of people in this forum? People in this forum are interested in documenting the traumatic effects of Birthright trips on future federal judges and university professors, who take months, if not years to recover from their 10-day-brainwashing experience.

As a side note, I assume that you are very much against organ donations, as the world of rabbinic Judaism was very adamant about burying the body whole.
What’s changed? A dead body is still a dead body? Rabbinic ethics are still rabbinic ethics?

J1, you make a number of good points and raise multiple good questions. I do think that we’re largely in agreement, although there could still be same key points of difference. One repeating theme is “The rabbis of the Talmudic period seem to have made a number of drastic changes vis-a-vis their ‘previous tradition’ — so even if Zionism is a drastic change from what came before, isn’t this simply a matter of doing the same thing that the Talmudic rabbis did?” I.e. if rabbinic Judaism was itself a change from what came before, how can one critique Zionism simply for being a change from what came before? Let me set this aside and address some other issues, first, and then come back to it.
On the other hand, is not to say that Zionism, in any form, has nothing to do with Torah to ignore a millennium of Jewish history? Is it not to ignore the longing for Jerusalem weaved throughout our liturgy, or the Hagaddah story we recite on Pesach?
I agree that this carnation of Zionism might have been a mistake, but I wouldn’t qualify it as detached from our Jewish tradition.
Here is a key point, that I think is often overlooked. Yes, longing for Jerusalem plays a key role in the liturgy, the Haggadah, etc. However, the longing for restoration of the Temple and of political sovereignty was specifically conceived of as something that *God* should do, and *not* Israel. I do agree that once you remove this distinction of divine agency and human agency, then Zionism can easily appear to ‘flow from earlier Jewish tradition.’ But, I maintain that this distinction between divine and human agency is a key one in rabbinic thought, and moreover is found prominently in the Bible as well. It goes along with thinking that ‘God’s action, not our own human power, will redeem us’ means something real and practical — but this is an idea that may not seem ‘plausible’ in the modern mindset.
We can put it this way: in the liturgy and in the Haggadah, we say that God is coming to judge the nations, and that He should pour out his wrath on the nations. This may well sound violent, but a key element of it is that God is the one to do it, and not Israel. And the same applies to the type of violence necessary to gain/maintain ethno-political sovereignty — it is God’s task, and not Israel’s. And this position goes along with the placing infinte value on bodily human life. If these violent tasks were to fall to merely human power, this would undermine the rabbinic notion of the image of God.
When you say Zionism I assume you are not starting with the followers of the Gaon of Vilna, but you mean the early secular Zionists. You are correct about their view, but do you deny that modern Zionism has been embraced by a certain segment of the ‘observant’ world–the ‘National Religious’ public which, even if they’ve veered from rabbinic Judaism in their embrace of Zionism, surely live a ‘rabbinic’ lifestyle in many regards?
A key distinction of the followers of the Vilna Gaon is that, even if they had the notion of going to live in Eretz Yisrael, they never held that Israel should seek to establish a state through violent means. And the same goes for other religious ‘lovers of Zion.’ It was the secular (anti-rabbinic) Zionist who developed the idea that Jews themselves should seek by the force of their own hands to established a political nation-state. This idea (i.e. violence-endorsing political Zionism) did *not* stem from the religious tradition, and it is this that I’d call a sharp break that is not simply a ‘veering.’ Later on (particularly after the Holocaust), ‘religious’ groups may have embraced this political Zionism, but it’s rejection of the divine agency/human agency distinction, and its corresponding effects on the legitimacy of collective violence, mark a huge break.
What I meant is that serious people have embraced modern Zionism, through a Torah lense. Whether that embrace is right or wrong only HaShem knows
I strongly question the notion that ‘only HaShem knows’ in this regard. I agree with you that we can’t know whether this embrace is right or wrong. Fine. But I think most of those ‘serious’ people are not fully honest about the way in which modern Zionism does actually veer/break from previous tradition. You yourself may not care as much about discontinuity–i.e. you might still embrace modern Zionism while admitting that it is a major transformation–but I think most people, if they actually acknowledge the degree of transformation, would have a harder time saying, “Yes, I embrace this new way, even though it sharply breaks from previous conceptions.” So the fact that ‘observant’ Jews have embraced Zionism doesn’t necessarily indicate that much — I think they currently want to have their ‘we are traditional’ cake and eat their ‘yay for political Zionism’ too. They don’t seem to have made a fully honest assessment of the break/veering. Plus, I think there is been a major rupture in the ethical/theological sensibilities/understandings within contemporary Orthodox Judaism: they’ve swallowed the Zionist bacon without admitting /realizing the theological upheaval entailed. If you want to eat bacon, there may be good reasons for this, but you shouldn’t claim that it’s really made from soy.
Likewise, most liberal religious Jews, who like the idea of the image of God, and the idea of “if you destroy/save one life, you destroy/save an entire world” — would they be willing to say: we used to uphold the notion that a human being is in the image of God — but now we will consciously modify that, and say that the the ethno-state takes even higher priority. I think that, as a whole, Zionism has succceded among ‘religious’ Jews (of all varieties) in part because they haven’t fully looked at how sharp a break it is–I think a lot of people would *not* be so willing to veer so sharply from tradition if they had to do so with conscious knowledge.
Does this sound fair?

As a side note, I assume that you are very much against organ donations, as the world of rabbinic Judaism was very adamant about burying the body whole.
What’s changed? A dead body is still a dead body? Rabbinic ethics are still rabbinic ethics?
Actually, I do think that this is a significant issue, and that the traditional rabbinic opposition to body-desecration is tied up with the idea of the embodied human being as the image of God. And, it may be that the willingness to accept the idea of organ donations could be culturally connected, in a broad sense, to the willingness to sacrifice human bodies for the sake of an ethno-state.
But again, arguments can be made about this, and the main thing is that the relevant issues should be addressed and up front.

But, I maintain that this distinction between divine and human agency is a key one in rabbinic thought, and moreover is found prominently in the Bible as well.
Right, this isn’t some shocking statement. But earlier you had written that modern political Zionism fit the definition of “pick whatever you’d like and call it Torah.” That’s why I’m pointing out that modern political Zionism, even if it’s a false messiah, derives from Torah, even if it’s a huge mistake. It does not have the same standing as if I were to set fire to an elementary school and say “this is Torah.” Can you acknowledge the distinction?
Later on (particularly after the Holocaust), ‘religious’ groups may have embraced this political Zionism, but it’s rejection of the divine agency/human agency distinction, and its corresponding effects on the legitimacy of collective violence, mark a huge break.
Ok. What I would classify as a huge veering you would classify as a huge break. I see the difference, but I think it’s just a difference in our worldview.
I’m not sure why it matters so much that those original secular Zionists had an anti-rabbinical view at this point. There are thousands of men sitting in Religious Zionist yeshivot today, forgetting more Gemarah than you and I will ever learn, who embrace this carnation of Zionism. That’s a radical view, and they very well might be wrong. But they see themselves continuing the Jewish tradition.
But I think most of those ‘serious’ people are not fully honest about the way in which modern Zionism does actually veer/break from previous tradition.
You seem to be very passionate about this point, so I’ll take your word. You don’t think that “the first flowering of redemption” rings bells to people though?
I think that, as a whole, Zionism has succceded among ‘religious’ Jews (of all varieties) in part because they haven’t fully looked at how sharp a break it is–I think a lot of people would *not* be so willing to veer so sharply from tradition if they had to do so with conscious knowledge.
Does this sound fair?
I really can’t say if it’s fair or not. I can only speak for myself.

And again, my sense is that in the classical rabbinic tradition, one cannot kill a single innocent person even if you think that would save thousands of lives.
Fine. I don’t even know why I brought up that example.

And again, my sense is that in the classical rabbinic tradition, one cannot kill a single innocent person even if you think that would save thousands of lives.
Fine. I don’t even know why I brought up that example.
OK, but I do think this is a core issue. Perhaps you agree with my claim that this was part of previous rabbinic tradition, and you simply say that modern times require a break from this principle. That is fine. But again, it would be good to hear what others (who might say that previous tradition holds more weight) think about it as well.