That's the headline of the BBC. How did they die? Did they have heart attacks? Or the Ebola virus? Is there an outbreak of Ebola in Israel- otherwise why is this news?
Oh wait....this was part of a terrorist attack by Palestinians on Jews, and that's why its news. So, tell me again why it doesn't say 'killed'? Are terrorist attacks on Jews now considered natural causes?
As for the those murdered, BD'H.
Update: Yes, they've changed it now. I need to learn how to screen shot, etc.
Update: See HonestReporting for some more background. Heh, you thought I was just making it up, didn't you?
Showing posts with label israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label israel. Show all posts
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Thursday, 29 November 2007
A Necessary Precondition
There has been a lot of hullabaloo directed at Israeli PM Ehud Olmert's recent demand that any negotiations with the Palestinians be only on the basis of recognition that Israel is Jewish state. Some think that this demand is absolutely right, and others think it was a tactical mistake. A more 'extreme' position was that of PA negotiator Saeb Ekrat, who declared that no nation has ever linked religion to the state. Never mind that the offical PLO charter does, and that 'Jewish State' is more of an ethnic than religious statement.
I was honestly puzzled about who was right on this issue. It seems crystal clear that Israel is, in fact, a Jewish state. Aside from its own declaration of independence declaring such, both the British Mandate, as well as UN resolution 181 recognize it as such. At the same time, who cares what others may say? Israel needs to learn to stop begging everyone else to be let into the neighborhood, and realize that it has already moved in. Such a demand reeks of the pathetic self doubt that already stereotypes Jews. If you need a prime example of such a Jew, look no further than Woody Allen.
However, I think that Olmert was certainly right on this matter and not because he is bargaining now from a higher position, nor because he throws cogs into the wheels of negotiation. Rather, he is right because to assent to anything less would be to allow hypocrisy.
The stated goal of Israel, at least since Olmert took office, is the creation of a Palestinian state. Much as Gola Meir recognized, on the eve of partition in 1947, nationalism for the Jews (Zionism) requires an equal respect towards the nationalism of all other countries, specifically the Palestinians. I iterated this position to a member of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement two nights ago, and was shocked to hear her reply. I suppose I am still stuck in the 'liberals are liberal to all' misconception.
What did she say? She claimed that while it is true on the part of the Jews, it is not true on the part of the Palestinians. The Zionists must, a priori, recognize Palestinian nationalism, but Palestinian nationalist need not recognize Zionism. According to this individual, Jews are required to be universalists, whereas Palestinians are allowed to remain particularists. Holy double standard Batman!
What claims, exactly, do Palestinians have that supercede those of the Jews? That they were there first? Well, the Jews were there well before the Palestinians were. That the Jews were colonialists? And the Arab invaders who swept by the sword of Muhammed were not? That Palestinians, at one time, lived in the entire land? Well, so did the Jews. The Jews are not an easily definable people? And the Palestinians are?
Whatever claim one may make to highlight the supposed superiority of the Palestinian position can be met quid pro quo from the Jewish side. So what gives? Why is it that those who support Palestinian nationalism don't think that they need to support Jewish nationalism?
I think the answer can be found in what occurred during the recent Annapolis meetings. These meetings were set up to restart the peace process, and presumably an air of peace would be a necessary precondition for confidence and trust. But no such air was to be found.
Prior to the meeting, a Bahrainian MP demanded that the FM of Bahrain was his hands after shaking hands with Israeli FM Tzipi Livni.
As well, Saudi Prince Faisal snubbed Israeli leaders and refused to even shake their hands. As anyone who follows the links will note, the website reporting these are Arab, and thus not part of a 'Zionist conspiracy.' Tzipi was only able to set up a meeting with Jordan, who Israel already has full ties with.
Indeed,
Remind me again what the purpose of the peace process is?
However, this highlights the reasoning behind that Palestinian supporter in her claim that Palestinian nationalists need not support Zionism: an utter lack of respect of the other side.
The context of the Israeli 'demand' should be supported, not because Israeli desperately need to be recognize and affirmed, but because the principle foundation of peace- mutual recognition of each side- is non-negotiable.
Olmert has conceded such respect to the Palestinians, when he recognized the suffering that Israel has caused them. The Palestinians, and their supporters, need to do the same.
That is, except for the hypocrites.
I was honestly puzzled about who was right on this issue. It seems crystal clear that Israel is, in fact, a Jewish state. Aside from its own declaration of independence declaring such, both the British Mandate, as well as UN resolution 181 recognize it as such. At the same time, who cares what others may say? Israel needs to learn to stop begging everyone else to be let into the neighborhood, and realize that it has already moved in. Such a demand reeks of the pathetic self doubt that already stereotypes Jews. If you need a prime example of such a Jew, look no further than Woody Allen.
However, I think that Olmert was certainly right on this matter and not because he is bargaining now from a higher position, nor because he throws cogs into the wheels of negotiation. Rather, he is right because to assent to anything less would be to allow hypocrisy.
The stated goal of Israel, at least since Olmert took office, is the creation of a Palestinian state. Much as Gola Meir recognized, on the eve of partition in 1947, nationalism for the Jews (Zionism) requires an equal respect towards the nationalism of all other countries, specifically the Palestinians. I iterated this position to a member of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement two nights ago, and was shocked to hear her reply. I suppose I am still stuck in the 'liberals are liberal to all' misconception.
What did she say? She claimed that while it is true on the part of the Jews, it is not true on the part of the Palestinians. The Zionists must, a priori, recognize Palestinian nationalism, but Palestinian nationalist need not recognize Zionism. According to this individual, Jews are required to be universalists, whereas Palestinians are allowed to remain particularists. Holy double standard Batman!
What claims, exactly, do Palestinians have that supercede those of the Jews? That they were there first? Well, the Jews were there well before the Palestinians were. That the Jews were colonialists? And the Arab invaders who swept by the sword of Muhammed were not? That Palestinians, at one time, lived in the entire land? Well, so did the Jews. The Jews are not an easily definable people? And the Palestinians are?
Whatever claim one may make to highlight the supposed superiority of the Palestinian position can be met quid pro quo from the Jewish side. So what gives? Why is it that those who support Palestinian nationalism don't think that they need to support Jewish nationalism?
I think the answer can be found in what occurred during the recent Annapolis meetings. These meetings were set up to restart the peace process, and presumably an air of peace would be a necessary precondition for confidence and trust. But no such air was to be found.
Prior to the meeting, a Bahrainian MP demanded that the FM of Bahrain was his hands after shaking hands with Israeli FM Tzipi Livni.
"I meant Tzipi is dirty and Shaikh Khalid, who is clean, should purify his hands," said MP Nasser Al Fadhala in a statement."
As well, Saudi Prince Faisal snubbed Israeli leaders and refused to even shake their hands. As anyone who follows the links will note, the website reporting these are Arab, and thus not part of a 'Zionist conspiracy.' Tzipi was only able to set up a meeting with Jordan, who Israel already has full ties with.
Indeed,
On his part, Frans Timmermans, the Dutch Minister for European Affairs, said Livni told Arab foreign ministers to stop treating her as a pariah. "They shun her like she is Count Dracula's younger sister," he was quoted as saying.
Remind me again what the purpose of the peace process is?
However, this highlights the reasoning behind that Palestinian supporter in her claim that Palestinian nationalists need not support Zionism: an utter lack of respect of the other side.
The context of the Israeli 'demand' should be supported, not because Israeli desperately need to be recognize and affirmed, but because the principle foundation of peace- mutual recognition of each side- is non-negotiable.
Olmert has conceded such respect to the Palestinians, when he recognized the suffering that Israel has caused them. The Palestinians, and their supporters, need to do the same.
That is, except for the hypocrites.
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
Should I support the settlers?
This question has been bothering me for quite some time. Let's just lay some groundwork for my frame of reference. Though I am religious, and a Zionist, I am not a religious Zionist, and therefore do not buy that a necessary step of redemption is settlement of the land. Is it possible that the State of Israel has relevance to the redemption? Yes- but not in the way that Religious Zionists have construed it.
What about international law? Well, here's where it becomes problematic. International consensus seems to be that the settlements are illegal. The law itself is not so clear. First of all, '67 would most likely be classified as a defensive law. As such, when Israel captured Judea and Samaria, its occupation thereof would be 'legal.' Perhaps a better word is legitimate. I'm still not clear how this affects the law. Those on the pro-settlement side tend to think that it validates it. Those against, obviously,think it does not.
But, there is a bigger point to be had. Can the 'Palestinian Territories' be properly considered occupied? Since the Arabs refused the Partition plan in 1947, how could it be operative now? In contract law, when one party refuses to comply, the contract is completely void. Although, this seems to bear problems for the legitimacy of Israel itself. It is further argued that since the Partition Plan failed, the British Mandate is still in effect. This either means that the land is completely up for grabs, or that it is slated for Israel. This reasoning sounds a bit dubious- Even Israel agreed to U.N. Resolution 242, (land for peace) and as such, it comes with the implication that Israel will have to give some, even if not all, land towards the Palestinians. (whether as a new state, or as part of Jordan, et al.)
These last two arguments seem to provide legal justification for the settlements. But, even when something is legal, doesn't mean it is moral, or even tactically sound.
A further argument can be made that we ought to support the settlements because of their locations in the heartlands of the previous Jewish state. Hebron, for example, was the original capital of Judah, and the second Temple state was located primarily in Judea. It only later conquered the North, etc. The question here is simple: does the current state of Israel need to acquire contiguity to the previous states? I think this question also has significant bearing on the nature of public religion in the modern state.
I think, at the end of the day, there are certainly two good reasons for 'supporting' the settlers. I put the supporting in quotes because the point is quite vague, and the ways in which I will extend my support aren't really that.
The first is simply that to be against the settlements is to pander to racism. Imagine that a peace deal were struck right now, giving the Palestinians all of Judea and Samaria. Do the Palestinians demand that the setters be evacuated? If so, that's when the true apartheid kicks in. Such a scenario would be likely. So, by evacuating the settlements, Israel would be encouraging apartheid, instead of the opposite. As such, allowing settlements mandates that the future Palestinian state (is it still gonna happen?i dont know anymore) would be morally 'on the level.' It would send the wrong message to the Palestinians to evacuate, as it would legitimize their racism.
However, such a consideration only mandates some settlements. To 'get the point across' Israel would not have to build anymore settlements. And, this would actually be a good thing. Assuming you don't buy into the whole 'Greater Israel' stuff, which, as I mentioned earlier I don't.
The second consideration is perhaps more cynical. In the eyes of public opinion, and in the eyes of foreign leaders, there is a balance to be struck between the competing interests of each party. The less the Israelis 'demand' the closer the pendulum swings towards the Palestinians. But the more radical demands Israel presents, the more the pendulum swings back towards the middle. But, Israel has, as would I, a problem with that- the Jews in Israel have consistently gone out of their way to tell the truth to their detriment.
When confronted by the British to determine who should take control of the Wall, the Jews argued that it belongs to G-d. The Arabs, on the other hand, staked full claim on it. Guess who won?
So, by having a faction that demands all of Israel, that becomes the radical sentiment. As soon as that is disbanded, then Zionism itself becomes the most radical claim available, marginalizing it, and making a 'one state' solution the only one available.
Let me first start off by saying that the settlers are, fundamentally speaking, no different than early Zionists who came to settle the land. There is a prevalent attitude that the settlers practice 'not my kind of Zionism.' Zionists tend to ignore the fact, and yes I did say fact, that there were people here before the state. No many, yes, but people were here nonetheless. As such, the current settlers differ in degree and not form. There are more Palestinians now than in 1850 (try over 10 times more)- and they are more so a cohesive unit. The idea of settling the land is Zionist through and through.
So, I don't have a positive reason from the standpoint of Religious Zionism. What about the supposed security they bring? As that is a rather disputable point, I don't see how I could sway definitely on either side. They probably do serve as a front-line bufferzone- but they also piss the Palestinians off (rightly or wrongly) and I'm not sure which is stronger.What about international law? Well, here's where it becomes problematic. International consensus seems to be that the settlements are illegal. The law itself is not so clear. First of all, '67 would most likely be classified as a defensive law. As such, when Israel captured Judea and Samaria, its occupation thereof would be 'legal.' Perhaps a better word is legitimate. I'm still not clear how this affects the law. Those on the pro-settlement side tend to think that it validates it. Those against, obviously,think it does not.
But, there is a bigger point to be had. Can the 'Palestinian Territories' be properly considered occupied? Since the Arabs refused the Partition plan in 1947, how could it be operative now? In contract law, when one party refuses to comply, the contract is completely void. Although, this seems to bear problems for the legitimacy of Israel itself. It is further argued that since the Partition Plan failed, the British Mandate is still in effect. This either means that the land is completely up for grabs, or that it is slated for Israel. This reasoning sounds a bit dubious- Even Israel agreed to U.N. Resolution 242, (land for peace) and as such, it comes with the implication that Israel will have to give some, even if not all, land towards the Palestinians. (whether as a new state, or as part of Jordan, et al.)
These last two arguments seem to provide legal justification for the settlements. But, even when something is legal, doesn't mean it is moral, or even tactically sound.
A further argument can be made that we ought to support the settlements because of their locations in the heartlands of the previous Jewish state. Hebron, for example, was the original capital of Judah, and the second Temple state was located primarily in Judea. It only later conquered the North, etc. The question here is simple: does the current state of Israel need to acquire contiguity to the previous states? I think this question also has significant bearing on the nature of public religion in the modern state.
I think, at the end of the day, there are certainly two good reasons for 'supporting' the settlers. I put the supporting in quotes because the point is quite vague, and the ways in which I will extend my support aren't really that.
The first is simply that to be against the settlements is to pander to racism. Imagine that a peace deal were struck right now, giving the Palestinians all of Judea and Samaria. Do the Palestinians demand that the setters be evacuated? If so, that's when the true apartheid kicks in. Such a scenario would be likely. So, by evacuating the settlements, Israel would be encouraging apartheid, instead of the opposite. As such, allowing settlements mandates that the future Palestinian state (is it still gonna happen?i dont know anymore) would be morally 'on the level.' It would send the wrong message to the Palestinians to evacuate, as it would legitimize their racism.
However, such a consideration only mandates some settlements. To 'get the point across' Israel would not have to build anymore settlements. And, this would actually be a good thing. Assuming you don't buy into the whole 'Greater Israel' stuff, which, as I mentioned earlier I don't.
The second consideration is perhaps more cynical. In the eyes of public opinion, and in the eyes of foreign leaders, there is a balance to be struck between the competing interests of each party. The less the Israelis 'demand' the closer the pendulum swings towards the Palestinians. But the more radical demands Israel presents, the more the pendulum swings back towards the middle. But, Israel has, as would I, a problem with that- the Jews in Israel have consistently gone out of their way to tell the truth to their detriment.
When confronted by the British to determine who should take control of the Wall, the Jews argued that it belongs to G-d. The Arabs, on the other hand, staked full claim on it. Guess who won?
So, by having a faction that demands all of Israel, that becomes the radical sentiment. As soon as that is disbanded, then Zionism itself becomes the most radical claim available, marginalizing it, and making a 'one state' solution the only one available.
Oh no, he said convert them to Judaism
In my previous post I bullocked (though quite mildly, I believe) Martin Luckas for suggesting that the Palestinians ought to convert to Judaism in order to resolve the conflict. While theoritically it would work on a local level (i.e. the Palestinian/Israeli part of the conflict) it would only exacerbate the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. But, it's just a humorous comment, so why get my panties in a bunch?
Simple- many in the Arab and Muslim world already believe that Israel wants to take over the Middle East. Since to their version of taking over would include conversion to Islam, just as Christian hegemony included conversion to Christianity, they probably already suspect that Jews want to convert all the Muslims. So, since anything, and everything, in the Arab/Muslim world gets attributed to a conspiracy by Israel, converting Palestinians would probably piss the rest of the Middle East off further.
But that's not the only issue. Martin Luckas is a writer at McGill- a Western University. (in Canada, for those who don't know) Many in that part of the world already believe that the West is merely part of a Zionis
t cabal. So right now, even the suggestion that the Palestinians should convert might be seen as the plans for that conversion. How could people be so naive as to twist Martin's words that far? Well, for starters, they think CNN is pro-Israel. Secondly, if you lived in a world where you thought this the ultimate aim of the Israelis, the suggestion that the Palestinians ought to actively join the Jewish side would just piss you off. And people are already pretty pissed off at Israel. They don't need many more excuses to be.
t cabal. So right now, even the suggestion that the Palestinians should convert might be seen as the plans for that conversion. How could people be so naive as to twist Martin's words that far? Well, for starters, they think CNN is pro-Israel. Secondly, if you lived in a world where you thought this the ultimate aim of the Israelis, the suggestion that the Palestinians ought to actively join the Jewish side would just piss you off. And people are already pretty pissed off at Israel. They don't need many more excuses to be. Just as a side note, Backspin seems to have dropped the link- I'm not sure why.
© MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may ONLY be cited with proper attribution.
Martin Luckas's suggestion: Palestinians should convert. My suggestion: STFU until you know what you are talking about
Dumbass. That's the word I would use to describe Martin Luckas. Now, I have nothing personal against the man. But his knowledge of the Israeli-Arab conflict is clearly limited. In fact, I knew more about it in third grade than he knows now. I think we should pick this article apart. It's begging for it. Oh, btw, Hattip to Backspin:
Um, no. Try again. What rights are denied to Arabs? There is a certain level of social, not legal, discrimination. However, Arabs have every right to press charges. And guess what, they do. Further, Arabs actually have more rights than Jews. Unlike Jews who have to serve in the army (unless they learn Torah full time) no Arab whatsoever is obligated to do so. Further, Arabs, or to be more accurate non-Jews, can marry outside of their religion, and have secular ceremonies. A Jew has to fly to Cyprus to do so.
Yes, the Palestinians have less 'rights' than Israelis, Jewish and Arab. They aren't citizens. Guess what, in every country on earth people who aren't citizen have less rights. Don't argue from rights distinction- argue for an independent Palestine, a unified Israel/Palestine, whatever you want.
Ha! Palestian non-violent protest? You mean like the weekly protests where they invade military zones at Be'elin. And throw rocks. And yes, rocks can kill. Talk to Goliath. (And I do say this fully concious of the possible misinterpretations.) In fact, a recent concert for peace in which Israelis and Palestinians were to participate was called off. By the Palestinians. And only by them.
Not to take a partisan line here: the Arab countries could have absorbed all those refugees, many times over, just Israel absorbed the Jewish ones. Oh, and most the Palestinians weren't 'expelled,' they left either on account of the war, or at Arab urging. Get your facts straight. Oh, and I'm sorry your enlightened values don't agree with the concept of Jewish autonomy. Oops, I don't give a crap. Martin buddy, the enlightenment helped some Jews, in some places. But, as Ruth Wisse argues for in her book Jews and Power, Jews have been constantly dependant on the whims of the state officials- to their detriment. I'm sure you support female empowerment, why not Jewish?
The Israel-Palestine conflict is stuck in an anachronistic rut. Israel, the
dominant power, has developed into a 19th century-style ethnic state – according
full rights of citizenship to Jews, some rights to its Arab citizens, and none
to the Palestinians over whom it rules.
Um, no. Try again. What rights are denied to Arabs? There is a certain level of social, not legal, discrimination. However, Arabs have every right to press charges. And guess what, they do. Further, Arabs actually have more rights than Jews. Unlike Jews who have to serve in the army (unless they learn Torah full time) no Arab whatsoever is obligated to do so. Further, Arabs, or to be more accurate non-Jews, can marry outside of their religion, and have secular ceremonies. A Jew has to fly to Cyprus to do so.
Yes, the Palestinians have less 'rights' than Israelis, Jewish and Arab. They aren't citizens. Guess what, in every country on earth people who aren't citizen have less rights. Don't argue from rights distinction- argue for an independent Palestine, a unified Israel/Palestine, whatever you want.
At any rate, non-violent Palestinian activism doesn’t work – Israel crushes
it – and violent resistance has proved counter-productive or immoral.
Ha! Palestian non-violent protest? You mean like the weekly protests where they invade military zones at Be'elin. And throw rocks. And yes, rocks can kill. Talk to Goliath. (And I do say this fully concious of the possible misinterpretations.) In fact, a recent concert for peace in which Israelis and Palestinians were to participate was called off. By the Palestinians. And only by them.
As a state of all Jews rather than its citizens, Israel offers a peculiar
form of affirmative action: a Jew anywhere in the world can, on a whim, claim
automatic citizenship. Meanwhile, a Palestinian Arab expelled from his home
within Israel in 1948 and now languishing in refugee camps has no such option.
Tribalism trumps secular accommodation, as it should in the holy land.
Not to take a partisan line here: the Arab countries could have absorbed all those refugees, many times over, just Israel absorbed the Jewish ones. Oh, and most the Palestinians weren't 'expelled,' they left either on account of the war, or at Arab urging. Get your facts straight. Oh, and I'm sorry your enlightened values don't agree with the concept of Jewish autonomy. Oops, I don't give a crap. Martin buddy, the enlightenment helped some Jews, in some places. But, as Ruth Wisse argues for in her book Jews and Power, Jews have been constantly dependant on the whims of the state officials- to their detriment. I'm sure you support female empowerment, why not Jewish?
This minor land dispute between competing petty tribes demands creative
solutions. Clearly, a resolution based on Enlightenment values of universalism,
rationality, and equality is out of the question. Religion is the one element of
the conflict that hasn’t proved inflammatory, so it ought to figure in the
equation.
He gets one important thing here right: it is a minor land dispute. So stop caring about it. Oh no, you can't, because you need your oil fix- and your 'pushers' just happen to use their political clout against Israel. But a solution based on enlightenment values? Sure, when the Arab countries, Palestine included, stop their warmongering, the conflict would be over. If the Palestinians threw down their weapons there would be no war, if Israel their down hers, there would be no Israel.
But the suggestion that religion doesn't factor prominently into this conflict is nothing but laughable. Have you read what the Qu'ran says about Jews? Sure, you can interpret those quotes away, which will hopefully form the basis for a Islamic 'reformation'- just as it has to in Christianity. But many Muslims don't- they take very seriously how despicable Jews are. They continually pronouce their sole claims to holy sites in Israel.
And, on the flip side, we always hear how the religious settlers are an obstacle to peace. Nevermind a racist peace, but nonetheless- religion has a lot to do with this conflict. Nice research.
Now he makes a, somewhat, logical suggestion:
If Israel persists in granting rights to practitioners of just one religion,
Palestinians should reassess their political strategy. Forget the Palestinian
National Liberation Movement. Think Palestinian National Conversion Movement.
What easier way to win the freedom and equality they deserve than by simply
converting to Judaism? A course of study over six months, circumcision,
immersion in a ritual bath, and presto! Israeli citizenship, or Right of Return
by conversion.
Yes, on the face of it- it would work. And you know what, the Jews wouldn't actually care. But you're forgetting two crucial point Martie- the Palestinians would never convert to the despised religion, and it wouldn't change the status of other Arab countries. Oh, you forgot- they hate Israel too? Oh, you forgot about the concept of Dar Al-Islam? Oopsie daisie
Monday, 5 November 2007
Timely news
The Canadian National Post is reporting that new information is to be released regarding the Jewish refugees from Arab Lands. Never heard of them? See here for a good start. They are planning to use this information to pressure Abbas to drop the right of return from the agenda at the upcoming Annapolis conference. What new information? Simply put-
New research shows there was Arab inter-state "collusion" to
persecute Jews in Arab countries after Israel's creation, former federal justice
minister Irwin Cotler and Jewish rights scholars will announce today in New
York.
Yet another example of the guilty placing their guilt on others- aside from an isolated incident, Jewish leaders continually asked the Arabs dwelling in Palestine not to leave. Yes, many of them left because of the war- but they weren't driven out like the Jews were.
As well, many members of the Arab league have met in Syria to discuss the continuation of their economic boycott of Israel. Oh, you did not know that? You thought it was only the evil Israel who did naughty stuff? Oops. Anyhow, with Fayyad making loads of demands from Israel to encourage the Peace Process, why don't the Arabs follow in suit?
Either way, it's easy to see how parties are using information to manipulate the peace process. I wonder, if I bothered for more than five minutes, how many other examples I could find?
Sunday, 4 November 2007
The seed of Civil War
I've been thinking about this for a while. I think that there is a strong possibility of civil war in Israel. Israel, unlike Britain or America, or anywhere else, has highly charged political issues that are relevant on a day to day bases. Further, those Jews are just damn hotheads! Just kidding... No I'm not.
So, I when I read this commentary in Ha'aretz this morning, I felt the satisfaction of being right about something I hoped I was dreadfully wrong on.
The Ha'aretz article continues:
While I think this point is definitely valid, I think he misses, and not surprisingly considering that its the Ha'aretz, the left's floundering association to the state. Those on the left protest that the right is chock full of tribalism, whereas the left's dissent is individualistic. I don't buy it. First off, it doesn't really make a difference- either way, the state is ripping at the seems. But more importantly, just because the left doesn't have a rabbi, or an ethnic minority status, doesn't mean its thinking is any less 'tribal.' Britain is an amazing example of this idea: It is in vouge to be against the current, but only within a group. The 'counterculture' of the left is also one swept with tribal feelings- to left ideology. Not all people, on any side, are swept up by their ideology. I'm actually fairly 'left' when it come to stuff, but that's only when you make a scorecard. People tow the party line without thinking, whether on the left or the right.
Further, you could argue that the left has its leaders and bastions of cultural indoctrination. Yose Be'elin and Amos Oz come to mind on the first front; the universities come to mind on the second. Honestly, I don't really buy the 'leftist indoctrination' at universities crap. Is there? I'm sure of it- again, all information is propaganda, whether intentional or not. But it's more likely that Israeli universities simply reflect the nature of the state, and of those in the state who become intellectuals. Let's face it: Israel was definitely born on the left.
But, back to the point: people are self-interested. That's just a fact. It's a fact that's needed for survival in most cases, but its also a fact that is detrimental to living in society. Especially a society with Jews in it. The cohesiveness caused in the beginning of Israel was due to a) the trauma of the Holocaust b)the realization of the goals of auto-emancipation. Suffice it to say that it's a bit hard to be united by those goals anymore. And certainly, Israeli Arabs have no reason to be at all.
What can be done though? A misleading aspect of the article quoted above is that, though less and less Jews are feeling Israeli or part of the Israel qua Israel, more and more are feeling part of the 'Jewish nation' - whatever that means. Most people think that this is simply a rightist thing, but I disagree. Post-Zionist like Avraham Burg also feel more connected to world Jewry than to Israel. I think the solution can be found in this point: a reconception of Jewish polity. If you read my blog in the future, you will hear this type of solution a lot. I hope to go in depth into when I have fleshed the idea out.
Suffice it to say that this is not the be all and end all of the issue: Israel, as a state, has a commitment to democracy that it needs to maintain. This solution sort of ignores Israeli Arabs. And, it isn't completely new: Many Jews in Israeli have always felt a)more Jewish than Israeli b)that Jewishness and Israeliness are synonymous. But, I still think the basic aim should be a reorientation of society's self-conception- so that instead of tribalism, the focus is on nationalism.
So, I when I read this commentary in Ha'aretz this morning, I felt the satisfaction of being right about something I hoped I was dreadfully wrong on.
Nor are the Druze unique. Most Arab Israelis declare that their Palestinian
identity trumps their Israeli identity. More than a few Jewish settlers declare
that their duty to obey their rabbis takes precedence over their duty to obey
the laws of the state. The ultra-Orthodox believe that the laws of the state are
secondary to the commands of Jewish law (as they interpret it). And some people
claim that discrimination against Mizrahim (Jews of Middle Eastern descent)
justifies ignoring the crimes committed by a few of their number.
The Ha'aretz article continues:
Studies have proven this. The social solidarity index, published ahead of the
Sderot conference that opens on Wednesday, showed a decline in the public's
belief in mutual civic responsibility (this year, 54 percent do not trust
government agencies to help them in times of trouble, double the 27 percent
recorded in 2003). The democracy index, which was published by the Israel
Democracy Institute five months ago, found that only 31 percent of Israeli
citizens trust one another, and only 27 percent believe that the state's
interests are more important than personal interests (down from 64 percent in
1981). When respondents were asked to define their identity, only 39 percent put
"Israeli" in first place, and while 59 percent said they had a feeling of
belonging to the state, this was down from 79 percent four years ago.
While I think this point is definitely valid, I think he misses, and not surprisingly considering that its the Ha'aretz, the left's floundering association to the state. Those on the left protest that the right is chock full of tribalism, whereas the left's dissent is individualistic. I don't buy it. First off, it doesn't really make a difference- either way, the state is ripping at the seems. But more importantly, just because the left doesn't have a rabbi, or an ethnic minority status, doesn't mean its thinking is any less 'tribal.' Britain is an amazing example of this idea: It is in vouge to be against the current, but only within a group. The 'counterculture' of the left is also one swept with tribal feelings- to left ideology. Not all people, on any side, are swept up by their ideology. I'm actually fairly 'left' when it come to stuff, but that's only when you make a scorecard. People tow the party line without thinking, whether on the left or the right.
Further, you could argue that the left has its leaders and bastions of cultural indoctrination. Yose Be'elin and Amos Oz come to mind on the first front; the universities come to mind on the second. Honestly, I don't really buy the 'leftist indoctrination' at universities crap. Is there? I'm sure of it- again, all information is propaganda, whether intentional or not. But it's more likely that Israeli universities simply reflect the nature of the state, and of those in the state who become intellectuals. Let's face it: Israel was definitely born on the left.
But, back to the point: people are self-interested. That's just a fact. It's a fact that's needed for survival in most cases, but its also a fact that is detrimental to living in society. Especially a society with Jews in it. The cohesiveness caused in the beginning of Israel was due to a) the trauma of the Holocaust b)the realization of the goals of auto-emancipation. Suffice it to say that it's a bit hard to be united by those goals anymore. And certainly, Israeli Arabs have no reason to be at all.
What can be done though? A misleading aspect of the article quoted above is that, though less and less Jews are feeling Israeli or part of the Israel qua Israel, more and more are feeling part of the 'Jewish nation' - whatever that means. Most people think that this is simply a rightist thing, but I disagree. Post-Zionist like Avraham Burg also feel more connected to world Jewry than to Israel. I think the solution can be found in this point: a reconception of Jewish polity. If you read my blog in the future, you will hear this type of solution a lot. I hope to go in depth into when I have fleshed the idea out.
Suffice it to say that this is not the be all and end all of the issue: Israel, as a state, has a commitment to democracy that it needs to maintain. This solution sort of ignores Israeli Arabs. And, it isn't completely new: Many Jews in Israeli have always felt a)more Jewish than Israeli b)that Jewishness and Israeliness are synonymous. But, I still think the basic aim should be a reorientation of society's self-conception- so that instead of tribalism, the focus is on nationalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
