Saturday, March 8, 2014
A Baleful Peace Process. By Reuel Marc Gerecht.
A Baleful Peace Process. By Reuel Marc Gerecht. The Weekly Standard, March 17, 2014. Also here.
Israel Today: A Society Without a Center. By Carlo Strenger.
Israel today: a society without a center. By Carlo Strenger. Haaretz, March 7, 2014.
The struggle for Israel’s soul: Human rights vs. rampant nationalism. By Carlo Strenger. Haaretz, January 22, 2014.
If I were an American Jew, I’d worry about Israel’s racist cancer. By Daniel Blatman. Haaretz, March 7, 2014.
Strenger (The struggle):
The conflict between the center-left and the ultranationalist right isn’t about risk management.
Economy Minister Naftali Bennett recently claimed that Israel shouldn’t worry about the implications of the occupation on its economy. Israel, he said, survived earlier boycotts and would survive future ones.
His
view on the creation of a Palestinian state was different. Israel’s economy
wouldn’t survive the constant shelling of Tel Aviv and Herzliya from a
Palestinian state, or the shooting down of airliners flying into Ben-Gurion
Airport by a terrorist waiting in the Judean Hills, Bennnett said.
His
concern about what would happen if radical jihadist terror groups infiltrated
the Palestinian state isn’t to be taken lightly, and these concerns play an
important role in the negotiations with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.
Given the chaos in Syria and Al-Qaida’s role there – often literally at the
Israeli border – it would be preposterous to dismiss Bennett’s scenario out of
hand.
Then
again, I see no reason to take Bennett’s assessment of the future as authoritative.
Consider, for example, the six former chiefs of the Shin Bet security service
interviewed in the documentary “The Gatekeepers.” They’re likely to be at least
as informed as Bennett about the risks in establishing a Palestinian state, yet
they’re all convinced that Israel’s only way to survive is to end the
occupation.
There
was some hope that Bennett, a successful startup entrepreneur, would put a
modicum of sanity into the national-religious way of thinking. Alas, we were
wrong. After all, a few months ago, he suggested that Israel rupture ties with
the European Union, Israel’s largest trading partner, over the EU’s guidelines
prohibiting any EU grants, loans or prizes from going to activities of Israeli
entities in the West Bank, Golan Heights or East Jerusalem. That was an
unbecoming statement for a government minister.
Bennett’s
propensity for populist hyperbole may make him popular in his ultranationalist
constituency, but very few others are likely to take him seriously when he
talks about the impact of a boycott by the free world on Israel’s economy.
Instead of Bennett’s tirades, I prefer the judgment of the many leading
businesspeople who are warning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the
consequences of continuing the occupation.
But
let’s face it. In a place as volatile as the Middle East, the certainties are
even fewer than in calmer regions – and even in the United States and Europe
almost nobody foresaw the economic meltdown of 2007/8. In the end, the conflict
between Bennett and the Israeli ultranationalist right on the one hand, and the
center-left on the other, isn’t about risk management. It’s a struggle for
Israel’s soul.
Bennett
is enamored with a mythical Israel that relies on itself and God’s guidance
alone. He dreams of reestablishing the Kingdom of David and Solomon, which he
imagines as mighty and impressive. And he disdains the virtues of prudence and
diplomacy as well as consideration of the rights of non-Jews.
The
story of Masada is an inspiration for him. Bar Kochba, the leader of the revolt
against Rome that led to the death of 600,000 Jews in the second century C.E.,
is a story of heroism for him. Hence we can slap Uncle Sam in the face and tell
the EU to leave us alone; Jews no longer need to listen to anybody.
Jewish
liberals in Israel and in the Diaspora look at this war-mongering mythology
with surprise and sometimes shock. They know that the Kingdom of David and
Solomon was nothing but an extended tribal chiefdom, and that there is very
little to be learned about modern statecraft from Israel’s kings.
They
know that Bar Kochba was a fool who brought nothing but suffering to the Jewish
people. If anything, they want to connect to the humanist-ethical element in
the Jewish tradition, not to the stories of misguided pseudo-heroism.
In
addition, they know that the idea of an Israel that doesn’t depend on anybody
is an adolescent fantasy. They know that Israel’s alliance with the West is a
vital strategic asset, and that Israel couldn’t survive long without the backing
of the United States.
But the
alliance with the West isn’t just a matter of prudence and economic interest,
it’s an expression of core values. Jewish liberals care about Israel’s soul. We
recoil from Bennett’s vision of a brutal country that cares about nothing but
itself. We feel morally bound by the story of Jewish suffering to a simple
conclusion: We have known what it’s like to be devoid of rights, trampled on,
disowned and displaced.
And
Jewish liberals ranging from René Cassin, who was instrumental in crafting the
United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to the founders of the
Anti-Defamation League, have been involved in the causes of liberty, equality
and human rights around the globe. As Jews we want to fight injustice, not perpetrate
it.
We care
about Israel’s security as much as Bennett does. But when we look at the sheer
brutishness of the behavior of many settlers, the callousness of their
disregard for Palestinians, we simply say: This is not Jewishness as we
understand it. This is not the dream of Theodor Herzl and Ahad Ha’am, nor does
it correspond to the values of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, which
explicitly disavows discrimination based on religion and ethnicity.
This is
why we are willing to take certain risks for the sake of salvaging Israel’s
soul. We are not naïve. Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Amram Mitzna, Meir Dagan,
Ami Ayalon and Yuval Diskin served Israel’s security for most of their lives,
and they all have thought the occupation is a greater danger to Israel’s
survival than the dangers in retreating from the West Bank.
I trust
their judgment on matters of security. But even more I’m filled with pride that
despite their keen awareness of the dangers, their concern for Israel’s soul
determines their vision for Israel’s future. For without a soul, Israel will
lose the strength to continue renewing and reinventing itself and make good on
the promise of being the democratic homeland of the Jews.
Strenger (Israel today):
The clash of three sacred values − liberal Zionism, ultra-Orthodox continuity and romantic nationalism − is more dangerous for Israel’s survival than any external enemy.
Much
ink has been spilled about who has benefitted from the showdown between Yesh
Atid and the ultra-Orthodox Haredim. I think that beyond this issue it is
important to reflect dispassionately on what recent events teach us about
Israeli society.
Research
in political psychology has shown that many groups rally around sacred values
that are non-negotiable: No compromise is possible about these values without
the group’s feeling that its very existence is threatened. This is why people
are often willing to die for these values, and why pragmatic arguments do not
motivate them to compromise but generally increase their intransigence, because
their core identity is at stake.
Israel
today has three basic forms of sacred values that have almost no common
denominator.
Yair
Lapid’s Yesh Atid, Labor, Hatnuah and Meretz represent liberal Zionism. In
their view Jewish history shows that Jews need and are entitled to a
nation-state of their own. But they also think that this state must be a
liberal democracy, which means that there must be strict equality before the
law independent of religion, ethnicity or gender. Many commentators have
questioned the wisdom of Lapid’s insistence on the Haredim’s serving in the IDF
on pragmatic grounds. They have not realized that for him equality before the
law is a sacred value and that without it the Zionist project is doomed.
For the
Haredim the one sacred value is the Jewish people’s eternity (Netzah Yisrael),
and for them the State of Israel is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition
for Jewish survival. Judaism, in their view, has survived because of only one
reason: that there have always been Jews who have obeyed the laws of Judaism in
the strictest manner. From their point of view Israel might disappear, but
without them, the Haredim, Judaism will perish.
It is
crucial for Haredim that young men and women be educated in a way that will
make sure that they remain embedded in Haredi society and not be exposed to
external influences before they have spent a long time in the Yeshiva world,
are married, have children and are basically incapable of leaving Haredi
society. Many secular Jews see the Haredim as nothing but parasites and do not
realize that many Haredim see army service at an early age together with
secular Jews as an existential threat to their sacred values.
Then
there are the romantic nationalists for whom the State of Israel is not just
the homeland of the Jews, but realizes the sacred bond between the Jewish
people and the Greater Land of Israel. This idea derives from the extreme
European right since the late 19th century, and is fused with messianic
orthodoxy in national-religious Zionism. Democracy is secondary for romantic
nationalists: If the sacred bond of people and land is endangered by the
principles of liberal democracy, they are willing to sacrifice them, for
example by curtailing freedom of speech for left-wingers or leaving Arab
citizens with limited or no political rights.
The
bitterness and the violent rhetoric of Israel’s political culture are largely
due to this clash of three sacred values, with sometimes extreme consequences.
The settler movement has already shown that it is capable of extreme violence
when the two-state solution is about to be implemented. Haredim have proven
that they are willing to go to prison to avoid what they see as fatal
infringements on their way of life.
Liberal
Zionism is at a disadvantage because it refrains from violence and abides with
the law. Many believe that liberal Zionism’s majority in Israel balances this
disadvantage – but this is an illusion. Likud is no longer liberal-Zionist but
has adopted romantic nationalism. Only 48 MKs, i.e. 40 percent of the Knesset,
represent liberal Zionism.
As a
result of this clash of sacred values, growing numbers of Israelis feel they
might no longer have a place in Israel without abandoning their identity. The
Belzer Hasidim have declared that they will emigrate to the U.S. if forced to
serve in the IDF. Ever-growing numbers of liberal-leaning Israelis leave for
Berlin, New York or Los Angeles because they feel alienated by the rule of
right-wing nationalism – a development encouraged by Im Tirtzu leader Ronen
Shoval’s call for left-wingers to leave the country if they can’t stand the
nationalist right.
None of
these developments are to be taken lightly: At this point in history the clash
of sacred values is more dangerous for Israel’s survival than any external
enemy.
The struggle for Israel’s soul: Human rights vs. rampant nationalism. By Carlo Strenger. Haaretz, January 22, 2014.
If I were an American Jew, I’d worry about Israel’s racist cancer. By Daniel Blatman. Haaretz, March 7, 2014.
Strenger (The struggle):
The conflict between the center-left and the ultranationalist right isn’t about risk management.
Economy Minister Naftali Bennett recently claimed that Israel shouldn’t worry about the implications of the occupation on its economy. Israel, he said, survived earlier boycotts and would survive future ones.
Strenger (Israel today):
The clash of three sacred values − liberal Zionism, ultra-Orthodox continuity and romantic nationalism − is more dangerous for Israel’s survival than any external enemy.
Bashing Netanyahu Won’t Bring Peace Any Closer. By Jeff Jacoby.
Bashing Netanyahu won’t bring peace any closer. By Jeff Jacoby. Boston Globe, March 5, 2014. Also here.
Jacoby:
The delusion at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is that the lack of Palestinian sovereignty is what keeps the conflict alive, and that the tension and violence would end if only the Arabs of Palestine could have a state of their own.
That
has never been true. What drives the conflict is not a hunger for Palestinian
statehood, but a deep-rooted rejection of Jewish statehood. Arab leaders
vehemently rejected the “two-state solution” that the United Nations
recommended in 1947. Nearly 70 years later, the Palestinians are still
unwilling to acknowledge Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people — to
recognize that Jews are entitled to a sovereign state in their national
homeland, just as the Irish are entitled to Ireland, the Italians to Italy, and
the Japanese to Japan.
Yet
Palestinian leaders heatedly insist that they will never agree to any such
thing. “This is out of the question,” Abbas said last month. Palestinian
Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat complains: “When you say, ‘Accept Israel as a
Jewish state,’ you are asking me to change my narrative.”
Just
so. That narrative — that Jews are aliens in the Middle East, and Jewish sovereignty
over any territory is intolerable — is precisely what must change if this
conflict is to be resolved. Bashing Netanyahu may please the anti-Israel set,
but it brings a just and lasting peace not one hour closer.
Jacoby:
The delusion at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is that the lack of Palestinian sovereignty is what keeps the conflict alive, and that the tension and violence would end if only the Arabs of Palestine could have a state of their own.
Rick Perry at CPAC: It’s Time for a Little Rebellion on the Battlefield of Ideas.
Rick Perry at CPAC: It’s Time for a Little Rebellion on the Battlefield of Ideas. Video. The ACU, March 7, 2014. YouTube. Also at Real Clear Politics.
Rick Perry: “Time for a Little Rebellion.” By Jerome Corsi and Garth Kant. WND, March 7, 2014.
Rick Perry wows crowd with #CPAC2014 speech. By Mandy Nagy. Legal Insurrection, March 7, 2014.
Rick Perry: “Time for a Little Rebellion.” By Jerome Corsi and Garth Kant. WND, March 7, 2014.
Rick Perry wows crowd with #CPAC2014 speech. By Mandy Nagy. Legal Insurrection, March 7, 2014.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)