I too appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters in a civil manner. Credit is due to you also – some of the propositions I have made would have had incensed the average Zionist. You have encouraged me to embark on a rambling discourse that is probably more

My point of view is probably informed by both the time and the place I was born – 1948 New Zealand and my circumstances. In my formative years, my country was shaking off its colonial past and I recognise the lack of imagination displayed by many Israelis when it comes to race relations. My father’s generation and those before it, though well meaning, could not imagine full integration and resisted it in many subtle ways. I have part-Maori children. My father once commented that these grandchildren had eliminated a previously unacknowledged tension within himself – a sense of not quite belonging.

Legislative initiatives such as our Waitangi Tribunal (a Court dedicated to native land issues) defused a possibly explosive situation and the conversion of a confrontational discourse into a “good faith” dialogue played a big part in raising Pakeha (non-Maori) awareness of genuine grievances that had disappeared down the memory hole. Settlement of such claims also raised the status and confidence of Maori. The net result was that my parents generation, who had practised a benign, paternalistic kind of racism (my mother still referred to the British Isles as “home” after four generations in NZ and regarded mixed marriages as “difficult for the children”) underwent a sea-change. Maori culture became an integral part of the New Zealand persona, Maori blood became a source of pride. This social change, in my view, was the direct result of the recognition of property rights superseding rights of conquest. The Waitangi Tribunal still hears cases but it is anticipated that it will become redundant in a few years. This prospect raises little anxiety today among Maori.
It ain’t perfect by any means but we now have a multi-cultural society and the New Zealand model has been emulated in other post-colonial states.

I firmly believe that the first step towards reconciliation is settlement of the land issue.

“The leaders of Israel feel that they have been given a trust to keep a Jewish state alive, a state that their fathers waited for since the destruction of the temple in the year 70 of the Common Era.”

First let me state that I do not consider the “Diaspora” narrative historically accurate. That Yochanan ben Zakai was able to establish his Rabbinical school within sight of Jerusalem in 70 AD argues against a general expulsion as do most Israeli historians. I am also skeptical of the notion that Jewish persecution is unique. Persecutions, pogroms and prejudice have been experienced to greater and lesser degree by most religions and races. I do not rely on this however. If it were indeed the case that Jewish suffering is greater than, say the victims of slavery, dispossession and internecine violence throughout history, I would still maintain that it does not in any way permit the infliction of similar suffering on another people. While we are at it, I might as well explain my attitude to the “Historic Right” of Jews to possession of the territory.
This concept relies upon “right of conquest”, a rather outmoded idea. That is to say, according to legend, Israel conquered the territory in 1300 BC or whenever therefore it retains title to it. This cannot be, for title first obtained by conquest must surely be extinguished by subsequent conquest or, alternatively, all conquerors have equal claim.
Other, more arcane, “spiritual attachment” claims are equally spurious – wanting something does not give one the right to take it and it can be easily demonstrated that the inhabitants, in this case Palestinians, have a similar “spiritual attachment”. Arguments of this nature become nonsensical when extrapolated into general rules. They therefore rely on exceptionalism.

Whilst I understand the sentiment that attaches to a “Jewish State”, the devil is in the detail. As it is practiced by recent Israeli administrations, it manifests itself as either a religious bigotry or racism that exceeds the proper function of the state.
Implicit in it is the concept that persons of a particular race or religion occupy a position of privilege. This is beyond the legitimate scope of the State and untenable in the 21st century.

“English” is a description of a polyglot race, descendants of Norse, European, Latin stock who observe a plethora of religions. “British” includes folk of every race and religion. Similarly with America and almost every Nation – most have had, at some point, to recognise the rights to a share of sovereignty possessed by the indigenous peoples over whom they once ruled. This has had very little impact on the basically “British” nature of former colonies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Similarly, Islamic states such as Malaysia have not lost their basically Asian character.

At this I’d best address the thorny issue of the Islamic State.
From a Western point of view, any mix of religion and state is viewed with suspicion. This ignores the enormous influence scripture had already imprinted on our legal system before the modern era. Many of our legal concepts can be traced to Biblical and Talmudic influence and many States are known as “Christian” or “Roman Catholic” without inspiring fears of theocracy.
I observe no religion yet, having lived in an Islamic State, I have very few problems with the concept. I also understand that the Koran bears much more observable influence on the rules of such States because, in addition to its religious content, it contains much more that pertains to civil society than is found in the Old and New Testaments. As such, it is as indispensable to political thought in Islamic society as Hobbes, Hume, de Tocqueville, Marx, whomever, are to ours.
Where “the rubber meets the road” is in the application of this body of thought, the degree to which it caters to minorities and I admit it is problematical in some Islamic states just as it is in China, India and even in the West. I maintain however, that disputes arising from it are human rights issues properly dealt with by non-military International pressure and through the civil discourse only possible in a fully enfranchised society.

My main contention is that the existence of Islamic States (even those that oppress minorities) does not provide a rationale for a Jewish State that oppresses minorities, it provides a rationale for the elimination of all such abuses. It could well be said that Human Rights progress in repressive Islamic states is made all the more difficult by the existence of the Jewish State in its present form. International bodies such as the U.N. are weakened by Israel’s unwillingness to abide by and America’s arbitrary vetoing of U.N. resolutions, many of which are based on human rights principles.

I am not wedded to the single state solution. I simply maintain that no solution will succeed until the land rights issue is addressed. The longer that issue remains unresolved, the larger the single state looms however. This has been recognised by Olmert no less.

The survival of Jewish culture is not dependent on a Jewish State. It is, in fact, threatened by it. I believe that the pre-1948 Misrahim would find little commonality with the Israeli of today. This bespeaks a dilution of the culture.

This is one of the reasons why the resistance to what Israel is doing must be a concerted effort of humanity, it cannot be allowed to become an exclusive enterprise. That is because those who opt for this exclusivity – “its a Jewish problem” – is a bogus call, because only those who are involved in subterfuge, who want to do things behind closed doors, have something to hide – it simply is that they wish to maintain the status quo that they see as beneficial for them alone at the cost of others.

If you break down humanity as it experiences that which adverse, whatever degree, you have two results – and both results essentially become the responsibility of those who have been victimized. One party is like clay and other is like wax, when the sun finally rises on either of these the clay hardens but the wax melts. One is malleable (wax), while the other becomes hard (clay), and the correct community always encourages the former rather than the later.

Whether we are looking at the current scenario in Israel/Palestine or in the USA, we are going to have to “champion the underdog” in order to get through the current debacle to the other side. So you are either going to cloister and cling to everything, and rob others as they languish or you are going to share so that we can all survive and rise out of this together. You can extend this from these communities and actually look at it globally, its either going to be working together to gain a global equilibrium or the same old destructive world order. It is a choice that everyone is going to have to make, and we do not have the luxury of time.

If we are going to compare it to Obama’s campaign as opposed to what he has delivered to the US Population, which has turned out to be a series of smoke and mirrors with nothing substantive, than we should expect the same from J Street (I made this comparison in earlier posts). The illusions of the Obama campaign have worn off, like a person who bought an advertised product has found that the product delivers nothing near to what was advertised (and is changing by the minute).

What there remains of alternatives in the community is how to paint the house, the same house, while it is on fire. AIPAC and J Street are arguing over the colors as the inhabitants are perishing in the fire.

I do not come out of a tradition that tells me that I am part of a group of bullies in a given schoolyard, those who take turns holding down a weak child as he is beaten senseless and his lunch money stolen. What a woefully inadequate illustration it is in the light of what is being done to the Palestinians, who are being murdered and their lives are being stolen. We are no longer that child being chased and beaten, but have become people of privilege and wielding the instruments of power indiscriminately.

I have been trained and adhere to assisting the weak and the downtrodden, and have not been told that it depends on who they are or whether they are part of “my group.” I will not cheapen or smother the cry of others with a Holocaust hegemony, using it like a bludgeon to stain the memory of those that have died for ill gotten gain. It does not matter who tells me to do this, it does not matter of the entire community plunges into this destructive delusion, the “never again” always will mean NO ONE ever again.

I refuse to be like Obama who got the office but did so by walking over the bodies of his own oppressed people, that hawked “hope and change” to do nothing but maintain a status quo. Nor will I attach myself to those with the accouterments of power that ply it indiscriminately to the destruction of an almost defenseless people.

Essentially what are we talking about, we are talking about fighting for the very soul of what Judaism is (for lack of a better term), however conceived as community enlightened within a secular framework or as religiously imbibed for whatever purpose. You may be called a chump, or self-hating/antisemitic, you may be told that life is short and you should get what you can by any means, but do not sell you’re birthright for a mess of pottage.

“Wallach: Is Judaism part of your mentality?

Hoffman: I’m not about to deny my Judaism, and I’m not about to let B’nai B’rith and real hawks on Israel define what Judaism is.

Wallach: How do you define it?

Hoffman: A way of life. A way of championing the cause of the underdog, of not being afraid of being a dissident, almost a permanent outsider.”