Noam Sheizaf has a very interesting article in the Forward where he explains the demise of the traditional left in Israeli society:
What enabled the right’s current success was the ideological turn it took. The last decade has seen all the right’s leaders — from Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert to, finally, Netanyahu — accept the left’s idea of a Palestinian state. They did so not because they suddenly abandoned the desire to hold on to the entirety of the Greater Land of Israel, nor because they realized how unjust the occupation is. The only reason leaders from the right are today willing to consider withdrawal from Hebron and even from East Jerusalem is that one argument made by the Zionist left did strike a chord with them: that a Palestinian state is the only way to keep a clear Jewish majority in Israel.
By raising the flag of “the demographic battle,” the Jewish left was able to win the debate over the West Bank and Gaza. But it did so in a way that betrayed the same values the left has always claimed to represent — humanism, equal rights and brotherhood. That’s also where the left’s political fate was sealed. When the left abandoned the hope for true partnership with the Palestinians — on both sides of the Green Line — and became almost solely defined by its focus on demography and ethnic separation, it opened the door for Lieberman and his vision of an exclusionary Jewish state.
What’s striking to me about this is how similar it is to the demographic fear mongering we heard at the J Street conference in October. Is this the best that left Zionism has to offer – ethnic separation? Where does this leave human rights or democracy? And if these values are absent, how can a solution simply based on exclusion and separation – often at the point of a gun or a 30 meter high wall – lead a peaceful solution to the conflict?
We remarked at the time of the J Street conference that what is considered a liberal solution in the Jewish community to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is regarded as racism in any other context. Sheizaf’s useful article shows the danger of heading down that road.
How does the 2-state solution in the I-P context differ in motivation from those in the USA who have advocated for a separate white “ethnostate” here in the USA? Both voices address demography reality trends and various cultural preferences. In the USA, those who have voiced such a 2-state solution in the USA have been considered as disgusting extreme fringe white racists. And, let’s not forget, the concept of “separate but equal” lost during the USA Civil Rights Era in the 1960s. It was jeered at, as so many knew those water fountains would not really offer the same water, and in the same amount. Compare Netanyahu ‘s description of a Palestinian state with his concept and the reality of the Israeli state. Would be interesting if an American stand-up comedian had the balls to turn this subject into a comic routine. Too bad it’s taboo even in that arena; hell its even taboo in allegedly anti-PC political and satirical cartoon tv shows such as South Park and Family Guy. Not even allowed on the Daily Show.
Here’s a few thoughts by a self-described iconoclast on the blessings and pitfalls of a white ethnostate split off from the current USA boundaries:
link to onestdv.blogspot.com
Note that he says the biggest drawback is that the Western whites invented the priority of individualism and have done the most to make that value a reality (as distinguished from tribal entity).
So, where does Israel fit in here? And where, the future of the USA? Is the similarity in Nazi and Ashkenazi labels merely verbal coincidence? Just asking.
That was pretty racist. And you can definitely see the parallels to the “Jewish state” discourse. Where do you find this stuff, Citizen?
thanks for that, Citizen.
maybe zionism is a particularized form of some inherent human proclivity.
A good design accomplishes multiple objectives and needs.
The two-state solution is that.
Exactly how does a Palestinian “state” that is not contiguous, not even 20% of original Palestine, with much of its arable land and natural resources blocked or even annexed outright by the “security” wall (declared thoroughly illegal by international law and, I believe, the Israeli Supreme Court for whatever the latter is really worth), with no control over its air space or treaty arrangements, and no defenses against any future incarnation of Operation Cast Lead, constitute that?
Witty, you are lobbying for a Palestinian bantustan and yet you insist that Zionism bears no resemblance to apartheid? Really now?
Acknowledgement of the reality, good relations, potentially later gradually merging IF the people’s come to think of themselves as one people.
There are many landlocked states, some fail miserably, some succeed admirably.
If there is a dependable transit route from Gaza to the West Bank, then they will have a port and not be landlocked.
Rather that work towards that, you are saying “stop everything”. Why?
Let’s see, Israelis left Gaza yet simultaneously established a stifling blockade around it via air, land, and sea. Such a deal for the Palestinians. And now, the Palestinians should accept what really is a bantustan as their state–because, hey, it’s a start! Yet another deal for the Palestinians–they should have no reason at all
things will just keep getting better for their new rump state; why if they’re really good, they may eventually get Israeli permit to access a port! A Palestinian state
built on the current Gaza model only bipolar in physical fact–why yes, that’s
the ticket! A bigger open air prison for themselves, flying their own flag, and their own cops (no militia or army) can be their jailers!
Its a hell of a lot better than what they have now, or what they’ll ever get unless they and their supports realize that some sort of sacrifice needs to be made. Things will never revert back to before the creation of Israel, its a reality. The sooner a two-state deal is brokered the sooner Palestinians and Jews alike can put this horrible 60 years behind them and help build a more prosperous ME.
The problem identified is LAZINESS and FEAR (if the “left” has its old principles) or UNPRINCIPLEDNESS (otherwise). One can (reasonably) fear being in a minority AND ALSO be pro-democracy, pro-human-rights, pro-international-law, etc.
If the “left” (is there a “left”, actually, in Israel or in the USA, and, if so, what does “left” mean?) fears a more richly-evident South-Africa-similarity in the TERRITORY of Israel/Palestine — never mind looking at the POPULATIONS of those who want to live in Israel/Palestine, because that is already overwhelmingly Palestinian — then it is right to say so. But this is independent of the left’s responsibility to promote and stridently call for human rights and lawfulness.
I deplore many of Israel’s practices, but those I deplore most are those which are both unnecessary and illegal and anti-human-rights — notably the wall, the settlements, the settlers, the checkpoints. If Israel needs a wall, it can build one inside the green-line. If Israel wants settlements and settlers, it can have them inside the green-line (moshavim anybody?). Ditto checkpoints.
If the “left” fails to challenge these things in the occupied territories as a matter of principle, then (as I see it) it is no “left” at all, as in the USA where the “left” has been co-opted by the idea of a cozy, carefully nurtured and taught, Zionism that no longer exists outside certain nostalgic minds within the USA — and in the embrace of a false either-or mentality which says you can have either Zionism or human-rights, lawfulness, etc., but not both.
If J Street is interested in starting a mass movement or waving the flag in front of those that propose radical restructuring of systems and mentalities, then what you say is right. I think J street is interested in supporting a very specific goal- a U.S. brokered peace along the lines that “everybody knows.” That is the continuation of the Taba talks that resulted in the “Geneva Accord”. J street has an explicit dynamic in mind: creating sufficient counterbalance to AIPAC to allow a sufficient number of Congressmen to help a president (like Obama) who wishes to move the peace process forward in the direction that has been the basic U.S. policy since Resolution 242.
The Israeli left is about winning the hearts and minds of the Israeli people to leftist values and that justifies a demand of idealism and purity. J Street is about giving cover to Congressmen in order to help a specific policy goal (nothing ideological about it, pure pragmatics).
“Is this the best that left Zionism has to offer – ethnic separation?”
Well Adam, I think you hit the nail on the head. Left Zionism today is similar to liberal white segregation in the US during the 1950′s. They both want humanistic treatment of the Palestinian/Negros, yet don’t want full integration or equal rights. Both want to maintain their power and privilege, but with a velvet glove instead of an iron fist. Both are racialist and hark back to reactionary politics that the U.S. legally at least, shed decades ago.
It is ironic that so many American Jews who fought against racism in the U.S., now support the same in Israel.