One of my goals these days is to support the New Israel Fund in its fight to promote democracy and human rights in Israel. I do so because even though it tends to overlook apartheid conditions in the West Bank, NIF has done great things: it has supported the demonstrations at Sheikh Jarrah against ethnic cleansing, and it has supported the heroic soldiers’ group Breaking the Silence.
But there are clear differences between progressive Zionists like NIF and my crowd of non-, anti-, post-Zionists. The other night in New York NIF held an event called "a provocative discussion of the competing rights — and wrongs — in today’s Israel" at Bnai Jeshurun, a forward-thinking synagogue on the Upper West Side. It sure provoked me. There was hardly a word about the Occupation or Gaza. Naomi Chazan of NIF said she is trying to "repossess Zionism" from the settlers and reinvigorate the brand. (I think she might start with the Studebaker.)
I watched the webcast– NIF says it will stick up a video of the event soon– and I was particularly taken aback by comments from the moderator, Jane Eisner, the editor of the Jewish Forward.
First, when talking about the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel, Eisner expressed the concern that the “growing Islamization of violence among some of these citizens” means that “Arabs citizens" might be "fighting against the state from within." Later she connected this concern with the idea that "most of the Arab world doesn’t want Israel to exist."
Panelist Avraham Burg chided Eisner. He told her not to talk about "the Arab world," a generality that takes in 22 societies. Talk about what is happening to Palestinians right in Israel.
Second, Eisner expressed the fear that soldiers’ testimonies about killing civilians in Gaza– published by Breaking the Silence, which gets money from the New Israel Fund– will be used by Israel’s enemies. My notes are somewhat fragmentary; but some of her comments: "What happens when we air our dirty laundry?… They [Breaking the Silence] believe that they are protecting democracy by exposing these abuses… Others are worried about the ramifications." Then she went on to worry about those ramifications. The testimonies may be "embarrassing" to Israel, and might serve those who wish to see Israel eliminated. She said the desire to expose "our faults" must be balanced by the need of "protecting the state."
When other panelists didn’t take up the point, Eisner said, "I just want to challenge you on this." She then said that journalists face these issues all the time. "We draw the line every day, every week." Any organization has a responsibility to think about words because words have "so much power…"
The clear thrust of Eisner’s comments was that Breaking the Silence should, as the saying goes, STFU.
Eisner is a longtime American journalist, editor, teacher of journalism. I wonder whether she can produce any situation akin to the Breaking the Silence testimonies: a situation in which American soldiers were ordered to shoot civilians if they saw one untoward move–and then did kill many many civilians–and some soldiers then came forward, and the press rightly suppressed their stories so as not to aid the enemies of the United States or embarrass the U.S. Of course, maybe she’s not speaking about the U.S., but Israel– "our dirty laundry… our faults."
The event was a progressive Jewish event. But with progressives like this, why do we need neoconservatives? I have always said that neoconservatism came out of Jewish life and drew on parochial/hawkish feelings inside the Jewish community that defy the usual categories of liberal, conservative, Democrat, etc; and Eisner’s fear-based concerns about the future of the Jewish state and how we have to respond demonstrate just what I mean about that process.
Also, I don’t know what Eisner means by the Islamicization of violence inside Israel. More neoconservative echoes.
So what’s the problem? Jews have their own state like any other? The test of virtue is power. Gee, the Jewish state is fascist. What a surprise. No soup for you! Next!
Zionism is like a mass hysteria or syndrome. In the future people will look back and wonder how this happened. In the 14th century there was a mass hysteria among cloistered nuns that in their sleep/dream state they were screwing their husband Jesus and reaching orgasm. It was common.
The recent Winter Soldier events with Iraq & Afghan vets come to mind, and they were largely ignored in the US media, not rightly but most nation’s elite despise their troops (war workers we could call them) speaking the truth about combat. For journalists to advocate this censorship, well they are not journalists then, they are PR shills (at best) and people are correctly deserting established media that have become this adjunct to power.
Yes Phil, I was there and Eisner was incredibly annoying. Always …”on the other hand” kind of talk allowing for all sorts of leeway for Israels actions. The one that particularly got me was after watching the video of the rabid settler in Hebron who has gone into a Palestinian home and is calling the Palestinian woman a whore, Eisner questions whether this settlers right to freedom of speech as an Israeli citizen is something to be tampered with? Really????? I think she was an awful moderator.
But there are clear differences between progressive Zionists like NIF and my crowd of non-, anti-, post-Zionists.
There are post-Zionists in Israel, I personally know about a dozen, but I don’t think the numbers, nationally, exceed the 100 or 200 mark. Perhaps someone else has some statistical data they can share.
re; post-zionism … israel will be the last to know that zionism doesn’t matter anymore and has blown away like so much dust in the wind as the Palestinians unilaterally declare their own state along the ’67 borders, countries around the world recognize them and the entire equation is rewritten
The Palestinians could have had a state along the ’67 borders several times. What the Palestinians want is a state along the ’67 borders and 5 million Arabs “returning” to Israel making it another Arab state.
No. Israel was never prepared to agree to a Paestinian state of any size, anywhere, at any time.
And what would be wrong with Israel becoming an Arab state?
“The Palestinians could have had a state along the ‘67 borders several times. ”
That has been debunked repeatedly. The Palestinians have NEVER been offered a state along 1967 borders.
The fact that Israel has rejected the Arab prace initiative for 7 years, which offers to recognize Israel along the 1967 borders, and normalize relations with Israel proves that Israel have never have accepted a Palestianian state as per 1967 borders.
As far back as 1997-98, Jane Eisner was one of the many doors I banged on in Philadelphia to try to begin some objective discussion of these issues. At that time, as editor of the Inquirer, she claimed that the editorial board was aligned with the Labor Party (the Likud was in power). End of discussion.
They did begin to print some dissenting letters, including mine. Both Mary Moss-Coane (NPR morning talk show host) and Terry Gross (who operates out of WHYY-NPR) have always been horrible on Israel. But they’re not PEP. They’re liberal Democrats.
SO, how do liberal democrats differ from PEP people? Less likely to quickly hurl slurs of anti-semitism, or self-hating jew?
This Jane woman reminds me of the Stalinists that ran the communist party in the US. They had this policy called “democratic centralism” whereby it was OK to talk about Soviet crimes but only inside the party itself — talking out of class gave ammunition to the class enemies and anti-Soviet forces. Of course, this primarily resulted in large numbers of people living in denial of Soviet crimes against humanity for many years.
So what if Avraham Burg is a former Speaker of the Knesset, an American Jew such as Eisner knows what’s best for Israel.
Last week I heard a talk by a former Israeli army officer whose spouse is a career diplomat with the Israeli Foreign Ministry. The speaker is a self-styled “moderate Zionist” (2-stater) and has a progressive organization promoting co-existence between Jews and Arabs.
One of the Americans in the crowd accused the speaker in public of being a “dupe in the service of Israel’s enemies.”
I have heard these opinions elsewhere. There is a solid camp of American Jews who will not allow Israelis to have a free debate about their future.
Shlomo Ben-Ami said that if it weren’t for American Jews Israel could have achieved peace long ago.
jimby- I’m not sure about your vision of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Shlomo ben Ami’s vision (that he feels American Jews are obstructing) does not include a right of return for the Palestinians. (Or at best a vague formulation that the Israelis would be able to interpret as no right of return for the Palestinians.)
WJ, you have a knack for deflecting issues. I follow what you say but I seldom comment on your posts. They are mostly inane.
The thing with American Jews is that they view Israel an investment, at least the elite at the top who make money out of this Zionist adventure. For example, in the absence of Israel, some schmuck from Miami would have no reason to hold fundraising dinners “for Israel”. He’d be out of business.
Avi, believe me, that shmuck from Miami would find some other way to make money if Israel did not exist. Your comment is silly.
And your rebuttal is just as abrupt, WJ.
This is the paradigm that shmuck from Miami has chosen. It’s not like he’s completely faking it, but there is an obvious incentive.
My comment comes from a three part series that Christian Amanpour produced a few years ago, called “God’s Warriors”.
link to cnn.com
Go watch it, then come back and lecture me, before rearing your clueless ass of a head again.
WJ.
I am genuinely interested in where you stand on the refugee/ROR issue.
Incidentally, I left a reply for you back on the “Exodus” thread in case you wanted to continue what I felt was beginning to be a productive conversation. I must admit I had not taken the earlier start to the War as a serious issue. I am going to devote a bit more time to the events of Nov 1947-May 1948 if you want to pursue it further. No biggee if not.
Brewer-
My feelings/policy regarding the right of return is primarily practical rather than ideological. Soon after the beginning of the second intifadeh the PLO published an ad in the NYT asserting that it understood Israel’s demographic concerns and the PLO’s primary concern was for the refugees from Lebanon, because Lebanon had never granted them citizenship and this population had/has a need to return to Israel proper, and that the PLO was willing to limit its demands to a specific number.
If I were making policy- admitting 200,000 Palestinians would be in the realm of possibility. But I am not making policy and thus the reality of Israeli politics is the primary factor and I don’t see any such “liberal” admission of refugees into Israel on the horizon.
The idea of admitting the theory of a right of return, but limiting it in practice to an unknown number to be decided some time in the future seems to me a formula for failure. Although an interim truce might be a possibility, a true (final) peace treaty which includes an unspecified number of refugees is a sure way of creating a bone of contention further along the road. I would prefer a specific number, so that a peace treaty would be a peace treaty rather than a delay of war until the ROR crisis turns into the next war.
The “demographic” concerns of Israel raises the question of what will happen as the Israeli Arab (Palestinian) population increases. I don’t think there is anything inherent in the Arab genetic makeup which makes them adverse to democracy. Yet I am not encouraged by the lack of democracy in the Arab world. Regarding Arab tolerance of minorities I have not studied sufficiently to calm my fears on that score.
As far as the war or near war that existed between December of 47 and the end of March of 48, I agree with you that it may have been possible to disarm certain populations without expelling them and their expulsion was done for nefarious purposes (particularly in Jaffa where the Irgun was in charge) rather than just security purposes.
On the other hand the Israelis or Zionists (for no Israel existed until May 15th) were not that confident of their victory in the coming war and if victory had been a sure thing such a policy would seem cruel, whereas since victory was uncertain, such a policy seems prudent. (The expulsions from Lod and Ramle which were more in the manner of drawing the border of the new state seem crueler since they were not oriented towards winning the war and more oriented towards creating a post victory reality.)
Even if there was not an all out war between December 47 and March 48, it certainly was not an era of peace and from the little I have read- until Plan Dalet was put into effect, the Arab forces were controlling the roads or winning the war of the roads. It made sense to take the initiative and it was justified by the military facts on the ground.
In the category of “what if…”
In theory if the security of Israeli Jews could be assured by some device, I would have no trouble with Israel being turned into a majority Arab country. It is not the prospect of Arabic as a language or Islam as a religion or Friday as a day off instead of Saturday which frightens me. It is the prospect of Jews being killed.
The role that the existence of Israel has played (or continues to play) in the revival of the Islamic religion and the existence of Islamic extremism is interesting. In theory a Jewish population existing both in the Arab world and the Christian world might have existed as a potential bridge between the Islamic world and the Western world. Then again it may have been the case that the ascendancy of the West would have tested the tolerance of Arabic Islam and even without Zionism the Jewish populations of the Arab countries would have suffered.
WJ: In theory if the security of Israeli Jews could be assured by some device, I would have no trouble with Israel being turned into a majority Arab country. It is not the prospect of Arabic as a language or Islam as a religion or Friday as a day off instead of Saturday which frightens me. It is the prospect of Jews being killed.
I’ll comment from the bottom up. Even if Israel were to become a “majority Arab country”, there is no reason to believe that Israeli Jews would not continue, for the most part, to live in a Hebrew-speaking, Jewish society, enjoying their Saturday’s off. There would be little point to replacing one ethno-religious state with another. Perhaps this idea of Arabic/Islam as competing with and eventually supplanting Hebrew/Judaism in Israel colours your fears regarding the physical safety of Jews.
Regarding the fears themselves, it would be stupid to dismiss them as wholly unrealistic, but I think there are a few things that need to be taken into account (not necessarily in this order):
- How safe are Jews in Israel today, and how safe will they be in the future, in the absence of a just solution?
- Do any of the two-state options presented so far really defuse the major sources of tension (including occupation, refugees and status of Palestinians within Israel)?
- Where does the current and future physical safety of Palestinians feature in all of this, and should they not have at least the same fears as Jews in this context?
Magnes Zionist once illustrated the situation with a story of a kid sitting on another kid in order not to get beaten up. The longer he sits, the angrier and more dangerous the kid on bottom gets and the more afraid the sitter is of getting up. Not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea.
Having said all that, I think the best approach is to give up on the entire issue of demography. I don’t believe many refugees will actually want to return to Israel proper, but they must be given the right to do so, and the actual number that decide to exercise that right should not matter. It’s not about “appeasement” or “pie in the sky”. It’s a sober choice, knowing the risks and weighing them against those entailed by the alternatives. A justice-oriented approach to I/P is thus at least as pragmatic as it is moral. Pragmatism and morality do not always coincide, but in the case of peace and long-term reconciliation, they are inseparable.
Are you more encouraged by the lack of democracy in Israel?
Here’s an example of “the only democracy in the Middle East:”
link to pulsemedia.org
As far as 47-48, according to Benny Morris, the Palestinians were scared off by the Jewish armed forces and then asap blocked from returning by those same Jewish forces.
WJ.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Whilst I do not agree with you on some matters, I recommend that posters here take your comments very seriously for they appear to me to be genuinely expressed and cognizant of the reality, as you perceive it, and your judgment is firmly based on a principle of fairness.
I suspect that, were you and I (or you and Khalid Mishal for that matter), were to sit at a table, agreement would not be impossible.
The business of Right of Return is pivotal. I do not subscribe to an apocalyptic vision of what might happen should Israel acknowledge the injustice of ’48. I seriously suspect that acknowledgement is more than half the battle.
I believe many Palestinians are also aware of the realities “on the ground” and would settle for compensation and the erasure of the stigma that Israel has firmly imprinted on their National Identity. I have only my gut feeling as evidence of this.
Personally, I favor a single state. It will come sometime in the next millennium, why not now?
Sorry, forgot to close the bold brackets.
You want to see the rift? Listen to these loud mouths yelling at peace activists -
“HITLER WAS RIGHT! GO BACK TO THE CAMPS”
I hope Phil does all he can to help the NIF. It can only help to dry up contributions.
By the way, Julian, I’ve heard that reading Mondoweiss can also cause blindness. Phil really should put a warning up.
…will be used by Israel’s enemies
This is the doomsday weapon of Zionist hasbara. You may be right, but saying so “in public” will give comfort to the enemy. If I had a shekel for every time someone tried to shut me up that way …
Pingback: How did Martin Kramer get into Harvard?