Jerry Haber (Magnes Zionist) responds to Ahmed Moor in their dialogue about liberal Zionists and BDS.
Since Ahmed Moor and I agree on many fundamental goals — transforming Israel from an ethnic Jewish state to a state of all its citizens, dispensing justice to those who have been wronged, enabling the Palestinian people to exercise their inalienable rights – and since we also agree on the stated goals of the global BDS movement, let me reiterate briefly where we disagree.
We disagree over the tactics of the global BDS campaign, or to be more precise, Moor disagrees with the tactics of the global BDS campaign. I argued, and he did not challenge this, that the global BDS movement takes no position on regime change in Israel, and it certainly does not take a position on the one-state issue. It bases itself on international resolutions and international human rights law. That allows for a pretty broad coalition, and so it is not surprising that prominent Jews and Israelis who supported the Berkeley divestment resolution included two-staters like Noam Chomsky and self-described Zionists like Prof. Lev Grinberg of Ben-Gurion University. In many battles the global BDS movement has faced, it has been aided by two-staters, and those people are essential and valued allies (Neither Chomsky nor Grinberg would qualify for Moor’s “racist neighbor” example.)
I don’t know whether Moor realizes that one can be a two-stater and not a statist Zionist, or for that matter, a Zionist who is opposed to a Jewish ethnic state. One can hold, for example, that alongside a state of Palestine will be an Israeli state of all its citizens, one that can have an Arab prime minister, grants full civil equality to all its citizens, and fosters the culture and heritage of its principle ethnic and religious groups. Such a state would abolish the current Israeli Law of Return and Naturalization laws, which privilege one group and does not provide for naturalization (except by ministerial fiat). It would look a bit like what Bernard Avishai calls “a Hebrew republic. “ Unless I am mistaken, Moor confuses the call for the transformation of Israel into a liberal democracy with the call for its replacement by one state. In fact the one-state, two-state debate at this point is not the issue – what is at issue is how to provide justice and self-determination for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
My point about Palestinian Israelis not opposing Israel as a Jewish ethnic state was not with respect to their ideology or their wishes. It is a no-brainer that Israeli Palestinians, like any people, want to live in a society in which they are not foundationally discriminated against, and the Jewish ethnic state does just that. What I meant to say is that many of these Palestinians want very much to live in an *Israel* that does not so discriminate. They are, despite everything, Israeli Palestinians with an Israeli Palestinian identity. And that certainly is true of intellectuals like Azmi Bishara and politicians like Ahmed Tibi, who know Hebrew and Jewish culture better than most Jews outside Israel (and many within Israel.)
Moor and I find the compromises offered by the liberal Zionists at best inadequate and at worst deeply offensive. He and I are rightfully annoyed with the many attempts to give the Palestinians crumbs. Since I am not a statist Zionist but a cultural one none of his arguments against liberal Zionism affects me. He mistakes my call to liberal Zionists to support BDS, despite some misgivings, with the call for Palestinians to hold hands with liberal Zionists. Did I say anything about dialogue in my post?
The anti-apartheid movement brought together different groups with different ideologies. Even so, it was not enough to bring down apartheid by itself; historians still debate about the efficacy of the movement. Moor says that he would rather see the Berkeley student senate vote down partial divestment than for some of its members to support it for the wrong reasons. His and my disagreement on this point may stem, in part, from the stages in life in which we find ourselves. Moor is a young man and has a lot of time. He can wait for the world to grow up and see the light. Neither I nor, apparently, the global BDS movement can.
A rose may be a rose no matter what you call it, but to me you’re redefining Zionism. If I understand your definition right, I don’t (particularly) object to your ideological stance, but it just isn’t Zionism, which was statist from the getgo. Plus, you should give it up, the label, Zionism has an evil ring now.
lyn117
Please educate yourself more about “Zionism from the getgo.” You may not be aware of the cultural Zionism of Ahad ha-Am or Judah Magnes. You can start by reading my post, Zionism Without a Jewish Ethnic State at the Magnes Zionist blog. Then you should read about the Ihud movement of Magnes, Buber, and Hannah Arendt, all Zionists. “The Ihud advocated an Arab-Jewish binational state in a self-governing and undivided Palestine, with political rights for the two peoples of Palestine.” (Shimoni, The Zionist Ideology, p. 374). It was rejected at the time, and understandably so, by Palestinian nationalists. But a binational state is very much on the table nowadays.
So Ahad ha-Am (assuming he was a Zionist which is a little unclear) was talking about something entirely different, as an ideology or political movement, than Zionist founder Herzl. Two entirely different things, operating under the same (apparently) name. I guess that’s par for ideologies, but whatever Ahad ha-Am advocated wasn’t what emerged as the Zionist movement, so I think its entirely fair to say that Zionism was statist from the get-go. What actually happened close to what Herzl imagined, a state without too many non-Jews, accomplished by forcing or coercing the non-Jews to leave (Herzl was a little vague on the means to get the non-Jews out but it’s clear he was willing to use discrimination or even forceful means).
As for the rest, I’ve only read a little Hannah Arendt, very prepared to appreciate her, but I was a bit disappointed that she seemed to have bought the “Arabs are savages” Zionist-colonial line. Obviously, a product of her period, but from a major philosopher I’m not sure that’s a good excuse. I didn’t find anything in her writing that showed any real interest in the people the Zionists were colonizing, their culture or history. Of course, maybe it’s there and I just didn’t get to that essay.
As for the rejection of political rights for two peoples in Palestine, Palestinian nationalists were demanding equal rights regardless of creed as early as 1930. The demands were rejected by the British because of the Balfour clauses of the mandate, as we pretty much know the Balfour declaration was a product of Zionist influence on the British government. Of course democracy with equal rights regardless of creed could have eventually put a halt to Jewish immigration into Palestine, hence, no Jewish state. It might easily have still been a cultural center, religious tourism has always been a mainstay in Palestine.
With regard to the Ihud Arab-Jewish binational state with political rights for the two peoples, those rights need to be spelled out. It may just be putting a favorable spin on a state in which Jews have more rights than Palestinian Arabs. I’m sorry, so much of the so-called humanist Zionist writing is just that, putting a favorable spin on ethnic supremacism, covering up ethnic cleansing and massacres, “shooting then crying,” and so on. Israel today commonly claims Arabs have equal rights, just the other day Oren was saying Arabs can build anywhere in Jerusalem. Yeah, right.
As for the rejection of political rights for two peoples in Palestine, Palestinian nationalists were demanding equal rights regardless of creed as early as 1930. The demands were rejected by the British because of the Balfour clauses of the mandate, as we pretty much know the Balfour declaration was a product of Zionist influence on the British government. Of course democracy with equal rights regardless of creed could have eventually put a halt to Jewish immigration into Palestine, hence, no Jewish state.
lyn117, the early 30s? When and why did the numbers of immigrants rise enormously? I think to visualize matters with historical maps may help. Why not the Holocaust museums?
Look, I am not suggesting this is an excuse for everything “the Zionists” are doing now–I actually prefer Israelis–but it surely was at the core of the conflict then.
Do you support immigration for persecuted people in your country? Would have supported it then? Many countries closed their borders at the time, at least to the have nots, and please remember in Germany they weren’t allowed to work for quite a while when the ground got hot. Palestine for many was the only hope. Israel came into existence as much through German/European antisemitism in the countries that preferred them to go somewhere else.
You should be blaming us Germans to a rather big extent, are you?
“I don’t have a clue what Haber (his stage name) is proposing.”
It’s all mumbo jumbo so he can feel good about himself. He can be on everyone’s side. He’s a “Zionist” while being against the State of Israel. He complains about Israel mistreating the Arabs yet takes full advantage of the good life in Israel gained through that alleged mistreatment. “Haber” is for BDS, but only as much of the individual can take.
“Haber” doesn’t even use his real name giving the excuse it lets him write more “unbuttoned”. In other words, he’s hiding behind an alias.
“Haber” what you are is a phony, fraud and a fake.
I believe that he is sincere, in regarding cultural Zionism as the nucleus while the political form as a liability.
But, I fundamentally disagree, even as I see his points.
Zionism started in the nineteenth century, ironically at a time when Western European Jews were being more and more integrated into the societies in which they lived.
The Zionist aim of creating a Jewish State in Palestine, regardless of the wishes or interests of the Palestinian Muslim, Jews, and Christians, was laid down in 1897. This was long before the Nazi party had been founded.
“Palestine for many was the only hope. ”
I know that the Zionists pressured the US and the UK to restrict the number of Jewish refugees they would accept, but there were plenty of other countries in the world. Did the Zionists control (e.g.) South America?
And why did the Jewish refugees to Palestine commit themselves to the Zionist aim, rather than supporting the Palestinian idea of a single unified demcratic state?
“You should be blaming us Germans to a rather big extent, are you?”
Blaming Nazis for their support of Zionism? I certainly do. Blaming Nazis for the Holocaust? I certainly do.
Blaming modern Germans for sending high-tech weapons to Israel? I certainly do.
Blaming modern Germans for Zionism? Of course not.
Looking into arguments and advocacies, there is no such thing as liberal zionist- its either zionists (Israel all throughout) or liberals(progressive towards Israel’s fall)
‘Liberal zionist’ is a cunning subtle deceptive unguarding description…
I don’t have a clue what Haber (his stage name) is proposing. (Everyone wants to be “Publius”. There are thousands of them now, on the web. They overshadow the candid.)
I think it is support limited BDS to attempt to accomplish the goals stated in the academic/cultural BDS foundational statements.
But, only in terms that will not alienate the majority before they look further. Is that accurate?
I think the question of what one supports politically, in fact, is a critical distinction. Phil is very forthcoming to allow you two to air your dirty laundry publicly about the scope and range of BDS tactics.
Again, the use of the term BDS is itself a revelation, a revealing of the maximalist scope and intention of the movement. Boycott (not limited), Divestment (not limited) and Sanctions (isolation). It appeals to the converted, and does and should scare liberal Zionists, who mean well, but don’t seek to risk our own or others lives or even comforts for the justice movement.
I saw the video of Jeff Halper that someone presented here. (I think it was Dickerson). Halper commented that he did not rely on liberals, even though the majority of the Israeli and American Jewish bell curve, because they are not willing to risk, that they have jobs or other roles that might be in danger if they came out too much, even in their thinking.
I think American Jewish progressive supporters of BDS have a big decision to make. That is whether to defer to the maximalist definitions of BDS as articulated by dedicated Palestinian solidarity leaders who are more accountable to the demands of their Palestinian constituencies, or to insist on discipined limited definitions under the control of those that are most sensitive to the audiences.
I think that is at the root of your disagreement with Ahmed.
I hope that it is not an argument of, “lets hide our true intentions of a single state. Its ok to deceive them”, whereas Ahmed is saying “lets not deceive them. Lets be honest about our true intentions.”
I can’t deny I am slightly amused Richard.
I don’t have a clue what Haber (his stage name) is proposing.
Well human choices are a complex matter. I can offer you this. But you can also ask The Realistic Dove, Dan Fleshler. He might know. If you really want to know, this wasn’t the best way to ask.
(Everyone wants to be “Publius”. There are thousands of them now, on the web. They overshadow the candid.)
The “candid”? The balanced, impartial, straightforward, sincere and honest and “balanced towards Israel” like you I guess?
But “overshadow” means exactly what? The more reliable conventions? Overshadow the official Israel view? The loyal blindness “towards the: direction taken by
successive Israeli governments, especially in the Occupied Territories.” Controlled loyal blindness, military censorship? We know now from all the “Publiuses” on the net.
I know what Americans that support BDS and want it to be widely supported, would like it to appear.
Again, if the movement were in fact LD (limited divestment), I would probably feel comfortable supporting its goals publicly (if not asking others to do so).
As I’ve said many times, I’ve had two experiences that cause me a great deal of distrust. One was during the first Iraq War, I signed a petition locally that urged the cessation of armed hostilities, but was published in a list in a local paper that urged a much more maximalist interpretation and condemnation of US colonialism (not what I signed).
The second was of attending a pro-Palestinian demonstration in which a rabbi friend carried a peace sign with an Israeli and Palestinian flag in the two halves, and was wearing his kipa and was confronted, then harrassed verbally, then a couple rocks were thrown (not due to anything that he said, more like the harrassment that happens here to those that don’t use the term “war crime” but are still critical of Israeli actions and policies.)
Richard Witty was falsely presented as a maximalist? The horror!!!
Are you claiming that an Arab or Palestinian attendee actually threw a rock at a rabbi because he had a sign with both flags?
I attended a rally against the Gaza slaughter last December with my family when a Jewish passerby walked in front of us, shouting “Death to Arabs.” I pointed to my beautiful 15 -year old daughter and said, “Sir, this girl is an Arab!” He looked her square in the face and said, “you should be dead.” To a teenager!
Having attended a gazillion Palestinian protests, the bottom line is that things get heated, rarely do Palestinians in the US get the chance to publicly wave their flags, and there ARE tensions in the movement.
Some Palestinians who attend these events ARE one-staters. I have much respect for Jewish attendees who keep their cool during the “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” chants.
Judy,
I was there. The tone was similar to here. Someone accosted him on
“Zionism is racism, how can you carry that sign”.
“I urge peace between the peoples”.
“You are a racist”.
Like I said. “You should be dead.” To a teenager.
Oh well. Life goes on.
And someone threw a rock at him? Can you explain what happened?
I do sympathize with you Judy… While I am against this ‘kill the Jews’ spirit, which is the wellspring of all this evil…I do not agree either under such ‘peace-zone’ circumstances to include specifically inflicting this emotional ‘kill the Arabs’ pain to an innocent 15 year old Arab girl who incidentally happened to be just there accompanying her parents …This must be something a really disgusting conflict. These Jews must have lost their senses too. The Jewish community should deal seriously with such pesky behaviour among them… (and Judy next time, don’t bring your kids to such risky activity, if something bad happens, that will help exacerbate this already worsen conflict…) I know our utmost desire as parents to educate our kids on these matters but prudence makes big difference…In all circumstances safety comes first and foremost…I hope my concern has not offended you…
I did explain.
The rock thrown occurred later, when we were leaving. It was anonymous.
I determined to value my integrity more than to add my voice to the rhetoric that periodically reached hateful tone.
Yelling at a rabbi carrying a peace sign, does NOTHING to stop the occupation.
So you’re not sure who actually threw a rock at him, or why.
Like a typical Zionist, you just blame the Arabs or their supporters and use that to justify your attitudes with no regards to any actual evidence.
Do you know I’ve had Middle Eastern friends who have been physically accosted. And one who was shot at?
Zamaaz… my 15 year old daughter is an Arab-American of Palestinian descent. You think I can protect her from hatred by leaving her home? From a peace rally?
“then harrassed verbally, then a couple rocks were thrown (not due to anything that he said, more like the harrassment that happens here to those that don’t use the term “war crime” but are still critical of Israeli actions and policies.)”
The rock throwing was inexcusable, whoever did it. The “harrassment” might not be excusable either, as it doesn’t appear that this rabbi had time to set forth his views in enough detail for people to determine that he was an apologist for war crimes, someone who says Hamas was unquestionably guilty of war crimes in the Gaza massacre, but refuses to say that this was true of Israel. Now if this guy actually had had the time to make clear that he holds the double standards on human rights that you hold, then a certain amount of verbal criticism would be warranted.
This was before Gaza, before Lebanon.
The point was it permanently alienated me and probably 100 liberal Zionists that heard the rabbi’s story accurately from supporting ANY dissent that had any prospect of militancy.
You sound like one of his accosters, in your politically correct zeal, your thought-policing.
You are then adept at alienation, much moreso than organization.
So we’re supposed to forget what crimes Zionists have done before 1949 as well as after 2005, huh?
Keep moving those goalposts, Witty.
Richard, stop making a midrash on the words of BDS and look at their website, for God’s sake. The global BDS movement proudly casts the Berkeley vote as a victory when it was about a divestment from companies that do business on the West Bank, a move that even Americans for Peace Now support. They boast of support by two-staters like Noam Chomsky. Are you accusing Chomsky of obtuseness over the hidden goals of the movement? Do you think that the Palestinian leadership of the BDS movement is incredibly stupid — that it does not realize that Palestinians when polled prefer two states to one state?
The global BDS movement is not a one-state movement, even though there are many one staters who support it, including some of the leaders of the movement. But so what?
Americans for Peace Now have distanced themselves from total BDS, and now have endorsed partial BDS. I will be blogging about that soon. So if liberal Zionists want to sign on to APN rather than global BDS, fine with me. The question will be — what will the two group do when resolutions like the Berkeley resolution one come up again.
I will answer this Witty:
So what if you have names… Will these people put their necks to make the Jews in Israel sleep safely? What is crucial to these ‘zionists’ is the eventuality of finally safe and secured Israel…
“Will these people put their necks to make the Jews in Israel sleep safely?”
They sleep safely as it is thanks to the US government, thogu they could sleep safely without the held of the US government if they agreed to peace.
I hope that is true.
There is good reason for concern, not good reason for aggression.
“There is good reason for concern, not good reason for aggression. ”
If you believed that, then stop lying.
‘Theories of greatness are nice’, but it is going to bed ‘filled and safe’ that finally counts…
The question of intent is important.
I could support an effort that was consistently limited to opposing the extra-legal impositions of the occupation.
I don’t see it yet.
I would be very angry if my name were solicited on a petition and I saw on a more maximalist press release (which has happened to me).
And, I think you are naive in thinking that the language BDS (as the movement is promoted under) is not translatable only in terms that exceed the range of the majority of the Jewish bell curve’s range of sympathy.
In every resolution there will then be a need to clarify “we don’t mean boycott Israel, maybe we shouldn’t have used the term boycott”, if BDS is primary in the effort, in the intent.
As frustrating and nit-picking as it may sound.
is not translatable only in terms that exceed the range of the majority of the Jewish bell curve’s range of sympathy.
Hmmm? The “Jewish-bell-curve’s-range-of-sympathy”. Now that is a coinage many a Web-Publius wouldn’t manage. That’s definitively NYT level.
You mean like that of Zionism vis-a-vis proclamations of “Greater Israel?”
I agree with almost everything Ahmed Moor writes – even on this subject – but I still fail to understand his objection to Jerry’s Haber’s appeal to liberal Zionists to support or at least not obstruct BDS.
Haber did not appeal to the BDS movement to reach out to Zionists or to tone down its messages in any way. He appealed to a group that would appear to be actively opposing BDS, in attempt to convince them that not only should they not be opposing it, they should probably be supporting it – based on their own values. How could that possibly compromise the goals of BDS as seen by Ahmed Moor (goals that I happen to share)?
Jerry Haber isn’t a Zionist. He is a post-Zionist, another shade of anti-Zionist who rejects self-determination for the Jewish people. The effort to transform Israel into a “state of all its citizens” is in fact a repudiation of the ideal of Jewish self-rule. Such post-Zionists are in favor of every nationalism in the world save the Jewish one.
That’s a false generalization.
You need to distinguish between self-determination for Jews and self-determination for Jews on the backs of the Palestinians.
The effort to transform Israel into a “state of all its citizens” is in fact a repudiation of the ideal of Jewish self-rule.
So democracy is the end of “ideal of Jewish self-rule”?
If so then why bother calling Israel “democratic and Jewish.” That meme is wearing very thin these days, why not simply call it for what it is and be done with that?
Doesn’t really what he calls himself. He’s a powerless phony who doesn’t even have the courage to give his own name.
“Haber” is one of those leftists that tells others what they should give up while he lives an incredibly comfortable life off the country he wants to destroy.
TOTALLY unlike the Zionist neoconservatives that lied the United States into two wars, threw away thousands of American soldiers’ lives, and utterly destroyed the financial integrity of the US government and economy in general, huh?
Pingback: Politics is a matter of the heart, which is why the BDS social movement is important