The new rightwing coalition in Israeli politics allows Jeffrey Goldberg to describe his political fantasy:
here’s my fantasy: A unity government of the mainly secular Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu party and a new, mostly secular centrist party that would have the votes to actually make progress on synagogue-state separation issues.
Goldberg elaborates on the fantasy; and it is all about the liberalization of Israeli society. But there is absolutely no reference to Palestinian freedom here. To what power such a “secular centrist” party would have over Israel’s fundamental problem: occupation and apartheid rule over more than 4 million non-Jews.
My political fantasy is that if all the governed were granted the right of consent to their government– a principle we’ve enunciated in the U.S. for more than 200 years– then liberal Israelis and liberal Palestinians would form a political coalition to marginalize the fundamentalists in both societies. Put another way, if blacks didn’t have the right to vote, Virginia would be squarely in the Romney column right now, and everyone would be thankful he’s not Sarah Palin. That’s Israel.
P.S. That’s not a fantasy for Zionists. Two years back Peter Beinart made this statement in a dialogue with Jeffrey Goldberg:
PB: I’m not asking Israel to be Utopian. I’m not asking it to allow Palestinians who were forced out (or fled) in 1948 to return to their homes. I’m not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state. I’m actually pretty willing to compromise my liberalism for Israel’s security and for its status as a Jewish state. What I am asking is that Israel not do things that foreclose the possibility of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, because if it is does that it will become–and I’m quoting Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak here–an “apartheid state.”
Just imagine an American writer saying he wasn’t interested in full, equal citizenship for Jews? Goldberg would have been all over it. This passed without comment.
Phil: “all the governed were granted the right of consent to their government– a principle we’ve enunciated in the U.S. for more than 200 years” ??
ALL? 200 years ago? Well, not women, not black slaves, not native Americans, not Chinese when they arrived to work in the West. Not the vote, anyway. Not always the right to testify before a court.
However, the American experiment has run a long course, in many ways a good one, and Israel might have done better to follow some of our ideas rather than returning to the Middle Ages — and the upside-down-anti-Semitism of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.
The strongest critiques of Israel and Zionism itself come from people who think they are defending them. Just listen to how they think and compare it to what liberals would say in any other circumstance, which is what you did here.
Gets worse.
Larry Derfner in +972 mag is basically trotting out the ‘liberal’ Zionist line about how Bibi was a “moderate” and that some people who came to Israel “even admired him”.
And, with this, Bibi has more or less, in so many words, turned to the dark side.
This also dovetails nicely with Ari Shavit, a Haaretz columnist no less, who wrote this:
Bolds are mine. See the pattern? ‘Liberal’ Zionists are so predictable.
It’s like the Republican equivalent on economic policy. There are facts(with a well-known liberal bias) and then there is the parallel universe. Same is true here, but for Israel and instead of Republicans we have the ‘liberal’ Zionists.
In this parallel universe, that only they see(for reasons they refuse to share), Bibi is this mythical moderate figure who is ‘held captive’ by ‘dark forces’(Shavit/Haaretz) and is ‘admired’ around the world(Larry Derfner/+972 mag).
Also note that Likud is presented as a liberal nationalist party(the irony of this oxymoron is, sadly, completely lost on all these ‘liberal’ Zionists)
Again, all this just shows once and for all that the ‘liberal’ Zionists are just as racist as their brethren.
Some of them are probably not aware of this, others(like Goldberg) probably are but don’t care.
Either way, it is striking how similar the rhetoric is. Israel has to be saved in their own mental world, so they create this alternative universe, in order to soothe their own consciences and their support for an Apartheid state.
I found the Derfner piece–
the lieberman deal a wake up call to the world about israel”
I can’t tell for sure what Derfner thinks himself, but I wonder who he is talking about when he says some in the rest of the world thought Netanyahu was a moderate figure and was admired. Really? Aside from the usual suspects in the Lobby and the Congresscritters who gave him dozens of standing ovations, who thought that Netanyahu was a moderate? Even some Democratic politicians were starting to get a little openly disgusted when Netanyahu was pushing Obama a little too hard on the issue of Iran.
There are good reasons to believe that Netanyahu is every bit as extreme as Lieberman. The main difference is American education of Netanyahu plus traditions of his elite group within Israeli society, namely to use somewhat more polite language. When Lieberman proposed to bomb Asuan Dam he did not mean it, it is kind of “barroom rhetoric”, and Netanyahu says something nice about piece process, he also does not mean it (not that he says anything of the kind with some alarming frequency).
What really clinches the case for Likud being pretty equivalent to Israel Beitenu is the rhetoric and parliamentary initiatives of the other members of these parties. Feiglin is as messianic fascistic as one can get (short of adding Palestinians to your regular diet). But Danny Danon is one of the top party figures and he represents pretty close parallel to Lieberman. Lieberman himself started his carrier in Likud.
For that matter I was genuinely surprised that Likud elders like Begin or Rivlin “represent democratic traditions of Jabotynski”. Frankly, the Jewish part of my family was “Leftist” so basically the first reference I have ever heard about Jewish politics was “that fascist Jabotynski”. Perhaps they were biased, but Revisionists DID had very proper relationships with Benito Mussolini, youth summer camps in Italy in that period, etc. And yet, they DO have a democratic tradition. I would attribute it to bitter years that Revisionists spent in opposition, when THEY were a minority with rights that could be trampled.
” I’m not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state. ”
After reading Peter’s “Crisis” book, I think he may have changed that position. Unless I missed the point, he now argues that Israel must give up the West Bank, or as he calls it, Undemocratic Israel. I thought he wanted eveyone in Democratic Israel to have full equal citizenship, and any settler remaining in territory that will be a Palestinian state to either be entitiled to Palestinian citizenship or move back within the green line.
“I’m not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state.”
Why should he opposed full and equal citizenship to all Israelis? His support for discriminating against Arab Israelis certainly seems racist. Has Beinart ever explained himself on this? Has his position evolved over the last two years, or does he still hold this view?
Where does that inate need to be racist and segregationist come from?
It would seem to me that the biggest outcries, protesting the formation of a racist and segregationist state anywhere on the earth would come from one and the same people that are now arguing for just such a State.
The best lawyers and the best legal minds couldn’t be up against a more formidable assignment.
But please do not let anyone else notice the irony of it all.
‘ I’m not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state. ‘
“Where does that inate need to be racist and segregationist come from?”
Zionism, I would think. Since that is the ideology which governed the actions of the Zionists, and the ideology (in its forms from bad to worse) which has governed Israel before and ever since its inception. Zionism, in any practical form which has ever manifested itself beyond a prayer, is racism.
Next question?
RE: “here’s my fantasy: A unity government of the mainly secular Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu party and a new, mostly secular centrist party that would have the votes to actually make progress on synagogue-state separation issues.” ~ Jeffrey Goldberg
SOME BACKGROUND FROM URI AVNERY (VIA BERNARD AVISHAI), Feb. 2010:
SOURCE – link to bernardavishai.blogspot.com
I was looking for some suitable jokes, and this actually fits:
Fantasy in Blue (1975) – IMDb
Rating: 8/10 – 5 votes
Leon and his wife Angelique have lost their sexual creativity. They have relationships with other people but discover that they prefer each other.
Bibi and Avigdor have lost their political creativity … I think Goldberg plot is no more realistic.
—–
One thing to remember is that the discussion on reducing the privileges of ultra-religious in Israel are there in Israel for a long long time and it never happens. Why, this very summer there was a grand coalition to do exactly that! Lasted a week. One has to analyze why “secular Israelis” are not able to execute such a reform. It is clear why they contemplate such a reform: ultras annoy the secular with their lifestyle, on occasion they may attack the secular, say, for attempt to drive and park on Saturday, or walk with immodest girls to school, insist on utterly impractical education, demand large subsidies to get apartments and devote themselves to “Torah studies” and so on. There are also things like marriage laws etc.
In principle, secular parties can get together at ANY time and pass all secular reform one can dream of (most listed by Goldberg). But that would upset the religious parties (not just the ultras) while the ultras would be morose or rebellious or both. And the secular parties cannot allow for that to happen. They start with strongest convictions and then the vision of the ultras being dejected is more that the seculars can bear. Why?
Because this is a Jewish state, created so the Jews can be as Jewish as one can be, and more! A Jewish state where you can be more Jewish than anywhere, and you are proud of it. And who is more Jewish than the ultras? Perhaps they are despicable, but they are so Jewish!
“Because this is a Jewish state, created so the Jews can be as Jewish as one can be, and more! A Jewish state where you can be more Jewish than anywhere, and you are proud of it. And who is more Jewish than the ultras? Perhaps they are despicable, but they are so Jewish!”
Ran this one through my Moderation Algorithm (Vers. 2.5a, by my count) program, and it comes back clean, as long as you don’t say ‘despicably Jewish’.
You cut it pretty fine, piotr, but you made the cut. Good work.
Every time Goldberg offers an opinion it raises that perpetual question: Is he really that stupid or is he just a liar? I tend to believe the former.
” Is he really that stupid or is he just a liar?”
Goldberg is a total rationalist, and takes a strictly Menckenistic view of his earnings.