Last week, five Jews debated the question of Whether Israel could be Jewish and democratic in a downtown New York synagogue dedicated to the LGBT cause. We covered it thoroughly; the thrust of the panel was that liberalism and Zionism are very difficult if not impossible to reconcile.
(A member of the Peace Now board held out a “glimmer of hope” that a Jewish state can yet be democratic; while a founder of Jews for Economic and Racial Justice said that 65 years of concrete actions show the concept doesn’t work.)
Well this weekend, a very different Jewish panel gathers in a Jewish space uptown. At the Jewish Community Center in celebration of Israel’s birthday, two liberal Zionists, Michael Walzer and Moshe Halbertal, are sure to argue that Israel can “navigate” the shoals of ethnocracy and that Zionism and liberalism are “complementary identities.” The event is being livestreamed here.
Here’s the announcement at the JCC and the David Sonabend Center for Israel:
Israel Forum: Zionism and Liberalism–conflicting values or complementary identities?
Can you be a liberal and a Zionist? How does Israel navigate its identity as a Jewish Democratic State? The Israel Forum is proud to present luminary philosophers Professors Moshe Halbertal and Michael Walzer in a conversation about Israel, nationalism, liberalism and religion, moderated by Jane Eisner, editor in chief of the Forward. Refreshments will be served. In collaboration with and funded by UJA-Federation of New York.
Mr. Weiss, could/should such a forum take place that debates a future Palestinian state being democratic, secular, with an arab majority, heavily Muslim, yet allowing a large Jewish minority to live, as equals, under its wings? Would you consider debating even why a Palestinian majority would accept any Jews as “equal” citizens, given the ferocious hatred held by the majority of them towards Jews, for centuries? How about a discussion detailing a limited history of 90 years of arab Palestinian attitudes, and treatment of, Jews living amongst them (like under the Mandate), and how that predicts cooperation and mutual respect in this one state? If such a discussion is off limits, let alone to a two-sided debate, then why place such emphasis on the “failures” of Israeli democracy? How do you seriously countenance any South African style democracy, one predicated on no vengeance to the former ruling minority (the ANC made it clear they didn’t want white flight), in a Middle East that not only is suffering turmoil, but has largely become Islamist, hostile to Christians, proudly prevents Jewish residency (including Jordan)in most countries (excepting Morocco; the few left in Egypt are very old), and publicly promotes the vilest anti-semitic tropes, the Protocols of Elders of Zion being the least upsetting? You know, one-sided displays of anti-zionism don’t do justice to a site dedicated to embracing a full throttled “war of ideas”-and maybe proposing some concrete solutions, not wishful thinking-about the Middle East, and Israel.
Is the wrong question being posed? If Zionism, which requires Israel’s subjugation/occupation/ethnic cleansing/slow or fast genocide (take your pick) of the Palestinians, succeeds, can/will Judaism survive?
I’d like to see “two luminary philosophers” explore the fact the lone superpower’s messiah, President Obama, is advocating putting America’s poor, fixed income retirees on a cat food diet to pay for the 1% and their banks TBF, and this 1% obviously includes Jewish citizens of Israel, who get a per capita average of $500 per annum free check from Uncle Sam. Obama’s not advocating ending the cap on Social Security tax, which would cure “entitlement” cost problems for decades, nor is he advocating diverting the largest chunk of our foreign military aid, which goes to Israel, to home aid for our own impoverished citizens. More on Obama’s recommended diet for our seniors: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/12/obamas-cat-food-social-security-reform/
What is the meaning of the term “liberalism”?
If I understood well a lecture of Chomsky, it may mean a manner of political control over the population that puts more emphasis on media manipulation than outright displays of power. But this is rather vague, or overly broad. To discuss the issue of “Zionism and liberalism” one would need to offer some examples of “not liberal”.
E.g. what restriction on the institution of marriage are consistent with liberalism and which ones are not?
I suspect that RBJ understands the question as “can Zionism be consistent with muddled wishy-washy thinking characterized by futile attempts to please everybody”, which does not have any good answer except “yes, but why one would wish for such a thing”, so he uses the occasion to say something nasty about the Arabs
”The Israel Forum is proud to present luminary philosophers Professors Moshe Halbertal and Michael Walzer in a conversation about Israel, nationalism, liberalism and religion, moderated by Jane Eisner, editor in chief of the Forward”
In other words—come watch our orgy of pilpul ….while we discuss the question that the whole world already knows the answer to.