News

Anti-Zionist train makes stop at Washington Post

It’s about time an anti-Zionist argument for the separation of church and state in Israel and Palestine was put forward by the Washington Post. Patricia Marks Greenfield, a psychology professor at UCLA, makes an argument against “the Jewish state.” The piece is titled, “An Israel Equal for All, Jewish or Not,” and Greenfield explains calmly that Muslims and Christians are second-class citizens, that it’s one land between the river and the sea. “Israel is out of step with the world… there can be no two-state solution.” She also honors the right of return.

[I]t seems more important than ever to state two things clearly and forcefully: Israel is a full-fledged multiethnic, multireligious society, and it must provide equal legal and day-to-day treatment to all its citizens, no matter their ethnic or religious background. Unfortunately, this is not the case for those who are Arab or Ethio­pian or whose religion is Muslim or Christian.

In this respect, Israel is out of step with much of the world. Over time, nations have become more ethnically and religiously diverse; populations have become more urban and educated; and economies have become more commercial. In response to these social and economic changes, many nations have left behind the notion of a favored state religion.

It is time for Israel to do the same. It must be a fully secular state…

As long as being Jewish holds such a preeminent place in Israel, then Muslim and Christian Arabs will always be second-class citizens, vulnerable to discrimination in housing, employment, education and other areas….

Gaza and the West Bank may be separated from each other, but they are not separated from Israel. Given this reality, Gaza and the West Bank must inevitably become part of Israel; there can be no two-state solution. And Israel must leave behind its official Jewish identity to acknowledge its multiethnic, multireligious character by providing equal treatment for all.

Patricia_GreenfieldWhat I love about this piece is its calm and straightforward manner, avoidance of the Zionist/anti-Zionist ideological foodfight in favor of a simple description of democracy and non-equal rights. Greenfield is likely Jewish. So she is kissing away some of her own privilege here; and Jewishness will give this argument more weight in D.C. I’d note that many of these arguments were made by Ali Abunimah and Tony Judt (pictured) many years ago. Yes, a renegade idea must be repeated a million times to wear away the stone, but why should democracy, equal rights, and separation of church and state be such novel concepts for Americans?

27 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Yes, a renegade idea must be repeated a million times to wear away the stone, but why should democracy, equal rights, and separation of church and state be such novel concepts for Americans?”

Great question. I fear that it is because the elites that control much in America and elsewhere really do not believe in “democracy, equal rights, and separation of church and state” for the masses belonging to any nation. For those powerful elites, it’s only sloganeering to cheer up the masses and a reason to go make war and impose “democracy”with wmd. It’s not something they hold our ‘allies’ accountable to or their own allegiance to– at all.

To put it another way – there is no good reason for depriving anyone on grounds of race or religion of the normal right to be a fully enfranchised citizen in a fully sovereign state and no good reason for denying the right of return to refugees who have not become settled citizens elsewhere.

“democracy, equal rights, and separation of church and state”

Who or what, is going to impose those values on “Israel”? Against their will, their arms, their religion, and their money? Who is going to dis-arm the Zionists.

The one-state solution never seems to deal with that, what to do with all those Zionists.

Which nations in the Middle East have left behind the idea of a state favored religion?

Greenfield’s article is divorced from reality, both the Israeli reality and the Middle Eastern reality. How much should we kowtow to reality? I accept that to be overly obeisant to reality is to overly kowtow to power, but really not even a drop of reality?

But the constant mentioning of Ethiopian Jews seems gratuitous and shallow and an attempt to curry favor with some constituency or something loose in her mind that is not a major part of the Israel Palestine conflict.

Take this quote: “Many Jewish Israelis subscribe to the unfortunate demographic myth that high birth rates among Arabs and Ethiopians mean that they will soon outnumber Jews of other national and racial origins.”

Concern about the tiny Ethiopian population is totally irrelevant to the “predominant demographic myth” and this insertion tips the hat that this is the work of an amateur and not someone serious about this issue. her passion may be serious, but not her rhetoric.

But it is fine that the Washington Post is publishing a piece like this, but the piece itself does not add to the discussion and is the work of an amateur.