Jack Ross, who is writing a book about the anti-Zionist rabbi Elmer Berger, had this response to Ralph Seliger's comments earlier today:
I could go on forever about the absurdity of his premises about
anti-Semitism and anti-anti-Semitism, but I'll resist. (When a friend
once asked me if I was anti-Semitic, I replied that I was an
anti-anti-anti-Semite.)
But I doubt very much that his views are shared by the actual Meretz Party in Israel,
which seems to be for a two-state-solution in name only (forgive me if
that's a crude way of putting it) a la Avnery, Burg, Carter, and indeed
yourself.
Indeed very few right-wing Israelis seem to believe in the ideology of Zionism
anymore, I have often said that the most stunning thing about Bush's
speech to the Knesset last spring was that he seemed to be the only one
in the room who believed a word he said.
A while back you blogged about Hillel
Halkin's piece on Jewish genetics in Commentary. Halkin has always
been a revelatory experience to me about how one can develop a deep and
abiding respect for one's enemy. This began when I saw in his article
of a long while back "If Israel Ceased To Exist" that he was one of but
a few neocons to recognize what they had wrought. So I was very
intrigued when he said in his recent article that he would be prepared
to settle for a binational state where Hebrew remained the official
language–much as my roll my eyes at such a suggestion.
Re Seliger: I do not
know how else such a dual and mutually dependent commitment to
"progressivism" and "peoplehood" can be described but as a species of national socialism.
[Weiss again: Here is Halkin's statement re binationalism. I also was struck by it as forwardthinking, though I think it's open to interpretation.
that democratic values require it to be, a country of Hebrew-speaking
Jews, Muslims, and Christians, all equal before the law. Although the
great majority of secular Israelis do not yet subscribe to this point
of view, more and more will come to it if things continue on their
present course.]
