The ‘Israelist’ Dilemma

[earth.observer]

This is something I wrote recently and have posted up on one other site. If anyone wants a PDF version let me know how to attach it to a post.



THE ‘ISRAELIST’ DILEMMA

Like many Israelis today I am having more and more trouble identifying with Zionism. I have found that Zionism has been hijacked by the Israeli right and Jewish fundamentalists with whom I barely identify. Zionism itself is tainted irreparably by years of occupation and repression of the Palestinians. I look at Israel and see a leadership and society that is militaristic and ideological in character and ill-suited to democratic government. Worse yet, while agreeing that Zionism was a response to persecution and not inherently racist at its outset, it is difficult to see Zionism today as anything but racist.

At the same time I increasingly identify with the ongoing predicament of the Israeli people. I know that a great many settlers live in the West Bank for economic reasons. I know only too well the scope of the threat to the Israeli people posed by Islamic radicalism and personally have been in relatively close proximity to several suicide attacks. Like many I supported the peace process, and still do. But also, like the vast majority of supporters of peace I believe in the continued existence and strength of Israel. I believe in democracy and the need for the Israeli people to be free.

This inner clash of abhorrence for Zionism versus support for Israel poses a critical dilemma for me and undoubtedly for many others. Zionism however is increasingly dissuasiveness of dissent, automatically discarding alternative visions of Israel’s future. Rabin led Israel to victory in 1967 while Peres led the Ministry of Defence for years playing no small role in giving Israel its military strength. Both however are routinely portrayed as traitors to the Israeli nation, tragically so in Rabin’s case. How then can I reject Zionism without the perception of rejecting Israel?

I would like to propose a new concept, tentatively named Israelism that might go some way to solving this dilemma. Israelism looks forward to a better future for Israel and the Israeli people. It sees a time when Israelis live in peace and security, when democracy and civil society flourish, when our diverse range of citizens view one another with respect, and when economic wellbeing increases rather than erodes. Call me naïve if you want but I want to believe in a better future, and Zionism today does not allow me that right.

Israelism also sees a Palestinian state alongside Israel with Palestinians living in peace, security, and economic prosperity, much as we ourselves now demand. Settlements will have to be withdrawn, and roadblocks dismantled. The road to this vision is long and fraught with danger. People on both sides must be extraordinarily patient, which they were not during the Oslo peace process. Terrorism will perhaps continue for 10-20 years, but steadily it would abate as normalization occurs.

Israelism improves on post-Zionism which is derided as somehow implying that the need for Israel and Judaism has somehow diminished. Israelism accepts the post-Zionist view of history but tries to respect the views of the right, religious and poor, with a parallel demand for reciprocal respect. Israelism indoctrinates post-Zionism but widens its appeal beyond a limited range of people.

Those of us who support the existence of Israel but reject Zionism should create for ourselves a new identity that will be widely acceptable to Israeli society while not risking being tarred with the term traitor. That is love of the Israeli people and the Jewish state, but rejection of Zionist repression and racism. We must be realistic about the challenges ahead and accept that success will come from national unity not internal strife.

I would be interested to observe Zionists and Israelists engaged in a true debate, in which both sides view each other as having something to offer. The alternative is a scenario in which those who oppose Zionism yet support Israel steadily throw their hands in the air and depart to more accommodating shores.

Before anyone says “so let them go” (as I am sure some of you are thinking right now) I ask you to consider a state without secular liberal citizens. Such a state might be anti-democratic in nature, at risk of alienating its allies and quite possibly subject to international sanctions, with poor economic prospects, and almost certainly at war with the Palestinians for the foreseeable future. Those of you who believe that the US will never abandon Israel should read up on the subject of alternative fuel sources, especially buel and hydrogen fuel cell technology.

A century ago Argentina was one of the most prosperous nations in the world. It then changed direction and adopted a paradigm that led it to military dictatorship, fascism, war, and eventual economic collapse. Argentina then was in many respects quite similar to Australia but the latter maintained its liberal paradigm. This helped Australia to become one of the wealthiest nations on earth today. Israel must now decide if it prefers the path of Argentina or Australia.

If we choose Australia as our model, and I believe that most of us would, let’s start by abandoning Zionism, discarding the cabal of ineffectual generals who lead Israel today, and adopting Israelism. If we want the Palestinians to change their mindset, perhaps we must also change ours.

[Am Yisrael]

earth.observer,

If it wasnt for zionism there wouldnt be no Israel. Zionism is establishing a state for Jews that is a "safe-haven" for the persecuted. THAT IS IT. Zionism is not expansionism. Zionism is not nationalism. Zionism IS NOT RACISM. Politics is politics... Zionism is establishing a home. Blame politics... not zionism. Zionism does not prevent Palestinians from establishing a state side-by-side to Israel. Zionism is not an ideology that rejects non-jews living in Israel. Zionism is not a right wing Israeli ideology. In fact it was bloody created mostly by left wing people. I think you have a totally out-of-context view of zionism that I am interested in learning where you came to think like this.

Shalom

[alexbmn]

here we have a perfect reason why Israel might not survive the next fifty years. Menachem Begin himself said " The Arabs are our problem ,but the leftists are our curse. " Self hating Israeli leftists who are ever willing to emrace the enemy's point of view have totally castrated the country and sapped its will to resist.

[alexbmn]

"terrorism will continue for twenty years years but then abate" .The things I want to say when I read things like are well ... I'm not going to write them.<deleted by moderator> .

[sharonbn]

alexbmn,

please refrain from profanity in this forum.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by earth.observer

THE ‘ISRAELIST’ DILEMMA

Like many Israelis today I am having more and more trouble identifying with Zionism. I have found that Zionism has been hijacked by the Israeli right and Jewish fundamentalists with whom I barely identify. Zionism itself is tainted irreparably by years of occupation and repression of the Palestinians. I look at Israel and see a leadership and society that is militaristic and ideological in character and ill-suited to democratic government. Worse yet, while agreeing that Zionism was a response to persecution and not inherently racist at its outset, it is difficult to see Zionism today as anything but racist...

Your dilemma is the result of your own confusion. You are unable to square Leftist mythology with reality, so you try to invent a new reality.

Leftists see the poor and weak as inherently noble. The flipside is that the prosperous and strong are assumed to have done something wrong to get where they are.

You see Israel occupying and oppressing the "Palestinians." Can you explain how the "Palestinians" are different from the Egyptians or Jordanians? Do you know why there isn't an Arab state in Gaza and/or the West Bank today?

You seem to think the only thing wrong with the Oslo Peace Process was that people were not sufficiently patient. The thought never crosses your mind that the Palestinians rejected Israel's offer, did not bother to make a counter offer, and started a war.

Nor does it dawn on you that militarism and exaggerated nationalism are a predictable response to decades of Arab hate and mass murder. It should not come as a shock to anyone who thinks about it that the Arabs' racism and intolerance would engender a somewhat equal and opposite reaction. With each mass murder attack, more and more Jews become convinced that the ideal of living in peace and cooperation with the neighboring Arabs was never anything more than wishful thinking.

Personally, I found your essay well-written but extremely self-indulgent. As best I can tell, you are willing to live in a diverse society as long as you can completely insulate yourself from those who don't share your values. What really bugs you is that the majority of Israelis have moved to the right not because they are rightwing by nature, but because they realize the old formula--risk everything for an illusory peace--has not only failed but failed spectacularly.

Sure, you can choose the Australian model over the Argentine. But before you do, make sure you are really living on an island with thousands of miles of ocean separating you and your enemies.

[yoyo]

If I understand correctly, one of the criteria of "Israelism" would be to shield people like Peres or Rabin being called a traitor? Tell me... how do you call someone who put a process in place that kill the citizen of a country and receive vast amount of money from the EU to do so? I have to admit, Peres is not the worst of the bench, if I had to give the palm of Treachery and Lies it would be Beilin that deserves it.

On the whole, if I do interpret your article correctly, the people that oppose a PLO State are old fashion zionist not future lookingf Israelist?! In light of this and the exclusion of non-secular party in this new doctrine, it puzzles me that you still refer to Israel as a Jewish State. You might as well make one country, allow millions arabs to be citizen, etc...

Israel is not like any other state, it is a Jewish State, the center of faith for the majority of the Jewish people. Israel cannot afford to stop that way of life, the alternative would mean being "dhimmis" controlled by arabs.

My opinion is that you are getting to this wrong answer because you are asking the wrong question. The question is not "should srael withdraw 60% or 100% of the West Bank and Gaza", the question is "have arab come to term with Israel and as a Jewish State". To both question it would not be exagerated to say "NO!". There it doesn't matter if Israel make progress toward a PLO State, it will not stop terrorism because "allah said so".

[peacelover]

alexbnm - I appreciate why you are upset about the seeming acceptance of 20 more years of terror, the only thing is I think that this is bound to happen whatever route is taken. If a deal is negotiated, the factions of Palestinians who don't want to compromise will continue to wage terror. If you take the strong military route, then likewise, the palestinians will continue to try. This is an acceptance of reality, as opposed to an acceptance that it is OK - obviously, it should be fought all the way. I just think that it will take time for the mindset of the Pals to adjust, and in that time terror, or at least attempts at it, will continue.

earth.observer - thanks for your post.

As I read it, I predicted that people would think that you were being a little naive; it is something I am often accused of, and I have to admit, there is no doubt some substance to this accusation in my case. But I am not yet 20, and not quite ready to give up on the world yet. I saw a lot of my ideals in your post, such as the belief in a better future for both Israelis and Palestinians, side by side. I know most people want that to happen, but a lot don't actually believe it. I do. I can't help it - no doubt because I have too much faith in human nature, but I still believe, and that is why it hits me so hard when stuff goes wrong, because it further erodes the chances of seeing my hopes become reality.

Well, I still do hold on to the chance of being able to visit the peaceful lands where my Mother and her ancestors were born. They are Palestinian as it happens, but also Christians, so I have just a general affection for the area as both the Holy Land and of my own family history - and the fact that our home in Jaffa will be Israeli not Palestinian does not change the place it holds in my heart. It would give me great joy to see the Jewish homeland in peace, to see the Jews (both the recent immigrants, and those who survive from the mandate - it is both their homes) and the Arabs who live there enjoy this peace. I guess what I'm trying to say is that my love for the place is not based on Israeli/Palestinian divides. I am glad that the Jewish people have been given their homeland there, and I hope they will not mind my fondness for the area as part of my history, despite the fact I am not Jewish.

So as you can see, I've not yet been completely defeated by the brutal reality fo the present. I still have a romantic view of things and how they will turn out. I think your post is more realistic than I am, but I did identify with it, because it radiated hope.

These days I hold on to my ideals, but am acceptant of the fact that they probably won't materialise, and also look at the more depressing possibilities. Perhaps one day, I will succumb completely and just see the harsh reality and think "you silly naive little girl", but I hope not. Of course we must deal with the reality, but never, ever close your eyes to your dreams. Part of me sees this bloody conflict stringing out forever, but there's still a part of me that sees the innocent Arabs and innocent Jews claimed by this war buried side by side, and rainbows in the sky above them.

And I don't regret or apologise for that.

[Mediocrates]

E.O I'm sorry but you never described or defined what you think Zionism is before your elaborated on your criticism of it.

To many - post Zionist Zionism turns inward to good social works, education, social welfare and the mechanics of the modern welfare state. To them, this neoZionism has no relevant outward message and has no value as the expression of Israel outside of Israel itself. I'm not saying this is your view - I have no idea.

I would not call myself a Conservative let alone a Republican but I must say that William F. Buckley gets a helluva lot more right than he gets wrong. And the so called neocons like Jonah Goldberg, are dead on when they highlight the difference between wishing things were different and accepting the responsibility to make them so....hell Teddy Roosevelt is starting to look pretty damn smart (and liberal).

The point is, they have important things to say about foreign policy. I'm not convinced they have any traction with local politics or any reasonable notion of what a community is. The last person I want as my next door neighbor is a hardcore Randian conservative who thinks of everything in terms of optimal worst case outcomes.

At any rate - the first thing you have to determine is what is Zionism supposed to mean to you. Then you can analyze it. And then you can determine where it says anything relevant to you, to the world, to the Jews to the Israelis themselves. I think you jump the shark when your first premise is racism and you proceed from that point. What conclusion comes after racism? Tear down Zionism? It's fundamentally flawed? I think there is a component of hating the allies you've been driven to by the killers and terrorists. Have you ever analyzed that?

[earth.observer]

I see a good debate emerging here, and that was a key idea expressed by the article.

Am Yisrael:

In another time and place, Zionism had a purpose. But, that purpose now has mostly diminished, and Zionism has become a curse around our necks. Israel is a powerful state. The real threats to Israel are limited, as was shown by the Iraq war. Zionism instead has become the greatest impediment to our existence. Our enemies view it as expansionist and repressive, and I for one agree with them. I agree that Zionism was not originally racist, but it has certainly become a racist doctrine. I see this on a daily basis.

The reason for this is its hijacking by the extremists who refuse to see beyond their own narrow agenda. I call it narrow because it refuses to accept the diversity of views within Israel and in the region and the world. It also refuses to accept that the world has changed. To a very great extent Zionism today lives in the past (a terrible past of genocide and persecution) and refuses to look ahead.

Also, and this is a critical issue, Zionism is blind to the great injustice suffered by the Palestinians in being forced from their homes and living in camps for so many years (perhaps 55 years ago I would understand that blindness, but not today). The Arab world was clearly negligant in not caring for the Palestinians, but Zionism was equally negligent in not seeking an acceptable solution.

Alexbn:

Islamic terror (as it exists today) is hurting our morale, but in reality each attack is a pin in our flesh. Such pins are often extremely painful, but the greatest danger come from infection - that infection is racism, militarism, and repression.

If you feel anger at the death of Israelis, I ask you to image how a Palestinian feels at the death of a Palestinian, perhaps a neighbor, or a close relative. Is their anger likely to be any less than your own? I could add some numbers here to show how the number of Palestinians killed, wounded, or living in poverty and repression since 1948 is significantly higher than the proportional number of Israelis.

But, instead I ask you to consider the differences between a Palestinian mother and an Israeli mother (perhaps there are significant cultural differences in the response to the death of a child, hence the Palestinian mother of a suicide bomber dancing with knives, but you will find that the grief is the same). As for your concern at living in terror for another 10 to 20 years, I believe that is a better alternative to the one we face at present. We have lived in terror for 1000 years. What is another 10 to 20 years compared to that?

ibrodsky:

I do not believe that I am confused. The ideas stated in the article are crystal clear. I agree that I am creating a new reality - but did Zionism not do the same 100 or so years ago? If we do not change, both Israelis and the Palestinians will continue to live under threat for the forseeable future, and both the Palestinians and Israelis will continue to suffer for the forseeable future. These are unacceptable.

Regarding your lack of concern for the poor and weak, we have forgotten that Zionism was created to address the suffering of the poor and weak. A non-racist Zionism would refuse to differentiate between the poor and weak of one society and the poor and weak of another. A non-racist Zionism would accept its close affinity with parallel philosophies struggling to address the suffering of the poor and weak of another society. I don't care for doctrines that seek to pass off the problems of its causing by seeking to "explain how the "Palestinians" are different from the Egyptians or Jordanians".

Oslo was admittedly far from perfect, but it was a process. I recall the claims in the 1970s and 1980s that the Arab states were refusing to negotiate (the three no's). However, as soon as the Arabs were ready to negotiate, the Israeli right said no. I am sure that you agree: talking is better than fighting. When a chance (no matter how small) came about, the Israeli right rejected that chance. I am sure you agree that terrorism and exaggerated nationalism are a predictable response to decades of languishing in camps with no hope for a better future and repression by a foreign power.

I disagree that my article is self-indulgent. My dilemma is based on hope for a better future for all. I also disagree that this is an attempt to insulate myself from those with different values - my article is an attempt to compromise between the two extremes of Israeli society in order to address the future. I certainly do see the current situation as the spectactular failure of the old formula - the Zionist formula has refused to adapt to the modern world.

The new formula is risking everything for peace, but it has not yet been tried with any measure of longevity - as soon as the going got tough, abandoning the new formula was the easiest solution. The Israeli right rejected the new formula outright - never giving it a chance even once, and predeterming its failure from the outset.

Others: I will respond later.

[L@mplighterM]

So in the midst of a battle for survival you want to create a new reality and that’s somehow going to sweep the current reality under the carpet. Jews were slaughtered by Arabs long before Zionism and will be slaughtered no matter what you choose to rename it.

I doubt very much that the day will come when Jews will be able to live peacefully side by side with Islamic fundamentalists.


It took the Corsicans several hundred years to live together with the Greeks that were imported to the island by the French and even today the friction remains. The two separate cultures killed each other to the point were they realized that they would face extinction if the killing didn’t stop. In the case of these two distinct people we were only talking about a few hundred Greeks. It seems to me that polls indicate that the majority of Muslims back their Islamic brothers in their fight with Israel and we're talking about 600,000,000 + Arabs/Muslims.

[earth.observer]

yoyo:

One of the goals of Israelism is to unite the diverse groups within Israeli society, to gain a positive respect for one another, to learn from one another, and for all to learn that reality is different from aspirations.

The post-Zionists must accept that a significant proportion of the the Israeli population is traditional or religious or affected by historical persecution and fears for security.

The Zionists must accept that the world has changed, that we can evolve positively while maintaining religious faith (if so desired), we must accept responsibility for what we have done, and that only by changing can we affect a better future for all.

peacelover:

Thank you for your response. I also posted this on a site with a reputation for being quite radical Islamist, and the response there was quiet but mostly supportive. Since I obviously believe in a safe and strong Israel, and am open about that in the article, I hope this response indicates that an Israeli mind-switch is what might be required to affect a similar mind-switch among our enemies (i.e. for both sides to accept the existence of one another).

I hope sincerely that you will not one day regret your beliefs as naive, no matter what lies ahead of us. But, no matter what, my advice is to prepare for success rather than failure since such preparation will undoubtedly affect positive change rather than negative retardation.

Mediocrates:

My view is that the existence of a Jewish state could have been a positive development had the past remained unchanging. In light of the rejection of ideology by Europe (i.e. the peoples who persecuted the Jews) the need for a Jewish state today is simply less crucial than in the past. We could not have known that at the time (in 1948) but that does not mean we must remain unchanging.

Moreover, the definition of the modern state today is less based on nationality and more on universal liberty. In fact, the notion of a state based on religion/race has become synonomous with racism. This has nothing to do with Israel or Zionism, it is simply the reality of the West today, and due mainly to their own history of racial and religious conflict and persecution. I am not going to talk about the Arab world since we (hopefully) take democracy as our ideal, not Syrian dictatorship (or Yugoslavian ethnic cleansing).

To define Zionism: Zionism is a national liberation movement that forgot the fine line between nationalism and racist oppression, and forgot that liberation is a universal desire of oppressed peoples. I am not claiming that Zionism was intensionally racist from its outset. Zionism is therefore to my mind differentiable from Nazism and colonialism. However, Zionism steadily forgot over time that nationalism was responsible for immense Jewish suffering and therefore should not be viewed positively.

Israelism is an attempt to reconcile Zionist national liberation doctrine and orthodox and traditional Judaism with the post-Zionist view of universal liberation. The fault of post-Zionism was that it was open to the perception of rejecting Judaism and Israel, while at the same time being elitist. This internal collision is affecting the external collision between Israel and the Palestinians (and the world) and must be solved in order to secure peace. I accept in the article that post-Zionism must enter a dialog with the right, the religious and the poor. But the debate must be reciprocal. The bottomline is: we must have internal unity and respect for one another if we want external security and peace.

My basic premise is that Zionism has negatively evolved over time and has become a liability, both to those like me who desire a better future and those rightist Zionists who are stuck in a preconception of what they are fighting for. In contrast, European ideals have positively evolved over time. My view is NOT based on hatred of allies but an acceptance that we must move forward rather than remain in a past that no longer exists, except through our own making.

[yehudi]

I'm neither jewish nor Zionist (or a pro-palestinian zionist then), but I quite agree with the idea of laying down a new ideology for israel. I value Israel because it is much more than a "Jewistan" and is a nation attempting to integrate arabs as citizens as well.

Originally posted by earth.observer
My basic premise is that Zionism has negatively evolved over time and has become a liability

I can only confirm, the terms Sionist has become very pejorative here in France.
These last years, the image of Israel being like David against Goliath has been replaced by another image : an aggressive state bringing terrorism to the world by persecuting the palestinians.


And reading this website and forum, I have the feeling Zionism has been hijacked by the extreme right. Browsing around the so-called "peace forum" you get the feeling that today "Zionism" simply is another way to say "ethnic cleansing".

.

[Mediocrates]

yud ~Well leave off your biases for the moment.



At any ratre what I gather of Israelism is more or less what we have today except with no Jews in Yesha and left sympathetic elected leaders on both sides of that border. How is it fundamentally different. After all some of the biggest liberals I know live in gated communities. How does Israelism for example handle the internal frictions of the Haredi, undocumented foreign workers, Arab rights in Israel?

[yoyo]

Originally posted by yehudi
I can only confirm, the terms Sionist has become very pejorative here in France...

Only to arab antisemite north african community and antisemites in the republique!