Are We Living in a Post-Zionist Era?

This is a question often voiced. I am not sure it has an answer - Zionism, like Judaism, is rather hard to define. If we define it as  the belief in the right of the Jews to a state of their own, than Zionism is as outdated as Americanism is after the American Revolution, or Frenchism is after the French Revolution. I would like to define this type of Zionism as political Zionism and argue that it is indeed outdated.

But political Zionism is not the only type of Zionism. There are: Labor Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, Cultural Zionism, Religious Zionism.

Labor Zionism has failed, in the sense that the modern day Israel is neither socialist* nor agragarian. Most of the manual labour is done by Arabs. Indeed, from a Labor Zionist perspective, the disconnect between Israelis and the physical land is a tragedy. Thus, one who fights for the modern day Israel to adhere to the original, still unfulfilled vision of Labor Zionism is Labor Zionist. His or her type of Zionist vision is not outdated precisely because it has yet to be fulfilled.

Revisionist Zionism is more nationalistic than Labor Zionism and not oriented towards socialism. It's focus has traditionally been on territorial gain; it wanted both sides of the Jordan river to be incorporated into the Jewish state. It has not been fulfilled per se, but has been incorporated into the mainstream modern religious Zionist movement.

Cultural Zionism envisioned creating a new national Jewish culture. Of all the types of Zionism, this one has failed the most miserably. There is a Jewish religion, but it is not one that most Jews follow. There is Israeli culture, but it is not shared by Jews world-wide. Many Diaspora Jews do not speak Hebrew, without which Israeli culture remains largely inaccessible. The two main aspects of nationhood are a shared history and a shared culture. Jewish history has not been shared ever since the beginning of the exile 2000 years ago, but it does have one common element: No matter what region of the world Jews lived in, it is almost definite that at some point some anti-Semitic event happened there. As for Jewish culture, that is harder to distinguish. After all, what is culture? Two main elements are religion and language. Religion has been largely abandoned. In order to create a Jewish culture, one must turn to language. If one were to make Hebrew the language of Jews world-wide, they would have succeeded in fulfilling a large part of cultural Zionism. There is a need for cultural Zionists, for the vision of cultural Zionism grows further from fruition as time goes on and Diaspora and Israeli Jewish sub-cultures develop and become more distinct from each other.

Religious Zionism is the belief that resettling the land of Israel and establishing Jewish sovereignity there is the beginning of the redemption and will eventually result in the coming of the Messiah. The movement always emphasized a connection to the land, which is believed to be promised to the Jews by God. After 67, this connection, combined with an intense nationalism reminiscent of Revisionist Zionism, led to Religious Zionism's being closely associated with the Settler Movement. Since the ultimate goal of modern mainstream Religious Zionism is the reclamation of the holy land and the coming of the Messiah, there is always work to be done - in the form of building settlements and doing good deeds that can help speed the Messiah's coming. Religious Zionism remains unfulfilled as long as the Messiah is not here; it is the Messiah's coming that will usher in the post-Zionist era. (Note: There are some left wing Religious Zionists, though they're a minority.)

So are we living in a post-Zionist era? More than I am convinced that the question does not have an answer, I am convinced that it is irrelevant. So why did I just spend a blog post ranting about it?

* It does have strong labor unions and certain socialist elements, but not nearly to the degree envisioned by the founders of Labor Zionism.

An Examination of Olmert's Peace Plan

The PA just rejected Olmert's most recent peace overture, due to "lack of seriousness". The overture was based on a PA takeover of Gaza. The PA, knowing it is weak, chose to reject the offer so it would not have to face its inability to fulfill the conditions of the offer. Still, it's a pity. In a region that needs peace so badly, sacrifice will be needed by all parties. The PA claims it will only accept a plan on 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital. But, with the land swaps in Olmert's plan, the Palestinian State would have gotten roughly the same area as 1967 borders and Olmert's peace plan did not rule out the Jerusalem capital possibility - it merely left it to be negotiated later. The Palestinians must be willing to compromise as well - is 7% of land really worth not having peace? The PA rejected the plan outright, not even expressing a willingness to sit down at the negotiating table and discuss it. This goes back to my theory that the PA is rejecting the plan to avoid pressure to take out of Gaza, which it knows it is to weak to do. The new plan was brave on the part of Olmert.

Basic summary of the plan: 93% of the West Bank goes to the Palestinians, with some land from the Negev given instead of the remaining 7% of the West Bank. An Israeli-controlled passage between Gaza and the West Bank where Palestinians can pass freely.  Right of Return to Palestine. (not Israel -except in cases where doing so would reunite families) Jerusalem to be negotiated over later.

A couple of points: 1. Yesterday, Queria, from the PA, said that if Israel continued being an obstacle to the two-state solution, the Palestinians would demand a one-state bi-national solution. Today a new peace plan is on the table....coincidence? I have no doubt this plan has been in the works for some time, but Queria played an effective political move and pressured Israel into making another step towards a peaceful 2-state solution.

2. This plan is contingent upon Fatah retaking Gaza. Problems with this: 1. Hamas, though a religious extremist organization that never officially recognized Israel's right to exist, won Western-backed elections. So what does this say - that elections are only legitimate if the right person wins? 2. Is Fatah strong enough to retake Gaza? They seem to have trouble just holding on to the West Bank. Assuming the answer is no, will Israel help Fatah by giving them weapons and training, or was this simply a smart bluff on Olmert's part? This way he - and Israel - were willing to make peace, and it was the PA's weakness that got in the way. Israel comes out looking like the willing peace partner without having to actually give anything up or make peace, since the PA never takes over Gaza.

3. Some might complain about 93% of the West Bank. It would be very difficult to remove people from major settlement blocs, not to mention that it would be creating a new humanitarian crisis of Jewish refugees to solve the humanitarian crisis of Palestinian refugees. Since the Palestinian state will be given land from the Negev, and it's only 7% of the West Bank that's being kept, the plan seems reasonable to me.

4. The free passageway between Gaza and the West Bank, while maintaining a modicum of Israeli control for security purposes, is a good compromise. The complex take on the refugee/right of return issue is also good.

5. It is bad to delay talks about Jerusalem, since peace talks could still fall apart over that, but I understand why Olmert is doing so: Shas, a religious party, threatened to leave his coalition in Israeli Parliament if he put Jerusalem on the negotiating table.

Overall, the bravest peace initiative that's been seen in a while. It took Olmert's knowing that his political career was already over for him to stop worrying about his career and have the cojones to do what he thinks is best for Israel.

More on the Occupation

So, how is the Occupation harming Israeli society? Many ways. There is an organization called "Breaking the Silence" that documents some of them. Arguably, the greatest argument against Occupation is not the pain it inflicts on Palestinians, but the harm it places upon Israeli society by forcing 18 year olds to do immoral actions.

Let's suppose the following: You are taking a group of decent people, 18-21 year olds, and putting them in charge of a civilian population. The group of people in control is bound to abuse their power and commit acts of cruelty, no matter how nice they might be prior to being put into that position of control.

This was proved by the Stanford Prison Experiment: "Normal" Students from Stanford were taken. One group was randomly assigned to be prisoners, while the other group was randomly assigned to be guards. Within days, the guard group was abusing the prisoner group, to the point where they were forcing them to identify themselves by number, (as opposed to name) to sleep without mattresses as punishment, and to undress and perform other acts of humiliation. Anyone familiar with Holocaust history should get a chill while reading that.

The territories are, in a sense, the Stanford Prison Experiment replicated. Take a group of decent 18-21 year olds and put them in control. Take the Palestinian population and make it the prisoner group. The Israeli soldiers are bound to commit atrocities.

I am not a believer in psychological determinism. We are born with psychological tendencies, some positive, some negative, which can be either strengthened or overcome. Nevertheless, I do believe that when talking of a large group of people, ie, Israeli soldiers, it would be unrealistic to expect every single one of them to overcome the basic facet of human nature that turns protector into occupier.

Do we really want Israeli society to be one where people are forced to spend three years of their youth being occupiers? Golda Meir often said that she could forgive the Arabs* for killing Israelis, but not for forcing Israelis to become killers. (This is a paraphrase.) I guess I kind of feel the same way.

Testimony 97, from "Breaking the Silence", former soldier in Hebron, on the Occupation:

"I'd say it corrupts us. I'd say it corrupts them. I'd say we lose in both directions. I'd ask people to put this on their agenda, to ask and learn and find out what goes on there....to tune in, to understand that for our society, even on the most selfish grounds, this is one of our worst ills, the severest of them all for Israeli society,  for the people, the state,  the economy, society, education. One of our worst ills."

* I don't mean to generalize, but I believe Golda Meir used the word "Arabs", as opposed to, say, "enemies of Israel", or, "a group of extremists from within the Palestinian population".

How to Look at the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

1. Ask yourself: Is this action moral when committed in a vaacum?

2. Examine the reasons behind the action: Do the ends justify the means?

3. What can be done to alleviate the problems that were the reasons behind the action?

4. Is there a more moral way to accomplish the ends, or was the means used the only means that could be effective?

5. Examine the history of the issues at hand - don't rely only on the article in the news that day.

6. Hope for peace.

The Occupation Paradox

This article sums up the Occupation Paradox better than I ever could. I'd be interested in hearing and replying to comments.

Hatred

"Today might be the last day. We might go out of the clock, into eternity - so let's catch a place, steal ourselves a dream before we wake up. There's no time under the sun for fights and wars. There's no time under the sun to wait. 

This might be the last song, the last words, of an awful poet. I hate to part, am afraid of the meeting with Someone unknown. There's no time under the sun for fights and wars. There's no time under the sun to wait." - Aviv Gefen, "Ein Zman Tachat Hashemesh"

I would like to follow up that rambling with a post that will hopefully be more coherent:

Hatred is destructive to the character of a nation. Arguably, hatred is one of the biggest challenges that both Israel and the Palestinian people face. It is easy and understandable to hate a Palestinian after a terror attack - but it is not justified. It is also easy to hate Israelis after military operations in the West Bank and Gaza - but it is not justified. (I do not mean to imply moral equivalency between the two: terror attacks are infinitely worse in intent.)

Most Israelis who I've encountered want peace. Nevertheless, the trend of Arab-hatred (and I say Arab, and not Palestinian, for a reason) among Israeli settlers is unsettling. (pardon the pathetic pun) The scary thing about the trend is it is slowly extending to those Orthodox Israelis who, while they do not live in settlements, espouse a settler-messianic religious-political outlook. There has recently been either a rise in settler violence against Palestinians or the reporting on such violence, depending on one's opinions. At the same time, Adalah, an organization that defends the rights of Israeli-Arabs in Israel, reports a rise in acts of discrimination.

I have not had much meaningful interaction with Palestinians. I would like to assume however, that most want peace. Some might call this naive. The fact remains however, that the two main groups fighting for Palestinian independence, Fatah and Hamas, are enshrined in hatred. This is dangerous to the Palestinian national movement. Hatred blinds one and prevents one from seeking compromises and peaceful ways to accomplish one's objectives. One of the reasons Israel came into being is that Israel's leaders, who were not blinded by hatred, were willing to accept the UN partition plan despite its granting them less land than they wanted. In order to create peace and gain independence, it may be in the best interest of the Palestinian leadership to follow Israel's example and accept less land than they want - and to give up on the right of return, something Israel will never accept - or to at least amend their demand to "right of compensation/reparations".

Furthermore, the mixing of religion and politics in Hamas is dangerous.  Separation of religion and government is essential to forming a healthy democracy - something that is in the best interest of all Palestinians. 

The Israeli government must do more to combat the Arab-hatred of settlers - and the Palestinian people must demand more pragmatism from their leaders. Ultimately, hatred is most dangerous not in the effect it has on the hated, but in the effect it has on the haters.

Project David Thoughts

So, I figure I should try to do this blogging thing with some regularity. This is kind of hard, since for the past 5 days I've been in Boston at Project David, an Israel advocacy seminar. At the seminar, I had some interesting and thought provoking discussions on the topic of Hasbara, which means explanation in Hebrew.* Is it ethical to manipulate people to believe in your views - not by lying to them, but simply by only including the facts that serve your cause? The answer is no. Does it become ethical when you know that the other side is doing the same? Perhaps, if you can assume that whoever is reading your distorted facts is also reading the other side's distorted facts and will be able to figure out that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. You can never really assume that though, so the second question becomes irrelevant.

This became an issue at Project David - it's goal is to educate people about the Israeli-Arab (as opposed to Israeli-Palestinian) conflict. Being a pro-Israel organization however, it only represented the pro-Israel side. Is this a problem, since the project does not hide the fact that it is pro-Israel? Furthermore, they had a subtle right-wing bias - is it ethical of them to claim they are apolitical (beyond supporting Israel's right to exist) when that bias exists?

Many would claim that spinning facts is an inevitable part of politics. In a sense, winning elections is about spinning facts to make it look like your vision of the future is the right one, supported by history, and that the choices you've made have been proven right by time. But politics are inherently unethical. Maybe that's why there's so much corruption across the world. People who choose to enter politics must be people willing to violate ethics in order to achieve power - if not, they know they will not succeed. Until we change the nature of politics in current democracies (or, more often the case, democratic republics) we will not see a change in the selfishness of our politicians. But would such a change help - or is what we need a change in the nature of man and his quest for power - and is a change in nature be possible?

No country is perfect. The best way to advocate for Israel is to tell the truth about Israel - both the good and the bad. The best hasbara is to change the realities inside Israel so that one does not feel pressure to omit certain facts in order to advocate successfully. (Note: This is not a call to Americans to meddle in Israeli politics. One Talansky is more than enough.) I would argue this not only from an ethical standpoint, but even from a practical pragmatic standpoint:

1. If you make Israel seem perfect, you lose credibility. People realize one thing you imply (perfection) must be false, so they don't believe the other things you say.

2. Better people hear the facts that make Israel look bad from the mouth of someone who loves Israel, is knowledgeable, and can explain the complexity of the situation, than from the mouth of someone who hates it or is simply ignorant or both.

* Let me take this opportunity to plug Hebrew as a rich language with excellent literature that is worth studying. It is impossible to understand a culture without understanding the language, so one can't understand Israel without speaking Hebrew. One can't understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without speak Hebrew and Arabic - which is why I really want to learn Arabic. (I know basic words like shukran and khaif-halek, etc.) Also, Arabic poetry sounds really pretty.