False Dichotomies

One of the more curious aspects of left-wing discourse concerning Israel is the tendency to take something which would be perfectly normal in other countries, and to use it as a stick with which to beat Israel and its people. In the case of Lisa Goldman’s recent article on +972, this includes Israelis expressing concern about the results of the Egyptian elections. This is in response to a short piece by Larry Derfner, in which he admits that, had he had known what the results of the elections would have been, he would not have supported the revolutionaries. Read more

One reader responded to my article admitting my preference for Zionism over universal liberalism by applauding me for my intellectual honesty. It would be good if anti-Zionists could respond in kind. A case in point of their dishonesty is provided by Muhammed Jabali’s “On democracy: There’s nothing ‘Left’ about the Zionist left” on the +972 blog.

The final paragraph is key: “That’s why there is nothing “left” about the “Zionist left.” And there’s a clear connection between voting for Tzipi Livni or Shelly Yachimovich, and supporting a Price Tag crime. The difference is encapsulated by your stance on the Altalena Affair: it is an internal discussion within the colonial forces. Whether colonization should be carried out with by more or less force, and whether it should consider international law or not. There is nothing in all of that to help you produce your social democratic identity in a shared space.” Read more

“In his article “How is Zionism different from other forms of nationalism?” Sean Lee argues that Israel is an “ethno-religious democracy” that must be opposed by universal liberals. I accept that there is a fundamental incompatibility between universal liberalism and Zionism, although I don’t agree that the gaps are as vast as they’re often made out to be. Leaving that aside, though, let’s work on the assumption that the continued existence of a Jewish State is irreconcilable with universal liberal values.

The raison d’être of the State of Israel is the defense and advancement of the Jewish people. For a Zionist, when universal liberal values conflict with this raison d’être, the latter must prevail. Though these conflicts do exist, they are not terribly widespread. Even Lee acknowledges that “Many of the inequalities…are not unique to Israel. If we look at education rates of young Arabs in France or Hispanics and Blacks in the US, we’ll find similar inequalities in situation and even opportunity [sic]. Likewise, for infrastructure.” He goes on to claim that what singles Israel out are its inequalities of citizenship, but doesn’t really go into specifics, aside from the poorly chosen example of military service. In choosing that example, he ignores the ongoing efforts to encourage more Israeli-Palestinians to do national service (efforts which have been predictably opposed by anti-Zionists).” Read the rest at +972 blog.

This is an open letter from Nic Schlagman in response to a letter by Aron Adler last week that was circulated widely around the Jewish world.

Dear Aron,
I take comfort from reading your kind and heartfelt words about your experiences patrolling the Egyptian border, and your feelings on the importance of offering dignified refuge to those who have suffered as we suffered.

Like you I am an oleh, although from the UK, l and have been living in Israel for 6 years now. Many of my friends do the same reserve duty on the border, and show the same kindness and compassion to those they find stumbling out from the night, often injured, from the nightmare of their past life and their journey to Israel.

My involvement in this story begins when they arrive in Tel Aviv. For the past 3 years I have been involved in running shelters for pregnant women, single mothers, and children, first as Shelter Manager and then as Humanitarian Coordinator for the African Refugee Development Center. I do this partly in honor of the people who assisted my grandparents and great grandparents when they arrived in the UK, just before the Holocaust swallowed up those who stayed behind. Read more

The ever vigilant Phil Weiss brings us news that the Nakba has finally made it to the pages of the New York Review of Books, in the form of a critical review of David Grossman’s latest novel, To the End of the Land, by Patricia Storace. Weiss highlights “three devastating excerpts of the review.” First, Storace objects to Grossman not pointing out that “Ein Kerem [where the protagonists of the novel live] was once Ain Karim, a Palestinian village whose inhabitants were driven out in 1948…Ora’s stone house with arched windows and decorative floor tiles must surely be one of the Palestinian villas….the neighbourhood is little more than a name and a décor. Without its historical or social setting, we cannot fully grasp what living there might mean. We sense oppressively that we are being told one story to distract from others.” It is a strange, overwrought complaint. Storace does know that Ein Kerem was once Ain Karim; presumably other readers know this too, maybe even some Israeli ones. Surely she does not expect an author to spell out every last bit of historical background for his reader? A novel is not a work of history. And maybe Ein Kerem’s past as Ain Karim is more potent when left unmentioned. Read more

Yelling cheerfully at the horizon seemed the appropriate thing to do. A primal scream for a primal place, at the top of the watchtower, looking out over Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary. With me were two other souls: my friend Ameet, a Singaporean Sikh with a penchant for the wilderness, and our guide Gobi, a small tribal man with senses as strong as the animals that surrounded us. Gobi was the first to draw attention to my faux pas. His English was less than limited, but pointing downward with his hands while saying “Lower” did the trick. Ameet provided the commentary: “Shouting disturbs the animals.” Me: “He should have told us before.” Ameet (sarcastically): “I’m sure now they’ll put a sign up.” Read more

“We have no need, no need of your amber/Likewise your gold and your jewels – There is no true beauty in things of no use.” Waxwing (Alasdair Roberts – The Amber Gatherers)

“Would you rather have a Lexus or justice? A dream or some substance? A Beamer, a necklace, or freedom?” Hip-Hop (Dead Prez – Let’s Get Free)

The ‘Occupy’ phenomenon hasn’t yet made it to India, despite the country having a rich/poor divide that dwarfs anything in the West, and the fact that the Indian masses clearly have the stomach for long protests, as the success of the Anna Hazare movement demonstrates. Perhaps the historical legacy of caste divisions means that people are more content to tolerate economic inequality in a way that they wouldn’t elsewhere; it’s certainly noteworthy that the most sustained and radical opposition to neo-liberalism in India has come from the proudly godless Maoists. But it’s also important to note that it isn’t entirely obvious where an Indian ‘Occupy’ movement would occupy. The economic centres of Mumbai or Delhi do not occupy the same place in the national consciousness as Wall Street in New York or the Square Mile in London for the simple reason that most Indians wouldn’t be aware of their existence. But a recent article in India Today offers one possibility for an occupy movement – pace The Educators – namely the homes of the country’s ostentatiously wealthy. Read more

This is a guest-post by Nick D

Even by the abysmal standards of pro-Palestinian advocacy, and I write this as a strong supporter of the Palestinians’ right to statehood, Deborah Orr’s article (“Is an Israeli life really worth more than a Palestinian’s?”) was breathtakingly stupid, as well as deeply unpleasant in its trivialisation of a serious issue and empty show of moral concern. It was, however, emblematic of a certain style of  ostensibly pro-Palestinian politics, one concerned much more with image than substance, with glib rhetoric over logical argument, with a facile and easily digestible morality that presents a straightforward picture of victim and villain. The first task of those who consider themselves friends and allies of the Palestinians should be to rid the movement for justice of its false friends, and Orr is a prime example of the commentator who lazily piggybacks her way to a cheap point on the suffering of a region. The incoherence of her argument should be the first signal that she really doesn‘t care – that her whole article is a dog-whistle to the prejudices of her readership rather than an attempt to make a serious comment. She begins by asserting that it is widely held that the exchange of Shalit for over 1000 Palestinian prisoners amounts to a victory for Hamas, and that the deal has also made Netanyahu look weak. Orr then follows this by suggesting that this means the world has become “inured to the obscene idea that Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian”. This is absurd. If the world had indeed accepted the idea, would you not expect the media reaction to be the reverse – to acknowledge that both sides had received a fair deal, that 1000 Palestinians are indeed equivalent to one Israeli?  To acknowledge that Hamas has had the better of this bargain doesn’t at all imply the kind of calculus Orr claims it does, without any appeal to logic. Read more

Micah’s excessively-titled ‘On being a naïve, self-hating, single-issue sympathy tourist (or some notes on the Jewish civil war)’ isn’t a particularly original auto-da-fe. He grew up a ‘liberal Zionist’, an avid reader of Amos Oz and David Grossman, and believed that if Israel got out of the territories then all would be well. His Damascene conversion came with the “disproportionate” Operation Cast Lead, when he decided that the Zionist project had been a bad idea in the first place; a courageous stance, he thinks, especially given the Jewish Chronicle’s hatred for all things anti-Zionist.

Of some interest, however, is the following: “I had begun to ask whether Zionism and the creation of Israel had been ‘good for the Jews’, or indeed anyone else?…I could now see what a disaster this project was turning out to be for Jews and Judaism.” Like Micah, I’d accept that Israel has been bad for the Palestinians. No matter who is most responsible for the conflict, the creation of a Jewish State has meant their dispossession, slaughter, dispersal, and immiseration. If there will be peace, Israel will have to sincerely acknowledge the role it has played in Palestinian suffering. The Palestinians and the wider Arab world will have to do the same.

But I do not understand how anybody can sincerely argue that Israel has been bad for the Jews. Assessing this question is tricky. Measuring the happiness of an individual is hard enough. Doing the same for an entire people is exponentially more difficult. And it would be cheating to resort to counterfactuals, although it would be nice if Israel’s prophetically-inspired Jewish critics were to ponder what might have happened had Israel lost in 1948 (clue: look at the Nakba that took place in the few areas the Arab forces managed to win). Read more