Archive for March, 2011

The Jews and the Land

Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011

Israel is a Jewish state.  Why is this important?

Mahmoud Abbas would not agree, having said at various times things like

What is a ‘Jewish state’? We call it the ‘State of Israel.’  . . . . You can call yourselves whatever you want. But I will not accept it . . . .You can call yourselves the Zionist Republic, the Hebrew, the National, the Socialist [Republic], call it whatever you like. I don’t care. (2009)

The official Arab position is that ‘Jewish’ describes a religion, not a people, because a ‘people’ is connected to a land, and they  believe that the land in question belongs to them. Jews can live in a Muslim state, as a tolerated second-class minority, just like Christians. But there isn’t a Jewish people, they think, any more than a Christian people.

Never mind that they reserve the right to define themselves as a people, and their proposed state as one whose official religion is Islam. Note that we have been defining ourselves as a people with a connection to a land for several thousand years, while there are almost no Arab references to a ‘Palestinian people’ that predate the 1960’s.

Others oppose the idea of a Jewish state for different reasons, like those who think that any ethnic nationalism is atavistic or even racist, and that states, if they exist at all, should be just administrative units providing services to the people that happen to live within their borders. It always strikes me as strange that these types often call for a Palestinian Arab state while opposing Israel.

If you read the Torah, you will quickly see that a major theme (the major theme, I think) is the relationship between God, the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. The Land of Israel is everywhere in Judaism: God is often addressed as the one who brought as out of Egypt — the Land of Israel is where he brought us to, and Jerusalem is “the place where His name will reside.” The land appears in daily prayers and holiday observances.

Of course, there are many Israeli Jews that do not practice Judaism, indeed that are hostile to the organized practice of Judaism. This is understandable, given the sometimes coercive way ‘official’ Judaism in the state has been implemented. Nevertheless, most of them have an understanding of the importance of the Land of Israel to the Jewish people. Most of them feel the pull of the land, the importance of Jerusalem, even if they are not ‘religious’ in the traditional sense.

I spent some time in the early 1980’s on a highly secular, left-wing hashomer hatzair kibbutz where members often displayed their contempt for traditional Judaism. Although they voted for Labor and leftward, most were not prepared to give up the symbols of the Jewish relationship to the land, like Jerusalem, and they were prepared to (and did) fight for the Jewish state. There was a group that organized hikes to various places, including Judea/Samaria in order to ‘know the land’.

For most secular Israelis, the Jewishness of the state is not found in the fact that public transportation is unavailable on Shabbat or that there is no civil marriage. Despite these irritations, a tradition of connectedness remains. It is something that is specific to this land. If the state were moved to the Australian Outback (there is more than enough room), most secular Israeli Jews would think something essential had been lost. I wouldn’t call this connection to the land Judaism. Nevertheless, it’s an ideology, a particularly Jewish ideology.

I said most secular Jews. Clearly there are some who have replaced this Jewish ideology with something else, most usually a universalist, anti-nationalist faith in the perfectibility of humankind. A fundamental part of this ideology is that all cultures have the same basic needs, and that conflict is usually caused by poor communication. This ideology is usually also mixed with Marxist and post-colonialist ideas, but that’s not essential. Institutions that would be standard-bearers for this ideology today would be the European Union and the United Nations.

I think that a Jew that ‘converts’ to a universalist ideology is as lost to the Jewish people as one who undergoes baptism or says the shahada. When J Street’s Jeremy Ben-Ami says of his generation that they are “baffled by the notion of ‘Israel as the place you can always count on when they come to get you’ (as an early NY Times puff piece put it), what he really means is that they are baffled by the idea of the connection between Jews and the Land of Israel. This is not surprising, considering that they live in the Diaspora, know little of Jewish history, and either practice no Judaism at all or a form in which the traditional connection with the land has been replaced with a humanistic ethic.

But for those, both secular and observant, who have this connection, the state of Israel is the concrete realization of it. Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel means that Jews can live there, can visit their holy sites if they wish, can see the archaeological evidence of Jewish history before their eyes, and (if they are observant) follow all of the mitzvot. The fact that there is a Jewish state is precisely what finally validates the contention of Diaspora Jews since the expulsion from Judea by the Romans that they are in fact a people, despite exile. The idea of a Jewish state, even though it did not exist, is part of what allowed the Jewish people to survive as a people throughout the centuries of exile, often as despised and persecuted minority.

The fact that there is a Jewish state unites Jews everywhere, who can say that they belong somewhere, while the Diaspora experience has always been that no matter how hard they try, at some point it is made clear that they do not belong. Not only does it serve as a physical refuge for persecuted Jews (Ben-Ami may be “baffled” by this, but Ethiopian Jews certainly aren’t), but as a psychic one for Diaspora Jews battered by antisemitic conceptions that Jews are parasitical or weak.

Our enemies understand the importance of the Land of Israel better than many of us, I think:

With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made – just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward. — Abbas Zaki, member of Fatah Central Committee and PLO representative in Lebanon

Technorati Tags: ,

J Street audience reveals itself

Tuesday, March 1st, 2011

On Friday I discussed J Street for the umpteenth time. I argued that it was clear that rather than the pro-Israel Left that it purports to represent, J Street actually speaks for the extreme elements: those that want Israel to disappear.

Nothing illustrates this more clearly than audience reaction to two of the speakers at this weekend’s J Street national conference (you can watch many of the panels at their website here).

One was the representative of the Obama Administration, Camp David negotiator and Middle East adviser Dennis Ross. Ross discussed the upheavals in the US and the administration’s response to them. His talk was dry and contained nothing new or surprising. At about 20 minutes into it, he mentioned Israel for the first time, referring to the administration’s “unshakable commitment to Israel’s security,” bringing forth a short, clearly pro forma trickle of applause. He then discussed the need to bring about a two-state solution by bilateral negotiations, the danger of ‘extremists’ who want to prevent peace, etc. He received several other lukewarm responses.

The other was Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy. Although she insisted “this isn’t about Israel,” she went on to excoriate Israel in remarks that Adam Levick at the CiFWatch blog characterized as ‘dripping with contempt for the Jewish state’. And Levick asks us to listen to the applause — the hoots and cheers that her diatribe inspired. Don’t take my word and Levick’s — here is her talk (she begins at 1:30 into the video, and you can hear the reaction nicely at 6:30, for example, as she demands ‘freedom and dignity’ for Palestinian Arabs).

If you can see this, then you might need a Flash Player upgrade or you need to install Flash Player if it's missing. Get Flash Player from Adobe.

Even the supportive Uriel Heilman writes that the real nature of J Street is becoming evident:

At the organization’s conference in Washington this week, which organizers say drew 2,400 people, the crowd was emphatic in its insistence on Palestinian rights, offered only weak, scattered applause for an Obama administration official’s line about America’s strong support for Israeli security, and complained that more Palestinians should have been featured on conference panels.

For Arnold Moses, an activist in his 70s who came to the conference from Reston, Va., J Street just wasn’t reflective of his politics. “They’re too kind to the Israelis,” he said of J Street. “Obama’s too soft on Israel. The Palestinians need to get out of the jail they’re in” …

For this crowd, the Israeli government is to blame for the lack of peace in the Middle East. Their main beef is with the traditional pro-Israel camp, not with the Palestinians.

“I would have liked to see an Israeli uprising of the people against our government,” Ron Pundak, director general of the Peres Center for Peace, said in a panel discussion Sunday about the implications of the uprisings in the Arab world.

“We don’t have today an Israeli partner or leadership,” Pundak said to applause. The Israeli people should “get rid of this terrible government which today is governing Israel.”

But J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami never stops spinning. Heilman continues,

For Ben-Ami and J Street supporters, being pro-Palestinian is not incompatible with being pro-Israel. In their mind, standing up for Palestinian rights, criticizing Israel’s policies in the West Bank and advocating for more pressure on the Israeli government is a way of supporting Israel by helping, or forcing, Israel to become the kind of place they believe it ought to be.

“We don’t view this as a zero-sum conflict,” Ben-Ami said Monday in a question-and-answer session with reporters. “You can be pro-Israel and be an advocate for the rights of the Palestinian people.”

Well, no, actually you cannot. Not if you take into account the Palestinian Arab narrative that makes clear that they will not have their full ‘rights’ until Arab refugees can ‘return’ to Israel. Not if you understand that when they talk about ‘occupation’, they mean the one that started in 1948, not 1967. Not if you read the founding documents of their leadership, the PLO/Fatah and Hamas. Not if you watch Palestinian Authority TV, or indeed any Arab media.

Most importantly, you cannot be pro-Israel if you accept the radical recasting of the Arab (and today Iranian) struggle to get the Jews out of the Middle East as an issue of human rights for oppressed Palestinian Arabs instead. This point of view, and the post-colonialist one that goes along with it, entirely turns reality on its head and makes the real underdog in the Middle East — Israel — out to be the aggressor rather than the victim.

It is especially ironic when Israelis themselves, whose homes are targeted by tens of thousands of missiles in Lebanon and Syria, missiles that will almost certainly be fired sometime in the next couple of years, participate in the delegitimization effort that is intended to prevent Israel from defending herself.

Technorati Tags: , ,