Excellent post as usual, mjr.

To say that Tel Aviv is the "embodiment of Zionist accomplishment" does not make much sense. What Zionism are you talking about? As you may know, there are different versions of Zionism. For some, your statement may be true. For others, it is undoubtedly the reunification and return to Jerusalem that is the "embodiment of Zionist accomplishment". And for others it is the return to Judea and Samaria, the ancient Biblical Homelands that is the "embodiment of Zionist accomplishment".

The "present embodiment" of Zionism is not simply what MJ thinks it is. There are a number of different strands of Zionism today, and their idea of the "embodiment of Zionist accomplishment" differs greatly. It simply does not make sense to speak of Zionism as just one thing.

The beauty of Tel Aviv is that it epitomizes the Zionist dream which is, despite the critics, not a movement designed to impose Jewish control over Palestinians but to enable Jews to control their own destinies. Freeing Jews to control their destinies does not require preventing Palestinians from controlling theirs. In fact, it requires just the opposite.

Beautifully written, MJ. This is the sort of Zionism that I feel I can support. 

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Go ahead, Nudnik. Fill out your thought a bit. I'm interested.

For example, can present day settlers be Zionists?

Great post. In my experience, those people who say that Ahmadinejad is going to trigger another Holocaust are the same people who say that the Holocaust is a absolutely unique event in history, and cannot be compared with anything else. Go figure.

On April 27, 2007 - 3:50pm csampson said: well, its good that you have a solid opinion about Ahmadinejad. You've given two options that render all others void.

"When you beat your wife, do you use your hand, or your arm?"
"George Bush, great president, or greatest president?"

If you're addressing this comment to me and my post I suggest your mind is working overtime in that its making you to see things that aren't there.

Why would my two options render all others void? That's a silly comment.

Put away the scanning electron microscope you're using to analyze posts and try to read my post for what it is, a simple question seeking a simple answer.

If you arent addressing my post then simply ignore this one.

It was observed that "rise of Iran" is the most stale news story around: ca. 2500 years late.

Iran is against USA for the simple reason that USA is against the government of Iran. Among the strategic goal is to cobble a regional alliance of malcontents with American domination.

In the long run, Israel has three options:

(a) make amends with those malcontents that share her border, Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians

(b) hope that USA will be ever eager to support her, however bloody the resulting engagement in regional wars will be

(c) trust its incomparable prowess at arms and inteligence.

It seems that currently the popular choice is a combination of b and c, and regulating minute aspects of the life of Palestinians is very much order of the day.

"Contrary to some of the rhetoric emanating from Jewish organizations here, no one I spoke to in Israel likened Israel's situation today to that of European Jews in the 1930's, with Ahmadinejad playing the role of Hitler. Israelis find that kind of rhetoric both laughable and offensive. After all, if Israelis are as powerless as stateless Jews 60 years ago, their state has been a failure. That is not how they view Israel. Not by a long shot."

Another sloppy, lazy, straw man writing by MJ.
Essentially he asserts that Israeli government is less concerned or not concerned at all about Iran nuclear weapon program compare to Jewish organizations here.

M.J assertion is obvious lie.

"M.J assertion is obvious lie"

davai - I've tried to engage you rationally but your comment above is a "step too far". It really pisses me off. I have no idea what you thought you could accomplish with that kind of statement other than to illustrate your anger and frustration with everyone and everything that disagrees with your world view.

I don't always agree with MJ and find him too optomistic on many aspects of Israeli/Palestinian peace prospects. Nonetheless on the issue of Iran I agree with him that most Israelis that I am in contact with regularly that Iran is a remote threat. If you read the talkback sections of the JPost, Haaretz etc, you will find most of the Iran fear mongering comes from comments from the US, not Israel. In my own Temple, Iran is far more feared than from my relatives in Israel.

davai, your animosity toward MJ does nothing for you or to advance your positions.

Well, one of them is the Palestinian Authority.

Abbas and some of the Fatah upper echelons seem to be willing to accept a two state solution. This why Olmert and Abbas are talking.

The problem is that Abbas does not have the power that Hamas has and it not at all clear he can carry any agreement with him. Olmert is so politically weak it is not clear he can either.

Those Palestinians talking to Daniel Levy and I guess M.J. Rosenberg's group in Geneva also will except a Jewish Israel and an Arab-Islamic Palestine.

The question is when do the Palestinians who want peace shut down the firing of missiles at Israel, the inflitration of suicide bombers, as Egypt just did, and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers inside Israel? Related to this when will Shalit be returned?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Out of Eden . . . and into New York harbor. It is hard to build a society where all people are equal and where race, religion, and ethnicity aren't important. But it has been tried with reasonable success, I think. It seems, in fact, that minorities are much more likely to end up dead in societies that give special status to some majority group. It may even be true that members of the majorities in those societies are more likely to end up dead, since the recognition of one group over another is bound to lead to strife.

I have to say, I find MJ's post somewhat depressing. It seems to be celebrating a kind of ethnic purity in Tel-Aviv. Tel-Aviv is more attractive than Jerusalem because it's so Jewish--no Arab or Roman history to distract from the accomplishments of the Jews. This only emphasizes a certain artificiality of the Jewish state--major parts of its history (Arab, Roman)-- are rejected as foreign--the history of occupiers and interlopers, not Jews.

At the same time, I think it is very depressing that Jews can't live freely in Hebron. If Israel were truly a success, Tel Aviv would be the product of both Jews and Arabs, and Jews living alongside Arabs in Hebron would not deserve notice. It would be the ordinary state of affairs. Rejecting the ghetto means rejecting the ethnic-centric attitudes that maintain the ghetto. MJ seems to be doing just the opposite.

PurpleState:

It seems to be celebrating a kind of ethnic purity in Tel-Aviv. Tel-Aviv is more attractive than Jerusalem because it's so Jewish--no Arab or Roman history to distract from the accomplishments of the Jews.

I can see how you might have interpreted MJ's post that way. But I don't think he's celebrating the ethnic purity of Tel Aviv so much as pointing out the mixed historical heritage of Jerusalem to those who insist that it should be purely Jewish. If Jerusalem is the city that symbolizes religious Judaism (and the fanaticism of the settlers) then Tel Aviv is the city that represents secular Judaism. At least that's how I read it; I suppose only MJ can know for sure.

At the same time, I think it is very depressing that Jews can't live freely in Hebron. If Israel were truly a success, Tel Aviv would be the product of both Jews and Arabs, and Jews living alongside Arabs in Hebron would not deserve notice. It would be the ordinary state of affairs. Rejecting the ghetto means rejecting the ethnic-centric attitudes that maintain the ghetto. MJ seems to be doing just the opposite.

Most of what you wrote here is true and desirable, but if it's been nearly impossible to bring about a two-state solution, it would be completely impossible to bring about a single, multi-ethnic state at this point. The decades-long history of the conflict is so bloody and intense that only separation has any hope of actually working, imo. Like you, I wish it were otherwise, but to me an imperfect resolution is better than none at all.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Just read some of the comments. Thanks, all.

No, I am not celebrating ethnic purity of T-A. But in the context of Israel and the "territories," I am saying that I want Jews to control their own lives and Palestinians theirs.
I like Jerusalem but it is a place where Palestinians are second class citizens, at best.
I don't celebrate Tel Aviv as the ideal but as infinitely preferable to the colonization of the West Bank and the second class treatment of Arabs in Jerusalem.

Wordie, I agree that a two-state solution is far more possible than a one-state solution, and I'm not even sure I'd advocate for a one-state solution given the almost certain problems it would entail (this despite believing that a one-state solution that allowed Jews and Arabs to live together in harmony while preserving the unique elements of their separate cultures would be the ideal). I understand why, at present, Jews wouldn't trust being a minority in a nation with an Arab majority, and I think that lack of trust is completely rational. But still, I find something tragic about this, since it seems to require an acceptance that when Jews and non-Jews mix, anti-semitism is inevitable.

We agree there, MJ. I might add that while Tel-Aviv might be a great symbol of what the Jews can accomplish on their own, maybe the Jewish communities in cities like New York and Chicago are an even greater symbol of what Jews and non-Jews can accomplish together when ethnicity is not suppressed, but also not emphasized.

Since you seem to be implying that Jews should not have a state since "nationlism" is "bad", I presume you oppose Catholic Irish nationalism in Northern Ireland, you would have opposed Gandhi/Nehru nationalism in India, Garibaldi's nationalism in Italy,
Polish, Czech, Slovak and Slav nationalism
in the old Hapsburg Empire, etc. Thus, regarding the Arab/Israeli conflict, I have an idea. Israel will NOT give the Palestinians a state in order to educate them on the importance of eradicating "nationalism". It would be doing them a favor.

Excellent question. One wonders why it hasn't happened.

To understand why it hasn't happened, one mustn't stop at Daniel's question, but also ask the corollary question: When do the Israelis who want peace stop the expansion of the illegal settlements, the humiliating checkpoints, and the house demolitions and other group punishments?

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

I live in Israel so I think that I at least as qualified as M J to state an opinon on the situation here. He is wrong that people don't care about the Iranian threat.
That does not mean that people are packing their bags in order to leave, but Jews have historical reasons to take threats of annihilation seriously. Actually I think of Iran as a short-term threat more than a long-term one. They are way overextending themselves in their drive to extend their imperial reach. They are pouring huge amounts of money into Sudan, Syria, Lebanon,
Gaza and are spending a lot on this nuclear program which does nothing to improve the lot of the Iranian population. In the end, they will collapse, just like that other big nuclear superpower, the USSR did.
Israelis realize this, and that we just have to tough out this difficult period, but there have been worse in the past and we got through them. Remember, just 40 years ago, Nasser made alliances with all of Israel's neighboring state and they all swore to drive the Jews into the sea, but they failed, thank G-d.

Regarding M J's favorite town, Tel Aviv, all I can say is that it started the same way as the Jewish Judea/Samaria settlements did, as a small Jewish settlement surrounded by Arab towns (Jaffa) and villages. The MJ's of that period denounced these Jewish settlers (many of whom were religious, just like many of the Jews of Judea/Samaria today and called them "fanatics", "unrealistic", "troublemakers". Fortunately, those people didn't listen to their MJ's harping at them. Today's Jews in Judea/Samaria don't care what they think either.

When MJ quotes Alon Liel saying "Zionism isn't about the past", he is baring the whole hypocritical nature of his philosophy, and this explains the almost pathological hatred of the Jews of Judea/Samaria. Why? Because by saying "Zionism isn't about the past", MJ and Liel ARE NOTHING MORE THAN COLONIALISTS, SETTLING A LAND THAT IS NOT THEIRS. The Zionist Left tried to create a "New Jew" who has no connection with his past and tradition. This "New Jew" is this colonialist because by denying his past, and it obligations (each Jew's responsibility to continue this tradition) he cuts himself off from his roots in the country. The Jews of Judea/Samaria are a constant reminder of this and this is why the Left hates them so much, because they remind them that they are colonialists.
They show the Left every day Jewish tradition in action every day, and will not let these "deJudaized New Jews" forget where they came from, and what they really are.
Don't forget, that is what ALL the Arabs say: "Israel is white, colonialist state" with no roots in the Middle East.
And since people like MJ view themselves as
"progressives" and "progressives" are supposed to be "anti-colonialist", MJ, Liel
and the Left are torn internally.
When the League of Nations granted the British the Mandate on Palestine based on the Balfour Declaration, it was based on the ancient Jewish connection NEVER BROKEN, going back 4000 years with the Land of Israel. There have ALWAYS been Jews living here. What is the written record of this? THE BIBLE, The Torah and the living Jewish tradition. MJ himself likes Tel Aviv because it is secular...he doesn't like to be reminded of the Jewish tradition he himself came out of. That is why he doesn't like Jerusalem and Hevron. They are the sources of the intensive Jewish traditional and lifestyle he is running away from. It is not enough that he is alienated from it, he also makes the blatently false statement that "few Jews visit Hevron", which is either due to ignorance or wilful falsehood. I myself frequently visit there, but TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JEWS VISIT HEVRON every year. Why do you think the government has felt that it can't remove the Jews from there, as much as the Left wants to do that? (Also his statement that the Jews are harassing the Arabs there is false, it is the Jewish community that is under constant assault and threat of terrorism by the Arabs trying to drive them out, just as they want ultimately to drive the Jews out of MJ's Tel Aviv.)

That is easy. When it becomes obvious that either Israel unilaterally are going to leave the West Bank as they did Gaza, not likely thanks to the Palestinians or when the Palestinians show they want peace. Otherwise Israel's settlements will both grow and stay.

I can't imagine any government, anywhere, asking their citizens to leave their homnes in favor of an enemy that has vowed to kill them even before the settlements were ever made.

From today's Haaretz.com:

"Hamas' Damascus-based political chief Khaled Meshal reiterated his group's hardline stance towards Israel, insisting Saturday on the Palestinians' right to wage "legitimate resistance."

Meshal, in comments after talks between Egyptian and Palestinian leaders in Cairo on Saturday, said that "firing rockets (at Israeli territory) is the right of the Palestinian people, and a matter of legitimate resistance against the occupier."

As to whether "the rockets" are also meant to put pressure on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Meshal only said that exerting "internal pressure" is not part of his group's policy."

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Not disagreeing or agreeing, but just throwing out another (imperfect) comparison: ethnicity-based membership in sovereign Indian nations -- 'cause I think the context of historical genocide is important in thinking about ethnicity-based citizenship...

Good observation, which can be argued in either direction. Another past example of ethnic identity politics is in South African apartheid. The Balkans tend not to be a shining example.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Nudnik: Are you aware that your argument becomes a somewhat circular one when one considers the statements of the early Zionists (pre-Holocaust), who wished to essentially do the same thing to the original majority arab population of Palestine? Is it unreasonable to think that those original arab residents, at the beginning of the 20th century, as the massive influx of Jewish immigration began, thought that resisting that influx was a right and obligation as well? Why should the right of Jewish people to control their own destiny trump the similar right of Palestinians to control theirs?

And numerous public opinion studies, by both Palestinian and Israeli researchers, show that your claims that the majority of Palestinians wish to "destroy Israel" are just not accurate.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

What makes you think the Palestinians were the original landholders?

Yeah, whatever happened to those Canaanites?

The PA has sovereign authority with in Gaza.

Of course they don't.

Indeed, if you press that language too hard, then the Israeli government "allowed" rock throwing at Israeli soldiers in the first intifada, since the rock throwing definitely occured, and nobody can dispute that the Israeli government was the authority in the area at the time.

Well, you at least have to admit that the Palestinians were the holders of some land. Otherwise, what are they negotiating for? Yes, the UN allocated (Palestinian) land between the Jews and the Arabs. Then the Jews took most of the rest by driving Arabs out through terrorist tactics.

I’m not Jewish and perhaps I should mind my own business, right? But as I see it, if pro-Israeli proponents of a two-state solution don't honestly admit Israel’s real history and deal with Palestinian claims like right of return, then Israel, too, will learn how long never is. Right now, we in the U.S. are learning how long never is.

We are mired in one war, at least in some part, because of our relationship to Israel, and many in our government are threatening another war with another enemy of Israel. Resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict might also mitigate the Great War of Civilizations that the Neocons and Likudniks want to fight.

"And that judgment comes from someone who opposes both Zionism and eretz Israel."

How do you oppose eretz Israel?

Do you donate money to groups dedicated to eliminate eretz Israel? Are you trainning to join
such groups ?

Are you just dreaming about world without eretz Israel ? If so please contunue.

Golly, gee! As an Israeli, I hadn't thought
of that. "If we hadn't been insistent on remaining a separatist minority" we would be living in harmony with our neighbors. Just like what we see in Iraq, Lebanon, Algeria, Yemen, Somalia. Yes indeed, the Arabs are certainly a welcoming, tolerant people!

"What the size of land between border of 1967 and the fence. Few square miles. You have to be moron to die for that."

davai - Then why are Israelis' willing to die to hold onto that land?

You make all sorts of statements about what the Palestinians are or are not willing to accept. Do you know something no one else in the world knows with any confidence? My own guess (it's nothing more than a guess, like yours) is that if Taba had gone on three more months a deal would have been concluded. Taba was a deal that looked pretty fair and more importantly it allowed for face saving on all sides. Whether we like it or not face saving, honor and dignity are critical ingredients to any peace deal.

Your statement that the Palestinians don't deserve a fair deal shows your anger and hatred of them. If you can't give that up in order to conclude a peace deal why do you expect them to give up their hatred and anger of Jews?

Let me understand this. After the Holocaust and other massacres of the last 100 years inflicted on my fellow Jews by our "fellow humans" and those that are threatening us today, are you telling me that we should identify ourselves
as a "universalist humans" and that will guarantee our safety? Can I take that to the bank?

There are billions of people in the world.
They speak a myriad of different languages,
have different cultures, religions, eat different foods, like different music, etc, etc. Isn't it natural that they will tend to feel closer to those who share these same things? That they will feel closer to people of their immediate family than total strangers? How are you going to uproot this feelings against everyone's will? Impose a Stalinist state that will dictate what the 'officially approved' culture is and use
force to impose it?

Ellen,

I don't believe that some supernatural being gave any particular part of the earth to the Jewish people or for that matter, to any other ethnic or religious group.

Let's forget for a moment about "supernatural beings," their "gifts" of parts of the earth and other folklore, and consider something as cold and boring as history.

A univeralist humanist ideal is a noble and attractive dream.  But human civilization has long since divied itself up into diverse ethnic particulars: call them nations, peoples, tribes, whatever.  The Jewish people are no more unique in this most basic sense from other peoples in their desire for a place in the world to plant their flags, determine their borders and raise armies to defend them.

Now the question.  Why should the Jewish people, among all these nationally self-determined peoples in human civilization, step up and lead the way to universal autodisposession of these common national institutions?

Besides that the good socialists of Europe tended to have the same bias that that Europeans who arrived in America, Australia, New Zealand and South America had the locals who had not developed their area did not need to be fully taken into account what are you talking about?

How do you think the both Herzl Zionists arrived in the Province of Greater Syria? They bought land from the Turks. Once they bought the land they brought more Jews into the region to work the land. One consequence was they did not need the Arab workers.

It is the Palestinians who have thrown away their own control. It does not matter what the polls show. What matters is they elected Hamas who has vowed to destroy Israel. Islamic Jihad continues to fire missiles into Israel and suicide bombers continue to try to get into Israel. The Murders still hold sway. It is like consumer condifence polls. They always show Americans worried about the future but retail sales always show Americans buying like always.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Under your analysis Israel should exist. Then if i were the Israelis not only would I not leave the settlements but I would anticipate eliminating the Palestinians.

What you are saying is the obvious. The Arabs want to the region to be free of Jews. This is the Nazi style anti-Semitism that is vigorously denied by the posters here. Thanks for confirming the bigotry that my cousin and others who speak to the Arabs in Arabic have stated for years. A Jewish free Middle East is the goal.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I nearly fell off my chair laughing at this one.  New York and Chicago are places where ethnicity is not emphasized?  Are you kidding?  Obviously you haven't spend too much time in either place.

Both places are famous for their ethnic politics.  In Chicago, Polish and East European whites, not to mention the Irish, played ethnic politics for decades, demanding all sorts of tributes and concessions.  In New York, Jewish, Irish, Italian, African-American, Latino and Asian groups demand all sorts of things, both significant and trivial.  Just the parades alone are enough to trip up many politicians.

Unsurprisingly, you completely miss the point.  The point is that a Zionism based on a completely future-oriented perspective is colonialist by nature.  The only thing that gives the Jewish people legitimacy in Israel is the history and the continuous presence.  That's why the Arabs deny it so vehemently.  They know what you do not.  That to acknowledge the Jewish people's history on that land is to acknowledge the legitimacy of their claim to it today.  You couldn't ask for better evidence that the Arabs are not fundamentally interested in compromise.  If they were, they would realize that their is legitimacy to both Jewish and Arab claims on the land and so a compromise needs to be worked out.  And before you mention it, yes, the same is true of those Jews who say any Arab claims are illegitimate.

Bar_kochba132 comes at his point from a more religious perspective than I would have.  There are many more sources than just the Bible to verify the ancient Jewish presence in what is now Israel.  Furthermore, not all progressives are ultra-secular.  Nor are there many "New Jews" left.  Most Israelis that I know believe in a Zionism that considers Israel to be the home of the "people" known as Jews.  The fact that these people practice (or - as is the case of a majority of Israelis - don't practice) Judaism is incidental.  "Religious Zionism" gets a lot of press and is the creed of the most hardline settlers, but it doesn't represent that many Israelis.  So dismissing Zionism as a religious belief is simply leftwing balderdash.  Why?  Because if leftists were to admit that Zionism is a nationalism no different from the nationalism that exists in most other countries of the world, then they would have to explain why Zionism alone merits such vehement opposition.  It's one thing to say that you are opposed to all forms of nationalism and Zionism is simply an example of nationalism.  It's another thing entirely to have to explain why Zionism is worthy of condemnation but all other forms of nationalism are not.

The point of course is that when the state does not emphasize one ethnic group over the other, all ethnic groups are able to participate equally.