Hebrew Republic: Jewish state--or Jew-ish?
I feel a little shy about joining a discussion like this one. Thirty-plus years ago, when I was in the running to join The New Republic as its nominal editor, I sat down with my friend and ex-tutor Marty Peretz for a nice four-hour chat in a Cambridge coffee house. By the time we were done, (a) I had the job and (b) Marty and I had agreed to disagree about the need for a Palestinian state, which had been our topic for at least one of those hours.
For the next twelve years we continued to disagree--on that topic, at least, agreeably. (On other topics, not always so much.) One reason our disagreement stayed agreeable was that I wrote nary a word about Israel, though I edited thousands of Marty's. My view was, If he's going to pump millions into this magazine and let me say whatever I want about everything else, I'm going to let him run the Middle East Desk without any rude pipsqueaking from me. Michael Walzer and, sometimes, Leon Wieseltier usually said what needed to be said anyway.
Another complication was my upbringing. My father was a secular atheist Jew; my mother was a nice Protestant lady. I've never been completely sure what that makes me, though I guess the decibel level on my dad's side of the family, plus my telltale name, make me a hair more Jewish than not. On top of that, Dad, who wrote a monthly column for Commentary about Middle East developments, including Israel's founding, during that then-liberal magazine's first few years of publication, was an anti-Zionist, a proponent of a bi-national state. He thought that a state that self-identified as Jewish would end up becoming just another small-minded Levantine theocracy. Some version of these biases probably lingers in me.
I picked up a fair amount of superficial Mideast knowledge at TNR editorial meetings--and, earlier, writing speeches for President Carter and traveling with him to the region. But my most clarifying single Israel-related experience, prior to this year, was reading Bernard Avishai's The Tragedy of Zionism. What I took to be that book's central insight (and I hope I'm not distorting it too much) was that whether revolutionary movements go wrong or right after they succeed in taking power depends on whether they institutionalize the extraordinary measures deemed necessary to taking power or phase them out in favor of something like full democratic normality and civic equality. The Russians and the French did the former, the Americans and the South Africans did the latter, and the Israelis did mostly the latter but still too much of the former.
What happened this year, of course, was that I read The Hebrew Republic. It's even better than its predecessor. (And let me assure potential readers: you don't have to have read the first book to get the full benefit of the second.)
The new book's vision of what Israel could be--a country united by the Hebrew language, with a national mythos and civic drawn from the history of the Jews and but with liberty, justice, and equal civil rights and privileges for all regardless of religion or nonreligion--is beautiful. And its analysis of the social-economic-political-diplomatic forces that push Israel in that direction is plausible. At least I hope it is. But as Bernie says (again, I hope I'm not distorting), Israel is already two states, or maybe three: the seculars, the ultras, and the Arabs. My question is: would the Hebrew republic be a Jewish state--or, as the old joke has it, just Jew-ish? And how could the ultras possibly be made to reconcile themselves to it?
Hendrik Hertzberg writes:
The cowardice of its writers in the face of Martin Peretz's toxic views remains the great failure of The New Republic. Now that it is no longer Martin Peretz's money being flushed down the toilet I wonder what Franklin Foer's excuse is.
September 9, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The new book's vision of what Israel could be--a country united by the Hebrew language, with a national mythos and civic drawn from the history of the Jews and but with liberty, justice, and equal civil rights and privileges for all regardless of religion or nonreligion--is beautiful.
Beautiful to whom? Certainly not to all those Arabs still waiting for their equal civil rights and priviliges, but not seeing how that can happen in a nation "united" by a language not their own.
September 9, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This site is turning into a Jewish-American, speak your mind venue (not that's there anything wrong with that). But that prism is an exceedingly narrow one, that holds little interest for Ma and Pa Kettle.
I'm Pa.
September 9, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will summarize what I wrote in the comments under Dr Avishai's thread...
A secular, globalized "Hebrew Republic" will be viewed with even more alarm and hostility by Israel's neighbors than the current Jewish state. Judaism is not a missionary religion, an Israel run along traditionalist lines with more respect for religious values than the current secular government in power would be considered less threatening. For example, under the current regime, a pro-homosexual parade in Jerusalem was forced by the gov't down the throats of the residents of the city in spite of almost total opposition of the population, both Jewish and Muslim, including the secular Jewish population. A more traditionalist Israel (I am NOT talking about a Jewish "theocracy", but rather more respect for religious norms in the public realm without religious coercion in one's private life) would not do such a thing. The Arab/Muslim Middle East is a conservative society that emphasizes family values, respect for tradition, modesty for women in dress and conduct abnd respect for elders. The values of the elite Dr Avishai belongs to generally shows contempt for all these things, encourages youth to rebel against their elders and emphasizes commercial, materalist values along with instant gratification, instead of encouraging young people to build normal, stable family lives which involves saving money instead of squandering it as the agressive commercial society encourages through its endless, mindnumbing advertising.
Most Jews in Israel are either Orthodox/religious or at least traditionalists (partly religiously observant). Dr Avishai's "elite" which would run his "Hebrew Republic" only represents about 20% of the population, so what they are doing and what he is advocating is going against general public opinion and forcing their minority values both on the Jewish population AND on the Arab population. Thus, Dr Avishai's "Hebrew Republic" is nothing more than a modern Crusader state representing a missionary "religion", but of globalized consumerism instead of the medieval Christianity. In any event Hebrew is the language of the Jews so even a secularized "Hebrew" state would still be alien to the Arabic-speaking Middle East. Dr Avishai's "Hebrew Repbublic" run by an agressive minority of the Jewish population would do NOTHING to end the Arab/Israeli conflict, it would only exacerabate it.
September 10, 2008 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
After 60 years of dispossetion, of harsh violent occupation (which is longer than 40 years), I cannot think of a good reason, or a justified one, for the Palestinians to agree to a state that its identity is again- primarily Jewish. (call it Hebrew, call it Cnaani, call it the kingdom of Judea. it dosen't matter-it won't due)
The Palestinians will never agree, and justfully will not agree. I will not agree either. The Jewish superiority as any ethnic superiority is simply racist, and cannot build an equal environment- by necessity. It is necessary as a physical force.
It would be maybe a possible suggestion if there was no one in Israel when the first settlers arrived to Israel in the beginning of the last decade, and then Palestinian immigrants (that came from a Palestine that was somewhere else would have come here.)
but lets stop fanticizing those occupation-denial fantasies.
no more messing around with symbols and myths. we have enough false-messianic prophecy to bomb the universe with.
Only a one state, equal, with the right to return and a few thousand symbolic original houses given back, and a compensation agreement, a massive budget for urgent proper housing constructions in different areas of israel for re-accommodation for palestinians, which m-u-s-t b-e high standard of monicipal facilities: schooling, medicine, environmental, with maximum social and psychological aid. also in the occupied territories villages and cities.
Hostile settlements must be disassembeled- like Efrat, Bat ein, Tapuach, Susya, the Hebron-settlers, Alon-Shvut and so forth. every behaviour of violence of a racist or nationalistic nature must be treated with zero tolerance.
the cancellation of all the national-days, national anthem, talking about the Palestinians as enemies, a complete new educational programs and books etc.
Bring in the best planners of the world! It must not be ghettoes of poverty!
We need to agree to a civic constitution, that defines the division of the holy places.
that will take the hot air out of the Middle-East danger Baloon.
The rehabilitation of the whole ifrastructure of the West bank and Gaza, as well as the civil service build up- would be immensely cheaper than any war coming out of the israeli and the American tax payer's pockets. of course the weapons lobbies would have to give up their yearly gazillion cash party. thats tricky.
The problem is, that the israelis would never agree to what I have described. so it must begin with a crippled two states solution and will go on from there forth. if Obama will inforce it on our imbecile-"Leaders".
September 10, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...whether revolutionary movements go wrong or right after they succeed in taking power depends on whether..."
Zionism as a revolutionary movement? That is rich.
What were they revolting against, the return of the Holy Land to the Moslems after the Crusades?
Or were they revolting against English or French colonialism?
I cannot see Zionism as a revolutionary movement.
September 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mooser,
You only need to consider the consensus here that Jewish identity is entirely dependent upon its religious component to appreciate the radical or revolutionary nature of Zionism. While it is hardly the earliest manifestation of Jewish national identity, Zionism remains the first successful implementation of secular Jewish civic institutions. Language, culture, laws and ethics, and a shared history marked by a unique calendar, are all legitimate components of a Jewish national identity and the extent to which any of it is rooted in ancient or medieval religious traditions is by now beside the point.
From there the argument moves from one of whether or not a religion deserves national rights to whether a stateless people has a legitimate right to assert its national self-determination in the only place it has ever historically had such rights.
September 10, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mooser said:
---------------------------------------------
Zionism as a revolutionary movement? That is rich.
What were they revolting against, the return of the Holy Land to the Moslems after the Crusades?
Or were they revolting against English or French colonialism?
I cannot see Zionism as a revolutionary movement.
-----------------------------------------------
I presume, that this, being a site for "progressives" means that Zionism doesn't deserve the "honor" of being considered a "revolutionary movement".
I'll let you in on a little secret.....
(I assume you have some knowledge of European history in the 20th century). As you know, before 1945 a millions of Jews lived in Eastern Europe. As you may recall, it was a peaceful, prosperous place, especially between 1933 and 1945. Living under such idyllic conditions led to many of the Jews there feeling bored, in fact, figuratively, they were bored to death. Looking for some excitement, some Jews got the idea of building a state called Israel. This would give us some "action", to keep our minds occupied and give us something to do. This is the true story of the birth of Zionism and Israel. I suggest you read some more on the matter to get a fuller picture.
September 11, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have my own idea about how to settle some of the intense struggle - turn Jerusalem over to an international committee. Let it be a city for everyone in the world - it has religious significance for the big 3 Abrahamic religions and I know that the Israelis don't want to give it up but I think that would go some ways toward keeping violence down. Because that has been one of the major flash points for this entire fight.
September 10, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that when normally bright, incisive writers like Hertzberg embrace their (even by-a-hair) Jewishness and write on Israel and Zionism, sentimental mists cloud their judgment and they turn out silly pap like this? As noted below, Zionism certainly wasn't a revolutionary movement; it was a European colonialist/imperialist force that was substantially a strategic pawn of Britain's post-WWI ambitions in the Middle East.
Bottom line, the establishment of the state of Israel flows directly from the British "mandate" forced upon Palestine by the big European powers after WWI--and from the directly related Balfour declaration. Brute imperialism pure and simple. And that, of course, was just the beginning.
To assert that after a century of dispossession and murderous occupation that for Palestinians a ghetto-ized existence in a Hebrew-speaking state imposed upon their own homeland--is "beautiful"--is a very poor joke.
September 10, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't read the book in question, but it seems from the summaries and the author's comments that his notion of a "Hebrew Republic" owes quite a bit to Michael Walzer's thought.
Walzer emphasized that the notion of a secular Jewish state based on the Hebrew language and Jewish cultural signs and symbols (for example, the calendar, state holidays, the flag, the anthem) is not new. This is what the European nation-state looks like. (In one essay, Walzer asked whether a future secular Israel would look more like France or Ireland. I wonder if he would ask that same question today, given how Ireland has changed.)
European nation-states have minorities living within their borders. To take again the example of France: not everyone living there is French. The situation of the Arabic-speaking and Muslim minorities in France is (if I understand correctly) very difficult. But, by and large (again, as I understand it) they are not politically dispossessed. They are members of a minority culture within a majority culture they do not identify with. The difference is important.
If there are going to be two states, Israel and Palestine, there will be Arabs in Israel (or, if you like, Palestinians living in Israel) and probably some Jews (and/or Israelis) in Palestine. The Arabs will not identify with the majority culture, but ideally this will not mean that they are politically dispossessed.
This is an ideal and not yet real. Israeli Arabs are discriminated against - the proper comparison is not God forbid to apartheid, but rather to the United States some decades ago. But apart from that comparison the Israel that Walzer foresees is not American at all, but secular and Jewish in a national way.
Note that for this to happen, there must spring up an Israeli national culture different from traditional religious Jewish or Diaspora Jewish culture. The examples of Christian mass in Hebrew or Muslim worship in Hebrew are curiosities, since these are minority activities. The proper examples are Thai workers going on vacation for "chag" (the Sukkot holiday) when they properly have no inkling where "chag" comes from Biblically or Rabbinically.
It would be nice if Walzer could participate here!
September 10, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to sign the above, since I don't believe in anonymous blog comments.
Zack Berger
New York
http://zackarysholemberger.blogspot.com
September 10, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for an incisive comment. I do admire Michael Walzer. And just to add to your point: In the 600-odd pages of Exodus, which was sentimental Zionism at its best, nowhere is there any mention of Kitty converting in order to marry Ari Ben Canaan.
September 10, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trouble with a theocracy is that those who criticize the government are by definition heretics. My uncle, who flew for Israel in the 1948 War for Independence, said both Jews & Arabs told him Jewish & Arab Palestinians got along together all right before the British Mandate. Perhaps the Jews & Palestinians today would do better without all of us Westerners constantly opining on & overseeing their differences. We would do well to worry about our own situation, for we are now living in a country that has become dangerously close to being a theocracy itself. If Israel's failing is that it became the "Jewish state," ours is that we are fast becoming the "Christian state."
September 10, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink