Are there any Israeli or American Jews willing to stand up, finally, and admit that a Jewish ethnocracy in a land with a large Arab population can only be maintained through injustice against the Arabs? Are there any Israeli or American Jews willing to stand up for justice over ethnocracy? Until we have prominent people in the Jewish community willing to renounce ethnocracy and work toward a truly pluralistic Israeli democracy there is no hope for real peace or progress on this issue. It's that simple.

I am not of the "Zionism is racism" crowd. Zionism has always been in large part a liberation movement designed to provide refuge and freedom to a persecuted and oppressed people. But Zionism has also been an ethnic-nationalist movement similar to other European ethnic-nationalist movements and sharing many of the same negatives. Ideally, the Zionists would have steered clear of their ethnic-nationalist tendencies in 1948 and instead of unilaterally declaring a Jewish state would have reached out to the Arab population and begun the process of jointly developing a constitution suitable to both peoples that fully protected the rights of both peoples to live freely on the land. This would have been immensely difficult, of course--but the alternative, as we have seen, has also been immensely difficult, violent, and ugly. Many people believe that UN resolution 181 created a Jewish state. It did partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, but it also called for a democratic--and completely inclusive--process of creating constitutions for both states. If this process had been followed, Arabs and Jews would have had, right from the beginning, to resolve their differences and work out a way of living together. No doubt, this would have been extremely challenging--yet had it been done, the festering problems we have seen in the past 60 years may have been avoided. For those who are unfamiliar with the text of UN 181, I quote the relevant passage that describes how the constitutions of Israel and Palestine were supposed to be created. I am sorry for the length of the quoted passage, but I think it's important for people to understand what the UN mandated and compare that to what actually happened. I also think that the process of including Arabs and Jews in creating a mutually agreeable constitution has been too long delayed. Maybe the way to peace is to begin this process now. Israel still has no constitution. The Arab citizens of Israel have called for the creation of a truly democratic, pluralistic constitution. Maybe it is time for prominent Jews in Israel and the US to join with the Arabs and start a process similar to the one envisioned by UN 181.
________________
The Provisional Council of Government of each State [Jewish and Arab] shall, not later than two months after the withdrawal of the armed forces of the mandatory Power, hold elections to the Constituent Assembly which shall be conducted on democratic lines.

The election regulations in each State shall be drawn up by the Provisional Council of Government and approved by the Commission. Qualified voters for each State for this election shall be persons over eighteen years of age who are (a) Palestinian citizens residing in that State; and (b) Arabs and Jews residing in the State, although not Palestinian citizens, who, before voting, have signed a notice of intention to become citizens of such State.

Arabs and Jews residing in the City of Jerusalem who have signed a notice of intention to become citizens, the Arabs of the Arab State and the Jews of the Jewish State, shall be entitled to vote in the Arab and Jewish States respectively.

Women may vote and be elected to the Constituent Assemblies.

During the transitional period no Jew shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Arab State, and no Arab shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Jewish State, except by special leave of the Commission.

The Constituent Assembly of each State shall draft a democratic constitution for its State and choose a provisional government to succeed the Provisional Council of Government appointed by the Commission. The Constitutions of the States shall embody Chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below and include, inter alia, provisions for:

Establishing in each State a legislative body elected by universal suffrage and by secret ballot on the basis of proportional representation, and an executive body responsible to the legislature;

Settling all international disputes in which the State may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

Accepting the obligation of the State to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations;

Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association;

Preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents and citizens of the other State in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem, subject to considerations of national security, provided that each State shall control residence within its borders.

It has seemed more and more to me of late, that there is little hope for any state that behaves as Israel has in recent years. This doesn't involve a debate about who was wronged or who wa justified. It's just an observation from a realistic perspective. There is no future in an Israeli policy of domination and agression in the occupied territories.

Throughout my life Israel has been at odds with the people who live beside them and those whose displacement occured along with the establishment of Israel. But it is no longer all the Arab states ganging up on Israel as it was when I was a child and Israel was touted as the tiny, yet brave David vs the Arab Goliath. The unending expansion of "settlements" in obvious violation of every agreement (not to mention common sense)and the attempt to maintain a subjagation of the Palestinians in the territoties is a dead end strategy. It just dones't work. It doesn't make for a secure Israel. Quite the opposite in the long run I would think. It will never work. I just wonder how long it will be before the American public simply refuses to continue to ally itself with this sort of conduct. I dont think the American public will go for this forever. Seems to me Israel needs to find a different path or the current strategy will be their undoing.

Mr. Avishai, I appreciate the usual even-handedness of your posts, but you are engaging in a soft-sell argument here, regarding Kahane and the Kahanists. You are basically offering an apologia for Kahane and, by extension, Lieberman.

Yet, nowhere in your post do you acknowledge that Kach and Kahane Chai are officially considered terrorist organizations by both the US and Israel. Therefore, you are implicitly acknowledging that supporting terrorist entities is ok, as long as they are Zionist Nationalists. I don't believe this is your intent, but I am amazed at how the double-standard continually insinuates itself, to the extent of encompassing well-meaning academics like yourself.

I fail to see the difference between the Kahanists, Lieberman and the Ku Klux Klan. Would anybody here defend the KKK on the grounds that they 'just said what everybody else was thinking?'

Israel's problem today is not so much blind reliance on "national unity" as a blind eye towards national cowardice and stupidity. "National Unity" has been the defacto approach of Israel throughout its history, but past leaders put that prop to effective purpose. The older generation of Israel leaders - Meir, Dayan, Begin, Rabin, even Sharon- defeated vastly larger militaries of surrounding countries and then signed peace treaties or arranged defacto co-existence arrangements with those countries. Some Israeli rulers, e.g. Sharon, relied on unusually unsavoury means to pursue their ends, but even they HAD tangible ends and made tangible progress towards them. Sharon's massacres had a purpose behind them, at least.

Now Israel has drifted into National Unity with no plan. Ass-covering means with no ends. Purposeless and pointless massacring of children in Gaza. The main problem is not, as some long time commenters here would have it, Zionism, or evil Arabs, or the demogogical lunatic fringe tail wagging the Israeli electoral dog. The real problem is two-fold: (1) An Israeli electorate, and Israeli leaders with no credible vision, no sense of direction, no strategy for the future which nonethless (2) thrives, or at least survives, in its towering hypocrisy and idiocy, because it has the far MORE idiotic blank check support of the world's still top (despite the financial crash) superpower.

If it isn't too prosaic to mention it in re this post: how well can Likud govern? how many of the technocrats switched to Kadima, and what calibre ministers are on offer from the parties from which a PM Netanyahu would have to chose (assuming no Kadima participation)?

I never could stand Avishai's blather. "Blah blah blah Likud blah blah Peace blah blah blah Zionist blah." Many suppositions, much idealism and no substance.

At least, Rosenberg makes use of current facts and is mostly rational. Avishai still lives as a would-be peacenik in the 1980s. Since Avishai formed his apparently permanent and inflexible opinions both the Israeli and the Palestinian politics has changed--in both cases, not necessarily for the better. No thanks to Avishai (and Finkelstein) most American Jews now oppose new settlement construction and allowing rigid religious control of social institutions. This even includes much of the American Jewish Left--which is liberal, but not socialist. Avishai's opinions may have arisen from growing up in Israel, but they are even deeper influenced by pro-Soviet Palestinian thought--something that long should have disappeared from over the horizon.

American and European Left, unfortunately, falls into the same anti-Israel trance--Palestinians are freedom fighters, Palestinians want their homeland, Israel is the occupier. Guess what--Israel was not the occupying power in Gaza prior to the most recent invasion. Sure, they had control over external borders, but the territory was under control of Hamas, legitimately or not. And Palestinian Arabs gradually but surely are sliding toward a totalitarian albeit Islamic society. It is puzzling how the American and European Liberal Left could have possibly have chosen are more antithetical champion.

But there is no question that Avishai and his ilk speak for the peacenik element of the Israeli and American societies that have been formed under a proto-Soviet idealistic myth of the Palestinian Freedom Movement. It was never about freedom and self-determination. It's always been a power grab. And, since 1956, it's been backed by Soviet propaganda. Just compare the writings the current crop of peacenik academics to the Soviet propaganda of 1962 or so vintage. You will find few points of disagreement.

Opposition to the peace process in the Middle East, in general, borders on fascism. But blind endorsement of 40-50 year old Soviet propaganda is equally fascist. I'd like to think that this is not intentional, that Avishai & Co are simply deluding themselves. But I can't be sure.

Here's a question: How is the Middle East peace process different from Northern Ireland. You have two warring parties, each with its own radical terrorist wing and each with political wings. There is vast disproportionality in the influence of the respective political wings--Israel, despite the recent prominence of the fascist elements, is essentially a democracy, while Arab Palestinian politics is dominated by past and current terrorists. There is also imbalance in external influence--Israel is supported by Western powers quite openly, while Palestinian parties are supported surreptitiously by China and Iran, and openly by other dictatorial Islamic regimes and the proto-Soviet dictatorships in non-Islamic Africa. This is not what we had in Northern Ireland where the separatist movement never had much of a realistic hold and external support was essentially limited to British propping of the Protestant Nationalists. In the Irish case, it was the propped-up party that did not want peace--at least, not until utter annihilation of their opposition. In the Palestinian case, although there is support from different elements on both sides, the stronger democratic support is on the part of the party that has been consistently suing for peace.

Avishai is right in one respect--not everyone in the Israeli society wants peace and certainly not on reasonably equal terms. But he is wrong to place entire blame for lack of peace on these elements and their influence on Israeli politics. Virtually every peace treaty in the making has collapsed entirely because of the Palestinian inflexibility on most issues. They don't want negotiations--they want surrender. It is an idiotic position from the weaker party in the negotiations, but it guarantees them popularity with other dictatorships and unending financial support for their cause, however ridiculous. Like I said, it makes perfect sense if you view it as a power grab.

Clearly, not everyone is a lamb on the Israeli side either. Netanyahu is more of an idiot than a fascist, but some of his potential allies are fascists. I am not even convinced that Lieberman's appeal to the crazies was ideological--I suspect it to have been simply a political triangulation. In other words, like the Palestinians, Lieberman is guilty of a power grab. He brought together two of the most unlikely constituencies--the Russian immigrants who blindly follow this asshole because they think he is one of them and the crazed orthodox settlers who'd rather kill than negotiate. These are two constituencies that don't like each other much and make for surprising allies. Lieberman took advantage of the Russian immigrants' fears of Labor as being a proto-Soviet establishment. This is the same reason why the first-generation Russian/Soviet and Israeli immigrants are the two Jewish subcultures in the US who tend to vote Republican. Their children swing to the Left, but they are simply too afraid of Democrats being proto-Soviets, as the Republicans always try to portray them. In reality, of course, there are far more similarities between the Soviets and the Republican establishment, but reality has little to do with this kind of politics.

I suspect that Yisrael Beteinu would collapse if these two constituencies were ever in a direct conflict. That said, note that YB leadership structure is largely reliant on the settlers, not on the "Russians". The Russians should feel a lot better with purely secular, centrist parties like Kadima (forget Labor and Meretz). But people like Avishai actually help to drive them to the Right, against their own self-interests.

If Avishai really wanted to stir the pot, he would make every effort to point out to the Russian immigrants that they have been betrayed by the man they thought to be one of their own--as is invariably the case with immigrant coalition groups. YB would fall apart and the right-wing coalition would not be able to sustain itself. However, that's not his game. He is not interested in politics, he's just interested in blathering. And if someone points to internal contradictions in his argument, he'll just switch topics, as he's been doing for the past 20 years.