Saturday, July 17, 2010
Weekend
We just got back from up north with Yael...Nazareth, Safed (a "hippie" town and a center of mystical Kabbalah in the Jewish religion), biking in the Hula Agmon (lots of birds - we went there with Eric). And tomorrow we're doing Mount Herzl and the Holocaust Museum with Dave. More details to come!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Journalist Settler
Yael invited a female journalist who is a settler into our class today. She laid out her legal argument for Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and spoke about her take on the Israel/Palestine conflict. It was a lively class discussion, to say the least.
The basis of her argument lies in the fact the the League of Nations Mandate states that all of the territory of Palestine had to be a Jewish state. Legalistically, I do not agree with this reading. So we have an issue from the get-go, and we are unlikely to agree. I will say, though, that her argument was well laid-out and appropriate if you accept that initial claim.
The basis of her argument lies in the fact the the League of Nations Mandate states that all of the territory of Palestine had to be a Jewish state. Legalistically, I do not agree with this reading. So we have an issue from the get-go, and we are unlikely to agree. I will say, though, that her argument was well laid-out and appropriate if you accept that initial claim.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Israel Democracy Institute
Yesterday we visited a Think Tank for Democracy in Israel and had the chance to engage in roundtable debate with several scholars on the issues of terrorism and democracy. We dealt with questions like administrative detention, trying terrorists in criminal court, personal liberty vs. security concerns, the (currently nonexisting) Israeli Constitution, the flotilla, and performing a prisoner swap for Gilad Shalit. It was a great session.
Afterwards, we heard from the leader of Peace Now's Settlement Watch, and then visited the VanLeer Institute and walked by the President's and Prime Minister's Houses.
Afterwards, we heard from the leader of Peace Now's Settlement Watch, and then visited the VanLeer Institute and walked by the President's and Prime Minister's Houses.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Trip to the South
Thursday, Yael took us down south to the Dead Sea. We climbed Masada to see the sunrise (which was lovely). Masada, as the story goes, is the place where a Jewish community rebelled against the Roman Empire in the beginning of the Common Era. On the top of Masada, Flavius Josephus (Jewish historian who worked under the Roman Empire) reports that the community of Masada, facing defeat, committed mass suicide rather than facing lives as Roman slaves. In spite of the sad ending, the community at Masada is upheld as Jews who were unafraid to stand up and fight for themselves (something that was glorified at the beginning of Zionism as a critique of passive Jews who took no action to further themselves or fight against Antisemitism).
After Masada, we hiked in Ein Gedi and swam in the same pool we visited with Eric's group. And then a dip in the Dead Sea. (It is REALLY cool.) Finally, we drove to Sderot, a community close to Gaza that receives a lot of rocket fire. That was a very sad visit, but important to see. I was incredibly impressed by the man in charge of rocket cleanup who was stationed there by the military. He was very sympathetic to the Palestinians as well as the Jews and spoke very eloquently.
After Masada, we hiked in Ein Gedi and swam in the same pool we visited with Eric's group. And then a dip in the Dead Sea. (It is REALLY cool.) Finally, we drove to Sderot, a community close to Gaza that receives a lot of rocket fire. That was a very sad visit, but important to see. I was incredibly impressed by the man in charge of rocket cleanup who was stationed there by the military. He was very sympathetic to the Palestinians as well as the Jews and spoke very eloquently.
Knesset
The Knesset is Israel’s Parliament. Tuesday we visited the Knesset in session. It all took place in Hebrew, but it was remarkably similar to America’s Congress. People don’t show up at the beginning of session, instead slowly trickling in and ignoring their colleagues. At the beginning of each session, each member is allotted one minute to speak on whichever issues are important to her or him. While we were there, folks talked about car accidents and traffic safety, soldiers in the military dancing in uniform, and issues of equal treatment. It was quite fascinating to see, especially trying to work my way through the Hebrew.
Israel Museum
Just after the Supreme Court, we walked to the Israel Museum. “The Shrine of the Book!” (Dead Sea Scrolls and artifacts from the community of Qumran.) And a huge (1:50), gorgeous model of what they believed the Old City of Jerusalem looked like during the Second Temple. It was a wonderful trip.
Supreme Court
Wednesday we took a trip to the Supreme Court. Got to see the Chief Justice, her Deputy, and the next Chief Justice in line all in action at once! Unlike the American Supreme Court, the Israeli Supreme Court takes a large number “regular” cases and splits up the Court to hear more than one case at a time. We saw a murder trial as well.
Asian plugs!
When we were in the Emergency Room with Megan’s concussion, I took my computer. Never know how long you’re going to be there…
But I couldn’t actually use it for that long, seeing as how the plugs were Asian. I find it utterly ridiculous that the plugs everything else in Israel are European, but suddenly the ER Waiting Room has Asian. Perhaps it’s because a lot of the medical equipment they purchase is from China?
But I couldn’t actually use it for that long, seeing as how the plugs were Asian. I find it utterly ridiculous that the plugs everything else in Israel are European, but suddenly the ER Waiting Room has Asian. Perhaps it’s because a lot of the medical equipment they purchase is from China?
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Yael's Midterm
A paper written about the Palestinian national community in Israel, written as Yael's midterm.
“I, for one, am willing to state openly and out loud today: The Jews have a historic claim to part of Palestine. Your forefathers were here, along with our forefathers. Your suffering grants you rights, as does our suffering…Our respective disasters…have welded us together1.” These words of a Palestinian Israeli are generally assumed to represent a minority opinion among the Arab population of Israel. But though Jews and Arabs living in the state may disagree on the story of history, they are creating and participating in political systems that weld them together today. Here, I will argue that Palestinian involvement in Israel’s government has helped to ensure political attention is given to the minority population and that this system has helped to soothe tensions between the two nationalities. I will address the counter-argument asserting that Palestinian involvement in Israel’s government has been antagonistic and merely wrought more conflict. Throughout the paper, the term “Palestinian Israelis” will be used to refer to Israeli citizens of Arab background, and will be focused on Muslim Palestinians. The status of non-citizen Arab residents in Israel is another matter altogether and will not be addressed here.
From its beginnings, official Israeli policy and language has stated explicitly that it is a Jewish state for the Jews as a nation rather than the Jews as a religious group. Its Declaration of Independence never mentions God. The document further promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed, or sex,” “guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture,” and “safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions.” Under law, there is no differential treatment between the Jewish and Arab citizens of the state of Israel. As a result, Palestinian Israelis are able to participate fully in the political process, voting, running for office, forming parties. A Palestinian could potentially be prime minister or president.
Though Israel has always had a parliamentary system and coalition government in place, the Labor party dominated the political platform for the first half of the state’s life, not truly falling until the 1977 elections2. Though the Likud attempted to move into place as the dominant party, it never truly succeeded, and by the ‘80s, it was clear that blocs of smaller parties would form the government3. When the Labor party was dominant, Palestinian Israelis were involved and even served as Knesset members (for example, ‘Abd al-Wahhab Darawasha4). Starting with the 1977 elections, though, the Arab minority in Israel began casting its vote for parties more explicitly focused on dealing with issues for the Palestinian community. The March 30, 1976 protests organized by the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (DFPE) that ended in the killing of six Israeli Arab citizens resulted in that party’s winning half the Arab electorate in the 1977 election – the same election in which the Labor Party fell decisively for the first time5.
After the ’77 elections, more and more predominately Arab parties and partnerships were formed, including the Arab Democratic Party (ADP), the Arab Movement for Change (AMC), Balad, Hadash, the Progressive List for Peace (PLP), and the United Arab List (UAL)6. Some Palestinian Israelis continue to be involved in larger parties, particularly Labor and Meretz, and have even held ministerial positions7. The number of Arab-based parties reflects the wide range of opinions held by Palestinian Israelis The adage “Anytime two Israelis are in a room, three opinions will be present” seem to be as true of Arabs as it is of Jews.
The incredibly low percentage of the vote required in order to form a party (2%8) enables Israel’s numerous minorities (whether religious, ethnic, or cultural or, in the case of Israel’s multiple Arab parties, subsets of these groups) to participate in the political process. The one-minute allotment given to Knesset members to share their concerns at the beginning of each session9 guarantees that many issues that would otherwise go unnoticed are heard on the political stage. These two factors – and the fact that the Arab minority in Israel makes up 20% of the population10 – allow Palestinian Israelis to influence Israeli identity and policy and, I believe, help to ease tensions between Arabs and Jews. By making the political system accessible to Palestinian Israelis, Jews have demonstrated their willingness to “promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants,” regardless of their ethnicity. (Indeed, many Palestinians acknowledge that they have greater political freedom in Israel than they would have in the Muslim countries to which some of them flee11. The same Palestinian Israeli quoted at the beginning of this paper stated: “We want to be an open, pluralistic, democratic society. And that is not about to happen so soon with Jordan…12”) By participating in that system, Palestinian Israelis have acknowledged the legitimacy of the Jewish state and demonstrated their willingness to work with the Jewish people. Furthermore, the daily interaction between Arab and Jewish politicians and activists helps both sides to better understand and appreciate the other.
But all is not well. Though there is de jure equality, a Palestinian party has never been invited to participate in a coalition government13. In part, this is because the identity conflict of Palestinian leaders involved in Israel’s government leads them to ideological beliefs and statements that are not taken well by their Jewish counterparts. Bishara, a former leader of the Balad party, will not step on Israeli soil because he would now face trial for abetting Israel’s enemies (including Hezbollah)14. Haneen Zoubi, currently the first female member of Balad, was on the flotilla into Gaza and has stated that she supports Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons15. Some Knesset members have paid condolence calls on the families of Islamic suicide bombers16. And though many Palestinian parties advocate for a two-state solution, a few (including Balad) also campaign for the Palestinian right of return. This is a major divisive factor in Israeli government: Full enactment of the right of return would result in Israel’s becoming a Palestinian majority state17. Jewish government officials can understandably see their Palestinian equivalents as working towards a Palestinian state rather than finding their place in a Jewish one.
Because of this, a significant argument can be made that Arab involvement in the Israeli government has hindered relations rather than helping them. Each time a Palestinian official makes a speech advocating for a change in the Israeli flag and national anthem, campaigning for the right of return, or praising Israel’s enemies, negative stereotypes are reinforced. The voices of more liberally-minded Palestinian parties who work towards equal treatment in a Jewish state (more schools in East Jerusalem, equal treatment by the police, more integration in school and living) are easily dismissed in the light of the more extreme positions. 2003 saw the first time Arabs were not involved in Zionist parties, in part because of the defeat of the Labor and Meretz parties18. As a result, the government has become more polarized: The only Palestinian Israelis involved in politics are those representing “exclusively Arab” issues and concerns, and Jews and Arabs work together less closely.
And it is true that Palestinian involvement in the government can be polarizing. But I would argue that the involvement of Palestinians in the Israeli government, though not perfect, almost certainly makes the situation better than it would be without their participation, both because it allows Palestinian Israelis to feel they have a voice and forces the government to hear the issues and concerns of the large minority. Israel was founded to be the first Jewish majority state in two thousand years. Today, it is as culturally diverse as it is geographically. The Jews are now faced with the question of how they, having been the minority for so long throughout history, will treat the minority in their state. With the openness of the political system to Palestinian involvement, Israel is thus far doing a relatively good job of working towards, in the words of a peace advocacy organization, “the legitimate rights and justified claims of the Palestinian people…[who] are entitled to participate in the determination of their future19.”
1. Oz, 177.
2. M. Aronoff, 8-9.
3. M. Aronoff, 15-16.
4-5. Freedman, 115.
6. Freedman and Y. Aronoff.
7. Y. Aronoff.
8. Y. Aronoff
9. Knesset.
10. Y. Aronoff.
11. Y. Aronoff.
12. Oz, 177.
1-15. Y. Aronoff.
16. Rosenthal, 281.
17. Y. Aronoff.
18. Freedman, 119.
19. M. Aronoff, 97.
Bibliography
Aronoff, Myron J. 1989. Israeli Visions and Divisions. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Aronoff, Yael. Summer 2010. Lecture and class notes from her MC 390: Israeli Politics and Society Course taught at Hebrew University.
Freedman, Robert O., ed. 2009. Contemporary Israel: Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Security Challenges. Philadelphia: Westview Press.
----Primarily “Chapter 6: Israel’s Arab Parties” written by Hillel Frisch.
Knesset. 6 July 2010. Trip to view the Knesset in session with Yael Aronoff’s Israeli Politics and Society Course.
Oz, Amos. 1993. In the Land of Israel. Orlando: Harcourt Brace & Company.
“Proclamation of Israel Independence.” 14 May 1948. Tel Aviv.
Rosenthal, Donna. 2008. The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land. New York: Free Press.
“I, for one, am willing to state openly and out loud today: The Jews have a historic claim to part of Palestine. Your forefathers were here, along with our forefathers. Your suffering grants you rights, as does our suffering…Our respective disasters…have welded us together1.” These words of a Palestinian Israeli are generally assumed to represent a minority opinion among the Arab population of Israel. But though Jews and Arabs living in the state may disagree on the story of history, they are creating and participating in political systems that weld them together today. Here, I will argue that Palestinian involvement in Israel’s government has helped to ensure political attention is given to the minority population and that this system has helped to soothe tensions between the two nationalities. I will address the counter-argument asserting that Palestinian involvement in Israel’s government has been antagonistic and merely wrought more conflict. Throughout the paper, the term “Palestinian Israelis” will be used to refer to Israeli citizens of Arab background, and will be focused on Muslim Palestinians. The status of non-citizen Arab residents in Israel is another matter altogether and will not be addressed here.
From its beginnings, official Israeli policy and language has stated explicitly that it is a Jewish state for the Jews as a nation rather than the Jews as a religious group. Its Declaration of Independence never mentions God. The document further promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed, or sex,” “guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture,” and “safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions.” Under law, there is no differential treatment between the Jewish and Arab citizens of the state of Israel. As a result, Palestinian Israelis are able to participate fully in the political process, voting, running for office, forming parties. A Palestinian could potentially be prime minister or president.
Though Israel has always had a parliamentary system and coalition government in place, the Labor party dominated the political platform for the first half of the state’s life, not truly falling until the 1977 elections2. Though the Likud attempted to move into place as the dominant party, it never truly succeeded, and by the ‘80s, it was clear that blocs of smaller parties would form the government3. When the Labor party was dominant, Palestinian Israelis were involved and even served as Knesset members (for example, ‘Abd al-Wahhab Darawasha4). Starting with the 1977 elections, though, the Arab minority in Israel began casting its vote for parties more explicitly focused on dealing with issues for the Palestinian community. The March 30, 1976 protests organized by the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (DFPE) that ended in the killing of six Israeli Arab citizens resulted in that party’s winning half the Arab electorate in the 1977 election – the same election in which the Labor Party fell decisively for the first time5.
After the ’77 elections, more and more predominately Arab parties and partnerships were formed, including the Arab Democratic Party (ADP), the Arab Movement for Change (AMC), Balad, Hadash, the Progressive List for Peace (PLP), and the United Arab List (UAL)6. Some Palestinian Israelis continue to be involved in larger parties, particularly Labor and Meretz, and have even held ministerial positions7. The number of Arab-based parties reflects the wide range of opinions held by Palestinian Israelis The adage “Anytime two Israelis are in a room, three opinions will be present” seem to be as true of Arabs as it is of Jews.
The incredibly low percentage of the vote required in order to form a party (2%8) enables Israel’s numerous minorities (whether religious, ethnic, or cultural or, in the case of Israel’s multiple Arab parties, subsets of these groups) to participate in the political process. The one-minute allotment given to Knesset members to share their concerns at the beginning of each session9 guarantees that many issues that would otherwise go unnoticed are heard on the political stage. These two factors – and the fact that the Arab minority in Israel makes up 20% of the population10 – allow Palestinian Israelis to influence Israeli identity and policy and, I believe, help to ease tensions between Arabs and Jews. By making the political system accessible to Palestinian Israelis, Jews have demonstrated their willingness to “promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants,” regardless of their ethnicity. (Indeed, many Palestinians acknowledge that they have greater political freedom in Israel than they would have in the Muslim countries to which some of them flee11. The same Palestinian Israeli quoted at the beginning of this paper stated: “We want to be an open, pluralistic, democratic society. And that is not about to happen so soon with Jordan…12”) By participating in that system, Palestinian Israelis have acknowledged the legitimacy of the Jewish state and demonstrated their willingness to work with the Jewish people. Furthermore, the daily interaction between Arab and Jewish politicians and activists helps both sides to better understand and appreciate the other.
But all is not well. Though there is de jure equality, a Palestinian party has never been invited to participate in a coalition government13. In part, this is because the identity conflict of Palestinian leaders involved in Israel’s government leads them to ideological beliefs and statements that are not taken well by their Jewish counterparts. Bishara, a former leader of the Balad party, will not step on Israeli soil because he would now face trial for abetting Israel’s enemies (including Hezbollah)14. Haneen Zoubi, currently the first female member of Balad, was on the flotilla into Gaza and has stated that she supports Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons15. Some Knesset members have paid condolence calls on the families of Islamic suicide bombers16. And though many Palestinian parties advocate for a two-state solution, a few (including Balad) also campaign for the Palestinian right of return. This is a major divisive factor in Israeli government: Full enactment of the right of return would result in Israel’s becoming a Palestinian majority state17. Jewish government officials can understandably see their Palestinian equivalents as working towards a Palestinian state rather than finding their place in a Jewish one.
Because of this, a significant argument can be made that Arab involvement in the Israeli government has hindered relations rather than helping them. Each time a Palestinian official makes a speech advocating for a change in the Israeli flag and national anthem, campaigning for the right of return, or praising Israel’s enemies, negative stereotypes are reinforced. The voices of more liberally-minded Palestinian parties who work towards equal treatment in a Jewish state (more schools in East Jerusalem, equal treatment by the police, more integration in school and living) are easily dismissed in the light of the more extreme positions. 2003 saw the first time Arabs were not involved in Zionist parties, in part because of the defeat of the Labor and Meretz parties18. As a result, the government has become more polarized: The only Palestinian Israelis involved in politics are those representing “exclusively Arab” issues and concerns, and Jews and Arabs work together less closely.
And it is true that Palestinian involvement in the government can be polarizing. But I would argue that the involvement of Palestinians in the Israeli government, though not perfect, almost certainly makes the situation better than it would be without their participation, both because it allows Palestinian Israelis to feel they have a voice and forces the government to hear the issues and concerns of the large minority. Israel was founded to be the first Jewish majority state in two thousand years. Today, it is as culturally diverse as it is geographically. The Jews are now faced with the question of how they, having been the minority for so long throughout history, will treat the minority in their state. With the openness of the political system to Palestinian involvement, Israel is thus far doing a relatively good job of working towards, in the words of a peace advocacy organization, “the legitimate rights and justified claims of the Palestinian people…[who] are entitled to participate in the determination of their future19.”
1. Oz, 177.
2. M. Aronoff, 8-9.
3. M. Aronoff, 15-16.
4-5. Freedman, 115.
6. Freedman and Y. Aronoff.
7. Y. Aronoff.
8. Y. Aronoff
9. Knesset.
10. Y. Aronoff.
11. Y. Aronoff.
12. Oz, 177.
1-15. Y. Aronoff.
16. Rosenthal, 281.
17. Y. Aronoff.
18. Freedman, 119.
19. M. Aronoff, 97.
Bibliography
Aronoff, Myron J. 1989. Israeli Visions and Divisions. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Aronoff, Yael. Summer 2010. Lecture and class notes from her MC 390: Israeli Politics and Society Course taught at Hebrew University.
Freedman, Robert O., ed. 2009. Contemporary Israel: Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Security Challenges. Philadelphia: Westview Press.
----Primarily “Chapter 6: Israel’s Arab Parties” written by Hillel Frisch.
Knesset. 6 July 2010. Trip to view the Knesset in session with Yael Aronoff’s Israeli Politics and Society Course.
Oz, Amos. 1993. In the Land of Israel. Orlando: Harcourt Brace & Company.
“Proclamation of Israel Independence.” 14 May 1948. Tel Aviv.
Rosenthal, Donna. 2008. The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land. New York: Free Press.
The Arabs: Buber vs. Jabotinsky
Two prominent thinkers in 1920s Zionism, contrasted over the Arab question in Palestine.
Political scientists studying Israeli opinion of today generally classify political ideology along a spectrum with ends termed “left” and “right.” Leftist ideology today focuses on the need for a Jewish majority: A large population of Jewish people is what makes a Jewish state. For the political right, land is critical: Jewish control of Biblical territory is what makes a Jewish state. As a result, individuals in the political left tend to favor negotiations, are willing to make concessions, and wish to find a peace agreement with the Palestinians (generally in terms of a two-state solution). Those in the right camp tend to favor a more militaristic approach and believe that land concessions critically undermine the Jewish state.
These contrasting political stances are not new to internal Jewish debate. They reflect a disagreement that has always coexisted with Zionism on what actually makes up a Jewish state (put simplistically, land or people). In the pre-state days of Zionism, high-profile leaders debated this in the public scene. The difference of opinion had strong implications for the Zionist stance regarding the Arab population living in Palestine at the time (and still does today). Here, we will explore two Zionist thinkers writing in the 1920s and ‘30s about the “Arab question” in the “Jewish problem.” Ze’ev Jabotinsky is generally associated with the right of the political spectrum; while Martin Buber is classified on the left.
Ze’ev Jabotinsky was born in 1880. He grew up in Eastern Europe and studied in Switzerland and Italy. Heavily influenced by Italian ideas of revolution, Jabotinsky formed a militant youth movement called Betav, named after the place where the famous Bar Kochba died. In Betav, young Jews learned to use lead. The Arab question loomed ahead.
In “An Iron Wall (We and the Arabs),” Jabotinsky laid out his belief that the Jews should militarize and form an “Iron Wall” against which the Arabs could not break. He saw agreements with the Arab population as futile: There was no historical precedent for locals giving up to “intruders.” Conflict was inevitable. Because Jabotinsky saw the greater justice in the confrontation as being with the Jews, he had no moral qualms in being militant. This is not to say that he wished to exterminate the Palestinians; rather, he believed they could all happily live in other lands in the region, in Arab majority areas. Negotiation, for Jabotinsky, sent a message of weakness and willingness to compromise. An effective strategy required demonstrations of steadfastness. If the Arabs hit a Jewish military Iron Wall repeatedly, they would realize that breaking through was not possible and be forced to accept the existence of a Jewish state.
In order to create this Iron Wall, Jabotinsky believed the Jews would need the help of the British. To this end, he gave evidence to the Peel Commission on the need for a Jewish state in the region, asserting that the Jewish want was based on starvation; the Arab, on appetite. Jews needed the land of Israel for themselves or they would die out. “If you don’t liquidate the Diaspora, the Diaspora will liquidate you.” The Arabs would not die without Palestine, thought Jabotinsky, they merely wanted it. Typical of the rightist focus on land, Jabotinsky believed the State of Israel should include both sides of the Jordan River (Palestine and trans-Jordan). He called upon the British and the Jews to militarize into his Iron Wall to answer the Arab question.
On the other end of the spectrum laid Martin Buber, a major twentieth century philosopher who focused on relationships and interaction. In 1925, Buber formed Brit Shalom (“Covenant for Peace”). His answer to the Arab question is presented in “The National Home and National Policy in Palestine.” Unlike Jabotinsky, Buber saw the Arab community in Palestine as a nation. He believed that the Palestinians also had claims and rights to Eretz Yisrael. Because of this, Zionism must not come to Palestine with the goal of dominating the Arabs, but rather to live with them. To have a true and legitimate Jewish home, argued Buber, Zionism must reach consent with the Palestinians, or it lost its moral claim. Following the Biblical ideal of the Jews “being blessed to be a blessing,” Buber though that Judaism should demonstrate that two nationalities are able to live in harmony and be a beacon to the world. He felt this was already happening with the kibbutzim: Ideas formed by the Jews were being given to the world. (Contrarily, Jabotinsky disapproved of the socialist movements in Zionism because he believed the Jews needed to focus exclusively on the creation of a state, ignoring other ideals and goals until the first was reached.)
Buber’s answer to the Arab question was binationalism. Two nations would coexist, sharing political territory and a unit called the state (which he believed should be the Mediterranean to the Jordan, allowing more land to be given to other Arab nationalities, very different than Jabotinsky’s requirements). The Arabs and the Jews would sustain their separate cultures while collaborating in political power, defense, and foreign relations.
Though Buber was for a binational state, he never endorsed limited immigration, showcasing the leftist focus on people rather than land.
Buber did not have a fully-developed program for what a binational state would like look. And he faced troubles in finding a partner on the Arab side. As Jabotinsky pointed out, the locals were not keen on another population coming into their region. Jabotinsky, though he had a more fully-developed plan, failed to attain full British cooperation. The two men represent the two ends of the Zionist political spectrum. As happens so often in politics, the action taken to answer the Arab question fell somewhere in the middle, between the two men’s plans. Israel today has a strong military and has held an Iron Wall with many Arab communities (possibly explaining the eventual peace treaty with Egypt following several military confrontations with Israel as the victor). But in the treaty, Israel negotiated with the country and made land concessions, trying to live with the Egyptians – a much more Buberian ideal.
Political scientists studying Israeli opinion of today generally classify political ideology along a spectrum with ends termed “left” and “right.” Leftist ideology today focuses on the need for a Jewish majority: A large population of Jewish people is what makes a Jewish state. For the political right, land is critical: Jewish control of Biblical territory is what makes a Jewish state. As a result, individuals in the political left tend to favor negotiations, are willing to make concessions, and wish to find a peace agreement with the Palestinians (generally in terms of a two-state solution). Those in the right camp tend to favor a more militaristic approach and believe that land concessions critically undermine the Jewish state.
These contrasting political stances are not new to internal Jewish debate. They reflect a disagreement that has always coexisted with Zionism on what actually makes up a Jewish state (put simplistically, land or people). In the pre-state days of Zionism, high-profile leaders debated this in the public scene. The difference of opinion had strong implications for the Zionist stance regarding the Arab population living in Palestine at the time (and still does today). Here, we will explore two Zionist thinkers writing in the 1920s and ‘30s about the “Arab question” in the “Jewish problem.” Ze’ev Jabotinsky is generally associated with the right of the political spectrum; while Martin Buber is classified on the left.
Ze’ev Jabotinsky was born in 1880. He grew up in Eastern Europe and studied in Switzerland and Italy. Heavily influenced by Italian ideas of revolution, Jabotinsky formed a militant youth movement called Betav, named after the place where the famous Bar Kochba died. In Betav, young Jews learned to use lead. The Arab question loomed ahead.
In “An Iron Wall (We and the Arabs),” Jabotinsky laid out his belief that the Jews should militarize and form an “Iron Wall” against which the Arabs could not break. He saw agreements with the Arab population as futile: There was no historical precedent for locals giving up to “intruders.” Conflict was inevitable. Because Jabotinsky saw the greater justice in the confrontation as being with the Jews, he had no moral qualms in being militant. This is not to say that he wished to exterminate the Palestinians; rather, he believed they could all happily live in other lands in the region, in Arab majority areas. Negotiation, for Jabotinsky, sent a message of weakness and willingness to compromise. An effective strategy required demonstrations of steadfastness. If the Arabs hit a Jewish military Iron Wall repeatedly, they would realize that breaking through was not possible and be forced to accept the existence of a Jewish state.
In order to create this Iron Wall, Jabotinsky believed the Jews would need the help of the British. To this end, he gave evidence to the Peel Commission on the need for a Jewish state in the region, asserting that the Jewish want was based on starvation; the Arab, on appetite. Jews needed the land of Israel for themselves or they would die out. “If you don’t liquidate the Diaspora, the Diaspora will liquidate you.” The Arabs would not die without Palestine, thought Jabotinsky, they merely wanted it. Typical of the rightist focus on land, Jabotinsky believed the State of Israel should include both sides of the Jordan River (Palestine and trans-Jordan). He called upon the British and the Jews to militarize into his Iron Wall to answer the Arab question.
On the other end of the spectrum laid Martin Buber, a major twentieth century philosopher who focused on relationships and interaction. In 1925, Buber formed Brit Shalom (“Covenant for Peace”). His answer to the Arab question is presented in “The National Home and National Policy in Palestine.” Unlike Jabotinsky, Buber saw the Arab community in Palestine as a nation. He believed that the Palestinians also had claims and rights to Eretz Yisrael. Because of this, Zionism must not come to Palestine with the goal of dominating the Arabs, but rather to live with them. To have a true and legitimate Jewish home, argued Buber, Zionism must reach consent with the Palestinians, or it lost its moral claim. Following the Biblical ideal of the Jews “being blessed to be a blessing,” Buber though that Judaism should demonstrate that two nationalities are able to live in harmony and be a beacon to the world. He felt this was already happening with the kibbutzim: Ideas formed by the Jews were being given to the world. (Contrarily, Jabotinsky disapproved of the socialist movements in Zionism because he believed the Jews needed to focus exclusively on the creation of a state, ignoring other ideals and goals until the first was reached.)
Buber’s answer to the Arab question was binationalism. Two nations would coexist, sharing political territory and a unit called the state (which he believed should be the Mediterranean to the Jordan, allowing more land to be given to other Arab nationalities, very different than Jabotinsky’s requirements). The Arabs and the Jews would sustain their separate cultures while collaborating in political power, defense, and foreign relations.
Though Buber was for a binational state, he never endorsed limited immigration, showcasing the leftist focus on people rather than land.
Buber did not have a fully-developed program for what a binational state would like look. And he faced troubles in finding a partner on the Arab side. As Jabotinsky pointed out, the locals were not keen on another population coming into their region. Jabotinsky, though he had a more fully-developed plan, failed to attain full British cooperation. The two men represent the two ends of the Zionist political spectrum. As happens so often in politics, the action taken to answer the Arab question fell somewhere in the middle, between the two men’s plans. Israel today has a strong military and has held an Iron Wall with many Arab communities (possibly explaining the eventual peace treaty with Egypt following several military confrontations with Israel as the victor). But in the treaty, Israel negotiated with the country and made land concessions, trying to live with the Egyptians – a much more Buberian ideal.
Integrationist
A second critique of Herzl, this one from the point of view of a European Integrationist (those Jews that saw Judaism as a religion rather than a nationality and desired to be integrated as full participants in European society).
The Jewish Chronicle, March 1896
To the Editor:
Following the assertions made in your journal by Dr. Theodore Herzl January last and Mr. Ahad Ha’am last month, I felt I could not keep silent. I, an Englishman, write in opposition to Dr. Herzl’s outrageous political scheme and in defense of Western Jews against Mr. Ha’am’s declaration that we wish to create for ourselves a “Western nation.” I have no need for a Western nation. I am happily living in one as a full citizen. Mr Ha’am, Dr. Herzl does not speak for all of us. He speaks for himself and himself alone.
Dr. Herzl, I wish to believe that you write with the best of intentions. But I must tell you, sir, that you instead threaten to undermine all which we have striven toward and accomplished. We, the so-called “assimilated” (I do not see how this word has come to be negative, or what condescending tone it can possibly be associated with) Jews of England, have proven to our fellow countrymen that Jews are fully capable of everything another Englishman is. We have shown ourselves to be different from other Englishmen only in our religious practices. Your statement of Judaism as a nationality rather than a religion is an affront to our progress on this matter and an insult to our faith itself. Jews no more form a separate nation than Christians. And just as one can be a Christian Englishman or a Christian German, so too can one be a Jewish Englishman or a Jewish German. I practice the religion of my father, just as my business partners practice the religion of theirs. Yet we are all English – proudly and truly.
Jews do not need a state in which to practice their own religion. The Enlightened world is giving emancipation to all, and freedom to follow their own faith traditions. A Jewish state, rather than protecting Jews from Antisemitism, would serve only to tell the outside world we view ourselves as separate and different as they do. Jews would be better served to instead seek to show non-Jews just how similar we are. In the wisdom of Mendelssohn, we must demonstrate to our fellow countrymen that the only difference between the two of us is the way in which we honor and worship our Sovereign Lord. Once this has been accomplished – as it has for many Jews in England – Antisemitism will cease and Jews will be able to live happily anywhere and with anyone.
A concerned Englishman
The Jewish Chronicle, March 1896
To the Editor:
Following the assertions made in your journal by Dr. Theodore Herzl January last and Mr. Ahad Ha’am last month, I felt I could not keep silent. I, an Englishman, write in opposition to Dr. Herzl’s outrageous political scheme and in defense of Western Jews against Mr. Ha’am’s declaration that we wish to create for ourselves a “Western nation.” I have no need for a Western nation. I am happily living in one as a full citizen. Mr Ha’am, Dr. Herzl does not speak for all of us. He speaks for himself and himself alone.
Dr. Herzl, I wish to believe that you write with the best of intentions. But I must tell you, sir, that you instead threaten to undermine all which we have striven toward and accomplished. We, the so-called “assimilated” (I do not see how this word has come to be negative, or what condescending tone it can possibly be associated with) Jews of England, have proven to our fellow countrymen that Jews are fully capable of everything another Englishman is. We have shown ourselves to be different from other Englishmen only in our religious practices. Your statement of Judaism as a nationality rather than a religion is an affront to our progress on this matter and an insult to our faith itself. Jews no more form a separate nation than Christians. And just as one can be a Christian Englishman or a Christian German, so too can one be a Jewish Englishman or a Jewish German. I practice the religion of my father, just as my business partners practice the religion of theirs. Yet we are all English – proudly and truly.
Jews do not need a state in which to practice their own religion. The Enlightened world is giving emancipation to all, and freedom to follow their own faith traditions. A Jewish state, rather than protecting Jews from Antisemitism, would serve only to tell the outside world we view ourselves as separate and different as they do. Jews would be better served to instead seek to show non-Jews just how similar we are. In the wisdom of Mendelssohn, we must demonstrate to our fellow countrymen that the only difference between the two of us is the way in which we honor and worship our Sovereign Lord. Once this has been accomplished – as it has for many Jews in England – Antisemitism will cease and Jews will be able to live happily anywhere and with anyone.
A concerned Englishman
Ha'am
A critique of Herzl's position, written as Ahad Ha'am in the form of a letter to a Jewish journal.
The Jewish Chronicle, February 1896
To the Editor
I write in response to Dr. Theodore Herzl’s “A Solution of the Jewish Question” that appeared in your journal January last. With all due respect to Dr. Herzl, I cannot claim to agree with his response to the Jewish Question. Herzl could not possibly have properly answered the Jewish Question, if for no other reason than he is incorrect in his belief of what the Question is. The Jewish Question is not one, as my dear Herzl would have it believed, of individual Jews struggling against Antisemitism. The problem is far greater, and thus cannot be resolved, as Herzl would have it be, by those Jews who have been worst treated coming to a would-be Jewish nation. The problem is not of Jews, but of Judaism.
The Jewish Question is not a material one, and thus cannot be solved by a Jewish state. Such a solution may appeal to those Western Jews who wish to create for themselves a Western nation. But Jews once had a state in Zion, and even then did the Romans seek to infiltrate and diffuse their culture. Such would be the case in a Jewish state of today. I fear the “Israel” Dr. Herzl seeks would soon cease to be Jewish, instead resembling any other European nation.
Even if such a state were formed, it will never be that all Jews come to live there. Judaism will always exist in Diaspora; thus, we must find a way to solve the Jewish Question in Diaspora. And, as the problem is a spiritual one regarding the condition of Judaism, the solution must also be spiritual. Thus, I propose using Hibbat Zion, our historic love of Zion, to strengthen the will and resolve of Jews throughout the Earth. Rather than immediately seeking a state, I propose the creation of a Jewish community in Zion. This community will be a beacon, encouraging Jews throughout the Earth to hold fast to Jewish unity and giving spiritual strength to Jews in all material conditions. It is towards this aim that I believe Dr. Herzl’s proposed Society of Jews must work.
Ahad Ha’am
The Jewish Chronicle, February 1896
To the Editor
I write in response to Dr. Theodore Herzl’s “A Solution of the Jewish Question” that appeared in your journal January last. With all due respect to Dr. Herzl, I cannot claim to agree with his response to the Jewish Question. Herzl could not possibly have properly answered the Jewish Question, if for no other reason than he is incorrect in his belief of what the Question is. The Jewish Question is not one, as my dear Herzl would have it believed, of individual Jews struggling against Antisemitism. The problem is far greater, and thus cannot be resolved, as Herzl would have it be, by those Jews who have been worst treated coming to a would-be Jewish nation. The problem is not of Jews, but of Judaism.
The Jewish Question is not a material one, and thus cannot be solved by a Jewish state. Such a solution may appeal to those Western Jews who wish to create for themselves a Western nation. But Jews once had a state in Zion, and even then did the Romans seek to infiltrate and diffuse their culture. Such would be the case in a Jewish state of today. I fear the “Israel” Dr. Herzl seeks would soon cease to be Jewish, instead resembling any other European nation.
Even if such a state were formed, it will never be that all Jews come to live there. Judaism will always exist in Diaspora; thus, we must find a way to solve the Jewish Question in Diaspora. And, as the problem is a spiritual one regarding the condition of Judaism, the solution must also be spiritual. Thus, I propose using Hibbat Zion, our historic love of Zion, to strengthen the will and resolve of Jews throughout the Earth. Rather than immediately seeking a state, I propose the creation of a Jewish community in Zion. This community will be a beacon, encouraging Jews throughout the Earth to hold fast to Jewish unity and giving spiritual strength to Jews in all material conditions. It is towards this aim that I believe Dr. Herzl’s proposed Society of Jews must work.
Ahad Ha’am
Herzl
Written for an assignment for David Mendelsson's class. A summary of his position.
Herzl, known as the founder of political Zionism, saw the creation of a Jewish state as a solution to the problem of Antisemitism in 19th century Europe. Modern Antisemitism, in Herzl’s view, was not merely the “Jew-baiting of the past.” It was the political result of nationalism. Thus emancipation of Jews in certain countries, rather than quieting anti-Jewish sentiment, only increased it. In spite of the fact that individual Jews strove to integrate into other national societies, were fierce patriots, and took on many different occupations, still those individual Jews have faced social discrimination, still they were seen as strangers.
The Jewish Question, in Herzl’s view, was not one of religion or society. It was a national question. The Jews were one people, and seen as a nation by their associates. For Herzl, the solution to the problem of Antisemitism was simple – a Jewish state. If Europeans, through Antisemitism, insisted that the Jews were One People, then one people they should be. The Jewish nation needed to gain sovereignty.
In a Jewish state, Jews could finally escape Antisemitism. To do this, Herzl sought an area of land large enough for a nation. Argentina seemed a likely possibility; Palestine was preferred because it would heighten the desire of other Jews to join the scheme. On whichever piece of land, Herzl called for an ingathering of Jews, to be supported by the Jewish clergy (though Herzl himself was a secular man). The poorest Jews and those that had been most affected by Antisemitism would, naturally, come first. To manage the details of this project, Herzl called for the creation of “the Society of Jews.” In a nod to the history of the Jewish people as a nation, Herzl speaks against again wandering “primitively” out of Egypt. The Society of Jews would be scientific and political in their actions and plans. With this Society, and the motivation of the many Jews who faced Antisemitism in their current situations, would come the creation of a Jewish state. An ingathering of Jews, One People, in truth and autonomy.
Herzl, known as the founder of political Zionism, saw the creation of a Jewish state as a solution to the problem of Antisemitism in 19th century Europe. Modern Antisemitism, in Herzl’s view, was not merely the “Jew-baiting of the past.” It was the political result of nationalism. Thus emancipation of Jews in certain countries, rather than quieting anti-Jewish sentiment, only increased it. In spite of the fact that individual Jews strove to integrate into other national societies, were fierce patriots, and took on many different occupations, still those individual Jews have faced social discrimination, still they were seen as strangers.
The Jewish Question, in Herzl’s view, was not one of religion or society. It was a national question. The Jews were one people, and seen as a nation by their associates. For Herzl, the solution to the problem of Antisemitism was simple – a Jewish state. If Europeans, through Antisemitism, insisted that the Jews were One People, then one people they should be. The Jewish nation needed to gain sovereignty.
In a Jewish state, Jews could finally escape Antisemitism. To do this, Herzl sought an area of land large enough for a nation. Argentina seemed a likely possibility; Palestine was preferred because it would heighten the desire of other Jews to join the scheme. On whichever piece of land, Herzl called for an ingathering of Jews, to be supported by the Jewish clergy (though Herzl himself was a secular man). The poorest Jews and those that had been most affected by Antisemitism would, naturally, come first. To manage the details of this project, Herzl called for the creation of “the Society of Jews.” In a nod to the history of the Jewish people as a nation, Herzl speaks against again wandering “primitively” out of Egypt. The Society of Jews would be scientific and political in their actions and plans. With this Society, and the motivation of the many Jews who faced Antisemitism in their current situations, would come the creation of a Jewish state. An ingathering of Jews, One People, in truth and autonomy.
Shabbat Dinner
Friday Ashley and I made the most amazing dinner and invited a bunch of the boys over.
The menu:
Bruschetta 1: Crusted baguette, topped with fresh goat cheese spread and sauteed red and yellow peppers.
Bruschetta 2: Tomatoes, garlic, fresh oregano, sweet basil, feta goat cheese, olive oil, balsamic vinegar. Topped on lightly fried baguette.
Cinnamon rice: Jasmine rice boiled in fresh sticks of cinnamon spice.
Potatoes: Seasoned with Zatar spice (purchased in the outdoor market of Jerusalem) and cooked in oil.
Let me tell you, it was good. Like, massively. Uncle Mark, I appear to have picked up on some of your glorious skill.
The menu:
Bruschetta 1: Crusted baguette, topped with fresh goat cheese spread and sauteed red and yellow peppers.
Bruschetta 2: Tomatoes, garlic, fresh oregano, sweet basil, feta goat cheese, olive oil, balsamic vinegar. Topped on lightly fried baguette.
Cinnamon rice: Jasmine rice boiled in fresh sticks of cinnamon spice.
Potatoes: Seasoned with Zatar spice (purchased in the outdoor market of Jerusalem) and cooked in oil.
Let me tell you, it was good. Like, massively. Uncle Mark, I appear to have picked up on some of your glorious skill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)